Harlequin

12 minutes ago, checkrail said:

Very nice pic. Yep, a lovely model. Hornby get a lot of knocking but a lot of their 21st century output has been superb. 

 

(Was just about to put some Siphon F pics on my thread but can't get them to upload. End of year gremlins!)

That was the problem with Hornby, though: They could make high quality GWR/WR models when they wanted to but it didn't happen often enough. The good stuff was subsumed by trainsets, gimmicks, lazy reworking of old models and an obsession with the LNER!

I used the past tense because I hope that's going to change now!

I must admit I am starting to have doubts about YouChoos. Some of their sounds are not as good as I'd hope and the projects could be cleverer.

For example, the Manor project has a very wheezy chuff sound that really doesn't live up to the prototype's reputation for having a good bark and being the loudest steam engine in Britain. The braking sound is really loud and sharp, more like an emergency stop, and we really ought to get the firebox doors opening (the light turning on) before shovelling starts and closing some time afterwards, like other projects do. (Setting aside that sometimes the doors should open and close for each shovelful in some cases.)

I'm starting to look further afield but the other suppliers often aren't up to scratch either. 😞

17 hours ago, Izzy said:

[snip]

You are in [snip] the no-man’s land between standard N and 2FS. Until recent times there wasn’t British Finescale, but this in itself only really deals with looks rather than track or wheel standards. 

[snip]

Sounds like there might be a market opportunity here that Wayne @ BritishFinescale might be able to fill and profit from.

He has done turnouts in the "OO-SF" (16.2mm) gauge in 4mm scale which has a similar purpose.

Hi Cliff,

The curved turnout should help a little bit - and it might be worth using it to squeeze every last inch of platform length you can.

Here are three turnouts coming off an R3 curve to create a platform loop:

The two brown ones are Peco Streamline Medium radius (best to avoid using Setrack in your main running lines if you can).

You can see that the naive solution (left) will give you the shortest platform length. It also looks wrong and introduces a wiggle (called a "reverse curve") that might cause derailments.

By changing the right hand turnout for a left hander (middle) you can see you'll get more platform length and both routes through the turnout are smoother.

Going one step further and using a Streamline curved left hand turnout (right, green) gains a little bit more platform length.

Remember that you can cut track in the real world to make it do what you want.

2 hours ago, John Besley said:

 

I am about to embark on DCC and sound fitting to all my locos, currently gathering the equipment - how is the decoder fitted inside the tender body?

Neal's post shows the decoder inside the tender body. Do you mean how is it fixed there? In Neal's case, I'm not sure. Black tack?

I do something similar. I think it's important to make sure the diaphragm is free to move and to give the sound a clear path out to avoid the bumble-bee-in-a-matchbox sound. I always remove the coal load, cut away the top of the tender and fit a coal-load speaker grille. That has the added advantage that there's more room for the speaker and the bigger the speaker the better (on the whole).

Always go for a decoder with 16-bit sound samples if you can - they are audibly better than 8-bit.

Here's one of mine:

Tintern is described in Volume 4 of "An Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stations". Trackplan, signalling plan, 4 photos and separate plan of the line crossing the bridge, through the tunnel and the old wireworks private siding.

It's a lovely little station plan, with the island platform and the very quirky goods yard.

From the map @Fair Oak Junction posted, the distance between the two home signalposts works out as ~1035 feet. That's 4.14m in 4mm scale but some compression is almost always needed. How much space have you got?

It would be great if you could include the bridge over the river but maybe that's getting a bit ambitious.

I'm looking forward to seeing the plans.

1 hour ago, Neal Ball said:

 

I should have added.... we are not talking about the 1980's version "Albert Hall" or "Kneller Hall".

 

However, if you fancy one..... it's at a price, but seems to be the only one at the moment: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/375148155941?hash=item5758929425:g:oh8AAOSwhRlld2r-&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4PpnDVL4XR0UQbqTu5JIZKkUynaDDOgySAhPy1zvEWXqX9s9GhtRTtToyTl0pboAwjpGvoRHKaobFDgLTtw2kAihqxhzZSRHVGV1ddcx7I8i3TqI7OC374dc49shYEiPFh8rUmAxESE68uD3ZK7sBvCBIamROACQ1siqkPoa%2F97jjilv9%2BRMvg2Vp5R67kBmKq0DPAsMb4XKQyuEikaM4FPqMWe47Kyqv%2FIAH1mB4nfv43w2zz%2F5lZL3D5yMxQZjt5tBWBH571MW59rKG0mT5rND1p12CJwh%2B%2F5VR7wdRWYV|tkp%3ABk9SR-iRjJmXYw

 

Doesn't say if he will take an offer - bidding goes through to Wednesday 😠

Did Hornby make a full fat Hall, Neal?

Edit: I think Colin is saying there was a good Hornby Hall 6-7 years ago but was that a full detail version? Colin?

Or is Bachmann the only option if we want a reasonably modern detailed version?

