Harlequin

I simply filed the pony casting down where it sits over the mounting post to give it bit more play. That means I can use the original capture screw, tightened up and no need for a washer. I fitted a spring and the loco now traverses the problem joint OK but the spring is too strong and lifts the front drivers very slightly. I need to done some fine tuning.

Two thoughts: 1. You need a 28xx. (Everyone needs a 28xx!) 2. How about some foreign vans in your freight train?

I got my replacement 6110 yesterday after the first arrived badly twisted (see above). Pickup wipers are all well adjusted, making contact with the drivers in all positions. Slidebars are drooping. Back-to-backs seem to be fine but the pony wheels are possibly a bit wide. The front pony jumps off the track at one particular place every time. It's a joint between boards just after a curve and while the alignment of the rails is not perfect no other loco I've ever run over it has derailed at that place so this does seem to be a peculiarity of this loco. I think a light spring between pony and chassis might help. I'm convinced that the firebox top should be a much flatter curve.

Superb work, Ian. You must be really excited at the prospect of laying track on the top level!

Brainwave! A folded figure of eight arrangement would give you increased running length, the ability to have a scenic run in front of (or behind) the fiddle yard and would allow the main circuits to pass through the fiddle yard without those 'orrible junctions.

If you use alignment dowels ("Pattern maker's dowels") that are properly fixed to the boards it should all come apart and go together with repeatable alignment. And they would help to pull some minor warping straight, actually. Once you have that set up then lay the tracks while it's all fitted together and the alignment of the tracks should automatically follow, even if they cross the joints at an angle. I'm sure this is all old hat.

Don't stop now!

You can still do that with the conventional template, of course. Just insert a scenic break of the size, form and position you want - you're not forced into a particular size, form or position by a complex track plan.

You know, it strikes me that all of these ideas are fighting each other and potentially compromising the end result! If you had access to your fiddle yard you wouldn't need your scenic fiddle cassette. And there would be no problem with trains appearing on stage before you're ready. And there wouldn't be any difficulties seeing what you're doing over a wall. (If you can see over the wall, then is it really doing anything useful?) If the main lines ran through the FY you wouldn't need the tricky junctions. Then there would be much less need for hidden running. Wouldn't it be simpler, and better all round, to just do the conventional thing and have a double track loop that is 3/4 scenic and 1/4 FY loops that are open to the operating well? (The only thing you need to hide then is the branch line exit.) That would use the valuable space more efficiently. You might think of that solution as boring and commonplace but I would say it's elegant and classical. Then the focus would be more on the model itself.

The gradient is probably too steep, around 1 in 20 at best, because the station throat pointwork all needs to be level. And that's assuming only 75mm between railtops which would make supporting the top level a challenge.

I think the goods yard could be tweaked to make the sidings longer and the splays more deliberate. I suggest running the headshunt parallel to the main lines right up to the bridge/tunnel to make things look more "linear" ("organised"?). The goods shed needs some road beyond it so that you don't have to shunt the whole siding when you've emptied a van - just push it through. You don't want to see the junctions with the fiddle yard but they take up a lot of length which increases the amount of hidden running. It's a conundrum. Is there any value in having the FY loops at the bottom with just the plain track in front? That would make the baseboards more symmetrical, at least... I love the visual trick in the bottom right corner!

Hi Keith, Two corrections: Loop exit, Top Station = curved left Goods yard entry, Lower Station = curved right I can send you a PDF if that would be useful. I'm planning on tidying up the drawing and posting it in my trackplans Album with a link back to this thread. Hope that's OK. Whatever you do, I'm sure it's going to be fun. Enjoy!

Good point. It might balance the features of the two stations better as well. Probably simplest to just swap the loading dock and the shed - but then would the layout feel the same? It's quite nice to have one busy little place and the other a bit quieter and simpler. I don't know. You can certainly imagine some plausible back-story to explain why the shed is where it is. All sorts of odd things happened in the real world!

Yes, long trains might have to stand foul of the inner sidings points in a non-prototypical way but I don't think it's possible to squeeze much more loop length out of the space available. I think this is just about as good as it's going to ever be and hopefully the compromise is acceptable to fit it into 4 by 8.

I did but I haven't got any to hand. A piano hinge might be a backup solution if these don't work out!

