Harlequin

Lovely video! (I thought we were going to watch the train lumber past without missing a beat and then see the same loco at the back...! ) Is the rear loco coupled up or just buffered?

Yes, absolutely. There are pros and cons to all the different possibilities. At the moment that line on the plan is just some abstract division between scenic and non-scenic whose form is uncommitted - although I must admit I imagined a tunnel portal near O7 to combine the tunnel requirement with the FY.

Yes, it's a bit tricky. A manhole or armhole would be a good idea for emergencies or it might be just reachable over the backscene? (Maybe with a special cranked reaching tool... ) Or maybe the backscene is removable at that end? Here's a first stab at how 6 roads of storage might look: The roads are a bit long so either you'd have to stack trains or provide some internal crossovers to make full use of them. Trailing crossovers at the ends (one on the lifting section). Minimum radius 610mm. To run round on the inner loops you'd need to be able to reliably uncouple remotely. Needs some more thought. What do you think, Pete? Is it worth going further with this whole idea?

Pete, Here's a rough outline plan that keeps things reasonably simple and ticks a lot of boxes, I think: No gradients Scenic running all round (nearly) Main line runs through fiddle/storage yard so there is no extra pointwork on scene to explain away Storage yard behind false backscene but partly accessible from outside the layout North side: town, East: country, South: village, fishing port or whatever you like The branch line junction provides a lot of operational interest Shed is justified by branch line junction. The baseboards are now corrected as per your dimensions.

Hi Gordon, I'd be very interested to see your schematic, if that's possible?

I have a feeling Ron's "cobbled together" might have been aimed at me! For the record, I'm coming at the problem from the angle of steam-era Signal Box Diagrams which used a similar technique of backing board, punched paper and glass front. So my suggestion is possibly more suited to that kind of period diagram and particularly if it's a display panel, not a switch panel. In that context, if the paper yellows with age and some modifications have to be made by pasting on small slips so much the better, in my book!

Using everyday materials and printing technology should be a lot easier and cheaper than reverse printing on acrylic and trying to drill it accurately! I don't think differing expansion rates would really be a problem and you could partly allow for it, and give yourself some leeway, by punching slightly oversize holes in the fair copy of the diagram. A couple of further thoughts: The fair copy could be sprayed with varnish to stiffen it up before punching. Might help with more accurate registration and cleaner holes. The sacrificial copy could be printed in reverse (but with lettering the right way around - reasonably easy to do in a drawing program) and permanently stuck to the back of the backing board. This would help when wiring up.

This is a very interesting problem (to me, anyway). If you have the graphics for the panel in your computer with the hole positions clearly marked, you could print two copies (or get two copies printed in large format in a print shop). Printers are very accurate these days, and the two copies should align accurately if you make sure you control any scaling that the software might do. One copy would be sacrificial. You would tack it to the backing and drill through, not worrying about damage, marking or scarf. Then remove it and clean up the board. The other copy would be the fair copy and you would use a hammer punch to make the holes cleanly, on a suitable surface away from the backing board. Then place the fair copy over the backing board, the holes should align (we hope), and tack it lightly in place because you might want to change it later. Then fit the front "glass" on and Bob's your uncle Robert.

I think that CJF is using “artistic license” to create something that looks authentic to most observers and, of course, he has to make compromises to compress track plans into the space available and to use the RTL parts available. Remember that the OO RTL trackwork Is itself a compromise because of the radii, gauge, flangeways, etc. CJF may be using double slips in running lines to compress what In the real world would be two separate crossings, into one. Whether you feel you can accept that compromise is down to the level of fidelity to the prototype you are aiming to achieve. Trailing slips in running lines are fine. Obviously, facing points leading to loops are unavoidable. In the real world they would be protected by extra infrastructure and probably speed restrictions, which are again a matter of fidelity for the individual modeller. Trap points are often omitted from model railway plans for compression and because most people wouldn’t use them in the prototypical way. (More fidelity.) Having said all that I can see what Mike is getting at with Tresco. It looks like CJF has added point work to allow for movements in the model that probably wouldn’t ever have happened in the real world and it’s not clear to me why you’d want to do them in the model. Removing some of it might help with some of your length problems. You might like to have a look at Plymouth (North Road) pre-rationalisation, which also has a centre road between the main platforms forming a very long trailing crossover.

I forgot to say: Larch has to be fixed while it's still green because it's prone to splitting if you nail it after it has seasoned a bit. Also: If you are going to use timber that will remain untreated, use stainless steel nails because they don't rust and so don't leave ugly marks down the walls. Also: Paslode nailguns are amazingly useful and satisfying bits of kit to play with use responsibly!

The cladding on my shed (and my house) was UK-grown larch, the idea being that larch doesn't need to be treated or painted - you just let it weather down naturally. And UK-grown to stay away from the Russians and their questionable environmental record. You didn't say, Ian, but hopefully you're planning to have battens to hold the cladding boards off the Tyvek and allow some airflow behind? That helps the whole structure to stay dry. (You then need insect mesh top and bottom to prevent animals setting up home in the gap.)