Further Edit: I found this about the problems with the Bachmann Halls: 

A little further down the thread it seems that Hattons didn't respond to the recall and continued to sell the problem versions that they had in stock...

Sorry, I can't help with the perspective correction in Designer because it's a bought-in module. It was supplied through Magix but we have now split away from them, thank goodness!

27 minutes ago, Graham T said:

At risk of opening an enormous can of worms, what’s the best RTR Hall on the market?

 

Some Bachmann Halls had some sort of error at the front end that Bachmann fixed. Not sure what it was. Bachmann also make a “Modified Hall” from the Hawksworth era so be careful when buying.

My final opinion: It's awful. Build it if you want to learn why it's awful but make sure you can re-use the track in a better plan afterwards.

If you're truly interested in the hobby then spend some time understanding the basics of how the real railway worked, or works, and study other layout plans (not the rubbish on freetrackplans).

3 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

Personally I find Hornby's problems fascinating in a car crash way. 

 

And also I am annoyed, and even a bit offended, at Hornby's failures. 

 

FOR GOODNESS SAKE Hornby GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER !!!!!!

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

No matter who is at the wheel,  one thing is certain and that is Hornby will find a way to shoot an own goal, every time.  

I agree it's interesting but do we have to go over the same ground ad nauseum? Most of the "Hornby froth" is based on what they have done in the past, but we know that their management has changed and they are starting to do things differently!

Now is surely the time to wait to see what they do next and judge them on future actions.

This topic was specifically about the tier system but, like every other thread with the word "Hornby" in it, it has descended into speculation about Hornby's status in general.

Boring and repetitive.

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

I do wonder if the great 25 year boom in new tooled RTR OO is about to hit the buffers. We seem almost to have run out of sensible subjects...

 

Manufacturing technology leaps ahead so that models can be more and more accurate and the market expects added features like sound and firebox glow, so opportunities open up all the time to produce improved versions of old familiar subjects. Just look at Accurascale's recent Pannier announcement for example.

There's also increasing interest in the pre-grouping era.

So it seems foolhardy to say that OO RTR has run out of sensible subjects.

Hi Jools,

You could easily add an upper level to laser-cut kit baseboards. You just need some upstands, all the same height, some bits of wood or ply for bracing, and some ply for the upper trackbed. One problem with an upper level, though, is that you then have to construct two door-crossings...

However, laser-cut kit baseboards might not be the best idea in the first place: To represent a railway running along the coast (or beside a river) you really want to show ground level falling away from the track bed.

How long is the longest train you would realistically run? If it's less than, say, 3ft6 then it would safely fit onto a manageable cassette.

Cassettes would solve a lot of problems in this small space:

• Give you more stock storage than you could ever fit into the plan as loops or sidings.
• Cassettes would be stacked on racks above or below the railway making use of the vertical space in the small room.
• Transfer trains between levels (if you have levels).
• Help to turn whole trains or just locos.
• Eliminate the need for pointwork leading into storage sidings/loops, thus giving more room for scenery.
• They could even span the doorway, becoming the lifting sections for access. Killing two birds with one stone.

Hi Cliff,

You have the same idea (to mount the layout on casters) that others have had before you but very few layouts ever get built that way.

Imagine that the layout on casters is pushed into one particular corner. Sod's law says that the next train you run will derail in that far corner so you have to pull the whole thing out to get at it. Similar with track cleaning, electrics, doing scenic work, etc. etc... Anything loose on the layout will be prone to falling over. Rolling stock will roll into unwanted positions. In the end it makes the layout just too tedious to use and you will get fed up with it.

For convenience and reduced stress levels you really need to be able to access all parts of the layout immediately at any time, both above and below for electrical work.

Is it safe to assume from your description that you in fact have a 10ft by 7ft space available? Why not build a fixed layout occupying that space with an operating well in the middle? You seem to be slightly resistant to that way of creating a layout, the conventional way, but why?

Can you tell us what space you actually have available in the garage?

Do you really need a 5ft deep storage area?

My Loriot has a slightly different load:

It's just right for carrying this neat little 4K camera that I got for Christmas.

Since the room is only 8.5’ by 7.5’ I doubt that a folded figure of eight would work. Assuming any station was level the track would be on a steep gradient everywhere else. Connections to storage sidings would be difficult.

Thats why I suggested two independent circuits on different levels.

1 hour ago, n9 said:

You know I was expecting everyone to say this! And yes, I suspect the unsupported wheels aren't entirely innocent.

 

Hmm, given what's on view I think we'll have to respectfully differ on what the word compromise means 🙂. I do wonder though how all this "accepted" bouncing compares with pointwork from other manufacturers, Arnold, Walthers, Kato, Fleischmann, etc.

 

And I agree, my options are either to lump it, or remove the worst offending pieces, or jump ship.

 

Yes, it's interesting that this appears to be the normal, accepted behaviour in N gauge. It's presumably a result of the standard RTR wheel profiles and the tolerance required in the flangeway widths to allow RTR stock to run straight out of the box. @Martin Wynne is the trackwork expert and he should be able to say more about all this and what your options are.