Here's the basic plan of my idea: Very similar to your plan but: Two passing loops, both just about long enough for 40in trains to pass and to stand with all carriages alongside the platforms (but not at the same time). It is very tight, though! I've used R2 curves for roughly 60 degrees in the upper left and lower right boards. R3 and above everywhere else. Breaks one of the Givens. This is to help pull track in from the edges and give a bit more length to the passing loops. The R2 sections will be disguised by scenic elements. There are more tracks crossing baseboards joints. Breaks one of the Druthers. This is done to give trailing connections to the loops and longer sidings. There are two small radius turnouts and a slip but the turning routes through them are not in the running lines. 6 curved, 3 mediums. I have imagined that the lower station has a more conventional combination of passing loop, passenger platforms and goods yard. Not any carriage sidings. Carriage/Exchange sidings are at the upper station which is imagined to be near the junction with the main line. No goods yard as such but there is the local loading dock. The upper passing loop can be passenger both ways or, by removing one of the platforms, just a goods passing loop. Central scenic divider is just a spine of hills with trees. Here's how it could look scenically: Don't take any of this too literally - it's just to get the main ideas across. The top left R2 curve is in a cutting with trees around it. The bottom right R2 curve is partly in a tunnel and partly obscured by buildings. The shed area would have water, coal and ash facilities but I haven't placed them yet. Signal boxes near the major pointwork, station staff operate the crossings at the other ends of the stations. The majority of the hill and tree planting is on the upper boards. Note two station buildings! Min platform width the regulation 24mm (plus 2mm for fencing), except the inner platform of upper station, where I had to get special permission from the BoT to go thinner near the turnout for the exchange sidings...

I found a couple of hours this weekend to add some hardware. I tried very hard to get the hinge barrels in line with each other: It didn't really work because one hinge is definitely at and angle but the two boxes do still fold successfully and meet neatly when one is on top of the other. I also fixed two latches to hold the boxes tightly together in unfolded, operating mode. I'll add some more to hold the boxes together in transport mode when I get them.

A diagonal lattice is more difficult to make but resists twisting as well as bracing the deck. It's probably simplest to do it square for ease of construction and then see if you need to add extra diagonals to resist twisting. My "Vanilla Minories" build topic might be of interest. Because the boards are only 305mm wide I just added just three diagonal braces under each 9mm ply deck, adjusting the angles to avoid point motors. (No need for a lattice.) I'm not sure that's always the case. I've just measured some sheets of 12mm birch ply and they are on average just over 12mm thick. I think there are other reasons why manufacturers make the thicknesses they do. The message is really to measure the actual material rather than believing what the manufacturer or supplier tell you!

Very sad. I'm sure a good model shop in a good location could still make a go of it in Exeter.

To support the deck well enough to make a flat surface without dips and bumps, I reckon about 250-300mm c/c for 9mm hardwood ply (Builder's merchants ply). For 9mm Birch ply 300-400mm c/c should be OK. For 6mm hardwood ply, I would guess that 200-250mm c/c would be about right but I don't have direct experience of that yet. As Nearholmer says, cross-bracing is important to prevent twisting.

I built 3 identical boards and a bridge section for a test oval using 9mm ply. All the joints in Board 1 were glued and pinned or screwed. The pins often missed and split the ply on the other side. I gradually used less and less pinning because I realised that it was taking time, doing more damage than good, making the structure look worse and because I realised I could trust the glue. The last part I made, the bridge section, used no pins or screws at all and it's been absolutely fine. (To use glue alone your edges need to be straight and square, and just before gluing you should make sure the surfaces are clean by sanding them a bit and removing the dust. Then you needs lots of weights and or cramps to hold the parts together while the glue sets.)

Hi Bryant, Whether the fiddle yard is a real fiddle yard, where you manually adjust trains, or just a set of storage loops, you may need to get hands-on to a greater or lesser degree. (Track cleaning, derailments, point failures, moving brake vans from one end to the other, etc, etc...) Are you comfortable you can do that in the current design? Particularly with the scenic area and false backscene in front? Re. the scissors crossings: Would a simple pair of crossovers (one facing, one trailing) be simpler if you've got the length? They can be built into the end curves and possibly the feeds to the storage loop point ladders to remove some of the "snaking" through reverse curves.

As far as stiffness is concerned 6mm is fine - you just need to brace it more frequently than 9mm. But remember that the lesser thickness will mean that fixings such as pins, nails and screws, will have less material to bite on. If you glue things in place or can add extra material where you need it for fixing, then thickness is not an issue.

Hi Keith, I'd like to give you an alternative take on the same basic plan. Some or all of it may be useful to you or other readers. (It does bend one of your Givens very slightly and gives one of your Druthers a really hard time...) Is it OK to post it here? P.S. Streamline curved turnouts diverge exactly the same as most other Streamline turnouts so they won't be affecting the length of your top passing loop differently than any other turnout. But there are ways to work with/around it.