Harlequin

I think it would be good to add some more operating potential to the layout and so bringing those sidings to life might be a very good idea. Since they do actually exist in reality it's only a small fiction to make them actively used rather than weed-covered and rusty. Who knows, maybe Network Rail will follow your lead! A few other things: If it's accepted that the West FY crossover can appear on scene then how about moving it up into the position that the crossover would have been in the original junction? That would make some operations a bit easier, a bit closer to (alternate, less rationalised) reality and allows the exit to the FY to be simpler - plain track running under the double road bridge more like Castle Cary. You would have to use curved turnouts to move the crossover up. The FY East crossover could be in the curve and that would help to move it off-scene and avoid a reverse curve at the same time. (Same for the West FY crossover, in fact, if you wanted.) How about also moving the old goods yard siding up so that it's fully on scene and so that the spur backs onto the Up platform? That would also need curved turnouts, probably. At the moment the old goods track is half on scene, half off, and crammed against the edge of the room. Moving it up would help to release it from the backscene, make better use of the NW corner and make it more like reality. The branch crossover could start in the NE corner curve (again using a curved turnout) if you wanted to squeeze a bit more platform length or shift the platforms a bit more clockwise. (Only one curved turnout because the inner radius is too small for the through-route at that point.) The bridge on the East is very close to the backscene. That's fine if you can make it look OK (see Little Muddle!) but it might be worth trying to get a bit more gap somehow.

HI Rich, Might be better asking this in "Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure"

Onshape never worked for me. Sketchup is also online now, of course. Still a beautiful bit of software, IMHO.

I don't know the capabilities of RailModeller Pro, either! If it can load an image as a background and set it's size accurately you might be able to lay parts on top and get a reasonable match. But note that this plan has been divided in two by the book spine and so the two halves would have to be carefully aligned. Probably better to use RMPro to create a new design from scratch, of the size of the space you actually have available (!), and then copy this plan into it bit by bit. This is "Sanditon" from the PSL Book of Model Railway Track Plans, published 1988, when we should be able to assume CJF was using Streamline or Settrack geometry for his OO designs. (He talks about using special 12° and 22.5° set squares in the final chapter which would support that.) Min radius 600mm and grid spacing 300mm. There are 3 levels of track crossing each other on the left hand side and even the turntable has two separate levels of track running beneath it! I think the steepest gradient would be about 1 in 35 and that should be just about fine for his stated train length of 4 coaches. So it all hangs together as a do-able plan today, I think.

This is not a scientific test just another piece of info to add to the mix. A random(ish) selection of 10 coaches. Outside curve is 26inch radius and is a bit lumpy in places. No wheelslip that I could see. Edit: She can just haul 12 but there is definite wheelslip and she slows down when there are coaches fully around the curve and in the parallel straights on either side.

Thanks Nigel, I'm a Windows man but I can fiddle around with the files if I have to. It doesn't sound like a fun occupation for a Sunday afternoon, though! Maybe Andrew will see this thread and suggest something before I work up the energy to start hacking.

The connection looks correct. (“Pi-SPROG one programmer“ SPROG DCC, ttyS0, Connection prefix S) The defaults for “Pi-SPROG one programmer” are, Throttles, Power control and Service programmer. If I use the power control I can drive a loco so the hardware connection seems to be working. Another possible clue: There’s a very long delay between clicking the Program button in the Roster window and the Program window opening.

Hi all, I have DecoderPro 4.18 running on a PI-SPROG and I have been trying to sync up the chuffs on an ESU Loksound 5. That is proving to be very difficult but it's incidental to the problem I'm asking about here: The Program window, which I opened and used many times during this process, has now lost all of the Read and Write buttons from all of the tabs/pages. So I can't use DecoderPro at all at the moment! I have rebooted the system and opened Program windows for other decoders but the Read/Write buttons are still not visible. While I was working on the ESU chuff syncing I had moved and resized the Program window a few times and my hunch is that the resizing has got something confused and moved the buttons where I can't see them. Any ideas how I can get them back? Thanks,

Regarding levels: Gradients in the track are notoriously difficult to handle in small layouts. In this case your trains might be small enough and the locos might have enough traction that gradients wouldn't necessarily trouble them but even so, it might be a good idea to avoid them for simplicity and reliability. If the track was all level, @ datum, you can still achieve something like your guidelines by varying the landforms around the track instead: 1/3rd below datum, 1/3rd above datum, 1/3rd closing over the track. That would still look great, IMHO. Just a thought: Do you have room to make the baseboards ("benchwork") a 72inch diameter circle? The kidney-shaped main circuit would then very naturally duck in and out of the scene.

Oh, I see... Can you try OBJ, please? (SVG is a 2D vector format.)

I think the van body is best printed upright so that the layer artefacts on the surface are parallel with the planking and so look more natural. My warped print was done at and angle and maybe I should have added some internal supports. The walls are strong enough on their own. Internal bracing would help with angled prints but I'm going back to upright for the next attempt. On the other hand, the empty shell allows the Oxford interior to be dropped in. I'd love to have an update if you've got one. Could I have the original CAD file??? If I could load it into Sketchup (hopefully) I could tweak things like the diameters of the screw fixing bosses and maybe remove some of the floor to try to get the fit onto the chassis easier. (Removed floor - another reason to be able put the Oxford interior back in.) I promise I won't use the CAD file for anything without your permission. Edit: And I'll send back any changes I make.

It looks beautiful! I got a couple of old Wrenn Loriots from eBay with the idea of tweaking them up but they have remained at the back of the cupboard so far...