I've been cogitating a high-level terminus on the South side with lines grading down to a double junction on the North side somewhere and double-track roundy on the main level. So the terminus covers the main level roundy lines roughly where the tunnels are on the current plan. Storage loops would be underneath/behind the terminus partially accessible from the space outside the layout. Another station in the double-track roundy on the North side, inside the gradient up to the terminus. And maybe, maybe, a reversing loop crossing the operating well on a temporarily installed bridge board. (Can you tell I've been looking at one of CJF's books of track plans?) I haven't had time to draw anything yet, I'm afraid. Too much? (The problem with covering the storage loops on the North side is difficulty of access when things go wrong.)

I think you're making a little joke but it would be a waste to leave it on the shelf. It would look even more pretty on the track hauling a B-set! The tool you need for the coupling rod screw is a "2.5mm nut spinner". Google brings up several choices. And there are various simple ways to give the front pony more vertical travel described above. My method: file down the collar of the pony casting where it sits over the pivot.

No, but it seems to be very common from the photos of the models and from testing my version of the model with a straight edge. To be fair you don't notice it most of the time but just knowing that it's there is slightly annoying. I hope the Dapol team are keeping track of all this...

His main point is that when put under load it stalls instead of losing traction and spinning it's wheels. He infers from this that it has very little "torque". Obviously, Sam's test is just one loco in very particular conditions. We need to do the same test on different locos in different conditions to assess if it's a general problem. If my loco wasn't in bits to have sound fitted I would go and try that now (er, but it did wheelspin in my quick haulage test a few days ago).

I suggest that the hidden or semi-hidden storage loops should be in the A7-H9 area because that's the only place where you can reach them from the outside.

Blank canvas:

Hi Nick, Be p*ssed at the burst water pipe but don't let that emotion transfer to the poor innocent layout. If it was going to be good before it can still be good again, probably better, and anyway don't you need it to complete your journey along the Launceston branch? Remember the King of Swamp Castle: "Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up!"

Hi Pete, If you had one station in the form that Chris is suggesting and the other as a pair of platforms either side of the double-track with a footbridge, that would add some variety. I have the feeling that your design is being held hostage by that turntable! Could it be moved? The storage roads are nearly 10 feet long. Do they need to be that long? (Stacking up two or more trains in the same loop can be a pain in the neck if you want to get one at the back out...) What train lengths are you imagining running? How would you feel about multiple levels? E.g. Building on top of your existing boards and having some track rising up to that level? (If it could be done.) How would you feel about building more baseboards across the existing operating well? Either as a permanent fixture that you have to duck under or as a temporary bridge that you just set up when you need to use it? (I'm thinking about reversing loops...!) Can I ask another "vision" question? Have you thought about the type of operations you want to do? Would you be happy to watch trains circulate while you amuse yourself shunting wagons or moving locos in the shed? Or would you like to operate to a sequence or timetable of pre-planned movements?

As I said, it wasn't a scientific test, just to put some quick test results on record and back up what Neal said. Only tested on the level. 12 very similar coaches - all Hornby 57ft or 60ft stock with metal wheels and poinpoint axles in plastic bogies. (See the video for 10 of the 12.)

How graphite actually works - From another thread:

That's a definite improvement, Pete! If the pink and green lines were closer together all round with platforms outside them rather than between them it would be much more realistic. (Note: Double track through-lines with platforms either side is Extremely Common, Single track through-lines with platforms either side, Uncommon.) But there are still a few problems and I think you're failing to see past some very old, very fixed ideas. Hopefully, we can throw some challenging new ideas your way to help you get to a better solution. @Chimer @Zomboid @Flying Pig BTW: Using a computer program does not inherently make rigid and boring designs... (And it's the best way to exchange ideas on RMWeb!)

Hi Pete, I think you're floundering, not quite knowing what to do for the best or how to do it! Is that fair? In think that maybe you haven't got a really clear vision for the layout and we might be able to help you better if you, and we, knew what the vision was. So: What are the things you really must have in the layout? What things would you like to have if at all possible? Do you really want two stations? Would one be enough or would you have more than two if you could? Do you need a fiddle yard or a storage yard? I.e. If the layout was all scenic and there were enough places to park all the trains you want to run would that be good enough? Is it a "must have" that three trains can be set running and left to themselves? Would 2 running and one being actively driven cut the mustard? Do you have any real stations or real places in mind whose spirit you'd like to capture? What about the landscape? Do you imagine rural, urban or a bit of both? What level of realism are you aiming for on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is Thomas the Tank Engine and 10 is finescale, ultra-detailed (e.g. Pendon).

If that message was an email, don't reply and don't click on anything inside it! There are some known scammers buzzing around MS Teams trying out all kinds of "social engineering" tricks to extract your personal info.