If you've got the time, money and patience to do the comparative tests of Peco against the other manufacturers you mentioned that would be very interesting.

One more thought: You could post about your disillusionment with standard 2mm pointwork in the 2mm Finescale forum. Those guys will understand your problem better than us in the general community, who are mostly 4mm modellers. They should also be able to offer you more options based on experience.

Merry Christmas Bob.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

4 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

 

Thanks for this Nick.

 

It needs Dean 8ft 6 bogies.... so I might have to go to Shapeways after all - unless I can persuade someone to do me a 3D print....

 

Lovely photos, thanks again. Neal.

I can be persuaded. I’ve done the CAD, just need to make it printable at 4mm scale and experiment with the resin mix. 😃

You were asking about frequent derailments. Wheels dropping into flangeways may or may not be related.

I hope other people’s videos don’t show frequent derailments!

Obviously PECO don’t sell turnouts that are generally unreliable in the way you describe.

Can you post a video so we can all see what you’re seeing? Maybe something will become apparent.

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

Not sure why anyone would want to pay up to £25 for a second hand book, when Peco sell a new version for £1.60 - https://peco-uk.com/products/the-railway-modeller-book-of-60-plans

 

 

It's not something that I'd build, but it will work to a point if all you want is a trainset to drive trains on.  It can't be signalled because the track layout is not really prototypical, which is why it wouldn't be for me.  The goods facilities are also nearly impossible to operate.  Obviously, real trains travel between two places: A and B.  They will also be able to make that same journey in reverse from B to A.  One direction is referred to as the Up line and the other as the Down line.  Originally, Up was the line travelling towards the company's headquarters, but latterly Up has always been taken as meaning towards London and Down would be away from London.  Therefore trains arrive at Liverpool Street on the Up line, where they terminate, and then depart on the Down line towards Ipswich, Norwich or wherever.  Signals are normally placed to the left of the running line (unless at a location with overhead gantries).   The purpose of signals it to indicate to the driver whether he needs to stop and the route he's going to take.

 

I'm assuming that the area to the top right is meant to represent a Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD).  I think it would be unusual for this to be accessed by a facing point (that is one where you approach it from the 'toe' or 'switch' end).  Such an arrangement was very much frowned upon in the earlier steam era, but is perhaps more common nowadays.  Anyway, we'll ignore that for now.

 

Starting with your outer circuit, trains would traverse this in a clockwise direction.  We'll call this the Up line.  Your top station has three platforms.  If we number these from the baseboard edge, then Platform 1 is an Up platform (ie for travel towards London). This will be blocked every time you want to remove a locomotive from one of the dead end sidings in the TMD.  The other two platforms at this station must be Down line platforms as there is no way for a train departing from these to join your clockwise circuit.  That therefore means that trains departing from these platforms need to run in an anticlockwise direction.   Platform 2 is presumably for express services, because it can't access a platform at your second station.  Platform 3 is presumably for stopping services because it leads to what would have to be the Down platform at your second station.  However, what you'll note here is that you have a double track section where both trains need to travel in the same direction (anticlockwise).

 

Looking at the lower station, I'm not sure of the purpose of the dead end siding or how you might use this.

 

Looking at the Goods Yard, you now have the ability to run round an arriving train (because you have a loco's length ahead of the release point).  However, to complete your run-round and to undertake any shunting, your Goods Train is going to be blocking the Down mainline.  This would have been quite common in sparsely populated rural backwaters, but not common in a more urban environment, which is what you are hoping to portray.  On the real railway, a separate head-shunt would be provided to accommodate shunting of the mainline.  A head-shunt is effectively a long siding that runs parallel to the mainline but faces the opposite way from your other sidings.

 

However, the biggest drawback to the plan that you've presented is how do you operate a Goods Train?  The exit from your goods yard is directly onto your Down line (anticlockwise), but the train is heading in the Up direction (clockwise), so this is wrong line running.  To get to the Up (clockwise) line, you need to go through your facing crossover in the lower station.  You can make a few circuits of that track, but then what?  How do you get back to where you started?  The only way is to stop in your lower station and reverse all the way along the Down line to get to the Goods Yard.  You're never going to be able to drive a train into that yard with the locomotive leading.

 

It therefore looks to me as though that's a plan that's been drawn up by someone who has never operated the layout that they've drawn.

Yes, freetrackplans are free for a good reason - they're mostly rubbish. 😃

To be fair though, this one's not as bad as some. On top of the operational problems that @Dungrange has pointed out there's a physical reach problem into the top left corner, although if we assume the the dark rectangle is a lift-off layer above the rails maybe that's OK.

Sorry Cliff, we're sounding rather negative but stick with us and we can guide you to the sunny uplands of a good model that you really can build and operate successfully.

What do you want from your layout? What things are important to you? What range of years and what kind of trains would you like to represent?