I wish I had the time and the mojo to get a print that works! I've done two of the AA6 body so far. The first was great in terms of detail but my printer wasn't calibrated right and it was too big. (Sorry, not a very good photo.) The second print was the right size (I think) but all warped because I tried to reduce the number of supports. I'll try again this weekend, since the weather's decided to put summer on hold... Jamie is spot on about getting a Photon for yourself - they are affordable and you'd be able to do great things with it, Chris. Dealing with the resin and cleaning up isn't too messy if you're organised and it's pretty easy to get to grips with the software. Top tips: Put the printer somewhere dark while it's printing to keep the prints really sharp and don't own a cat. As soon as a print is out of the machine every stray cat hair around heads towards it like a heat-seeking missile and sticks itself on!

The sorting sidings are great, although it might be better if they had a more direct relationship with the branch line. I accept that multiple "industries" may be prototypically justifiable (based on your say-so alone, MIke!) but in terms of the visual composition of a model I feel that 3 sets of private sidings may be going too far. Especially when one industry would partially obscure the sorting sidings and the work being carried out in them. I feel that one to two is about the right balance in the space available but that's just my suggestion. simmo009 might be able to make three work perfectly well for him.

Yes, well, it does look very deliberate that the GWR livery will be combined with a BR number plate... I'm sure it's all part of a cunning plan.

Hi Newbie , There's a section of the forum for track planning questions here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/66-layout-track-design/ You might like to post there to get the attention of the people interested in layout design. (Or ask a moderator to move this one.) Here are a few things: It looks like you might have used R1 curves in the inner circuit. Is that right? If so, be aware that most ready-to-run locos and rolling stock require at least R2 radius. (Some of the small 0-4-0s might be happy on R1 and 4-wheel wagons can work.) What do you intend to run? The two circuits look a little odd in the way they change spacing - as if they can't decide whether to be double track or separate lines that just happen to be close together. But maybe you've got scenic plans that would make sense of that? The journey from the inner circuit to the fiddle yard (and back) seems a bit awkward. Welcome to RMWeb!

Don't panic (yet). This is just the same old pre-publicity photo being wheeled out again. As was discussed earlier in this thread they made up versions of the models from a box full of parts for exhibition and early photography. They wouldn't be so silly as to use that smokebox door on the production models. Fingers crossed.

Two industries seems like going a bit too far. I would get rid of Ind 1. That would allow the shunting yard scene to be more visible and to spread out a bit if needed. Ind 2 is in a good position to use space that would otherwise be unoccupied and it could help block the view of the FY entrance. The Branch bay and branch storage looks a bit cramped. You could have the bay without the actual branch, imagining that the branch junction is further up the main line somewhere. Or send the branch line across the lifting section and devote a corner of the FY to branch storage. Edit: Just spotted "Ind 3", which again I think is over-egging the pudding. My suggestion would be make it part of the shunting yard but maybe give it some special purpose within that yard. Maybe a "cripple siding" or wagon repair shed???

Pre-1900 Hawkhurst is very similar to Caterham of the same period but with some differences that might be useful. Remember that, along with all your analysis, your heart has to be in it. No point arriving at an entirely logical design if the era, the stock or the setting don't grab you!

The kidney shaped baseboard is nice and the kidney shaped circuit of track is nice but I don’t think they work together very well because the track follows the edge without any variation and the circuit can never truly be in the scene.

Hi Neal, Your chuffs are still not right, I'm afraid. There should be four per revolution of the motion. You have it set at 2 per rev, I think. You can hear that every fourth chuff is accented. That accented chuff should occur when the motion reaches the same position every time. The sound sequence she went through on the rolling road was weird. I guess a full sequence of all the samples is built into the chip for testing and maybe that got triggered by accident. I've synced a few Zimo decoders without too much trouble but I'm now trying to sync up an ESU Loksound 5 in a Hornby King and that is being a real pain in the neck! Abject failure so far. I don't think I get on with ESU decoders...

I take your point - there are different ways to model prototypical operations. But to answer that specific question: Yes, it is clearly more prototypical to have one model representing one real world train (and for that model to reverse to represent the reversed real world train) than to represent one train with two models. We're dancing on pinheads, now, though!

Yes, fair point. I was assuming that the OP would want to operate in a more prototypical manner with trains running Down and then Up later (or vice versa) but it doesn't have to be that way. Great if there's room but slips really help with compressing a plan into a space.

Have you got enough capacity to perform lots of simultaneous (theoretically) operations? Maybe it's just too much for one person to control??? Have you thought about a fictionalised version of Caterham that brings together all the elements you want from the different eras under a convincing back-story? For instance, simplifying the fictional ownership so that stock is more straightforward to obtain/create. And/or maybe revising the track plan without doing away with the original station building? That would also allow you to adjust the composition of the scenery.

As David says, you need crossovers outside the loops to be able to reverse trains and run them on the correct tracks. Ideally you need two crossovers, or a scissors crossover, at both ends but that eats up space and it is possible to work with just one crossover if you’re organised. If the storage loops are much longer than your trains (as they seem to be) then it’s difficult to use them efficiently and they are to some degree wasting valuable space. Shortening them would help to insert the crossovers mentioned above. Some of the curves in the hidden storage look a bit sharp. If you’ve got the room then larger radii help with smoother running and closer coupled vehicles. The station seems to be awkwardly curved. Gently curved platforms are great but tighter curves require a larger gap between track and platform, which looks less realistic. I notice that Castle Cary has a very long lead into the branch line, starting far outside the station. That might be interesting to model. It looks like it was part of a set of loops to manage traffic at the junction, which would also be interesting if you could stretch reality and imagine that the station hadn’t been so ruthlessly rationalised. Please don’t be put off by these comments. You’ve made some good decisions and I think you’re heading in a good direction!