Harlequin

@Johnny Rock There's a recent design for a similar sized garage here:

Your space is shorter but wider but it should be possible to use a similar arrangement where the scenic part uses one long side and one end wall with the main line cutting through it on a gently curving diagonal. That would leave the other long side for your fiddle yard.

I also question the left hand crossover. It was suggested earlier in a slightly different context but I think it's superfluous now.

I think you do need ground discs controlling the right hand crossover and slip into the goods loop because all the signalling and points would be interlocked.

The crossover discs should be in the 6ft.

To get truly expert advice it would be best to ask in the PWay and Signalling area.

Maybe @The Johnster hasn’t heard the news yet.

(If you @ someone they get a notification...)

Interestingly, I recently mentioned the possibility of a modern 57xx model in another thread:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123937-Bachmann-94xx/&do=findComment&comment=3851101

Hold your nerve a bit longer, John!  

I think your preference for electrofrog is wise and the double slip could look overcomplicated. There will be Medium Radius electrofrog turnouts again one day soon. (You could look at the classifieds on here or put a Wanted request up.)

I'm happy to try to widen the platform and adjust the trackwork if you want. However, consider these points:

• The bay will probably have to be shortened. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
• The two goods sidings will be shorter (as they will if a short straight section is inserted).
• The platform has been compressed both in length and width and I would argue that it's roughly in proportion with the prototypes. It might, in fact, look odd if it's made much wider!
• It does meet the regulations from the water crane back and, as the knowledgeable folks above have pointed out, there were cases where platforms became thinner than regs, so we're not doing anything outlandish.
• We can plausibly explain that the platform is that size, and maybe couldn't be widened, because of the proximity of the tunnel and the local geography.

The forum has definitely been behaving better for me since the recent upgrade.

I've seen a few long page fetches but they are much less frequent than they were before and on the whole response times are fast enough that they don't distract me like they used to.

Well done Andy and team for persisting with it and making a good step forward.

In the drawing the squared off end of the platform is 26mm wide and the track centres are 20mm either side. The platform widens to 55mm by the water crane and you would not expect passengers to be allowed that far.

Incoming traffic can’t crossover to stand at the platform.

If the magnets are being glued to the parts before they have fully cured (implying they have recently come out of a 3D printer) it's not surprising they would become unstuck occasionally.

2 hours ago, Richard E said:

OK, here's mine. Just don't fall asleep watching it ...

 

Oh, apologies for the TV audio in the background.

 

 

Hi Richard,

In this video you are visiting the "content I posted in" page by fetching a bookmarked URL rather than by clicking the link in the "My activity streams" dropdown, which is what Gordon did. I notice that the URL is slightly different, with a blank anchor pos reference on the end.

Bit of a longshot but: Have you tried using the dropdown? If so, is that just as bad?

4 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Maybe not Chinese Ducks just at the moment thank you.

P

The Chinese giveth and the Chinese taketh away...

Chinese duck army to do battle with locusts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51658145

CAD is a slightly different beast than vector drawing software.

CAD is very technical whereas vector drawing software is more freeform. Thus, vector drawing software can be used as digital pencil and paper at first and then later in the same package, even in the same sketch drawing, tying down exact dimensions and details.

Vector drawing software: Adobe Illustrator, Affinity Designer, Xara Designer, Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc...

9 hours ago, JST said:

While I wait for the Hattons parcel I thought I would do some of the boring stuff like putting the bus wires in and thinking about the electrics. Whilst doing this I hit a snag I had for some reason not spotted before. Basically the points motor for the first set of points after the tunnel will have to be surface mounted as there is insufficient clearance/access to fit it under the baseboard.  I have used Peco surface mount points motors before but wonder if anyone has any other recommendation for an small surface mount motor and how best to disguise it although, if I am lucky, I can site the ES coaling place to mask it.

Could you mount the motor under the board but offset from the turnout and use a cranked arm to connect the two?

I just had a chat with two guys from Network Rail I met in North Tawton.

They said they were out looking at the structures on the line between Okehampton and Crediton because GWR are interested in running a service, probably just a DMU shuttling between Okehampton and Crediton.

Apparently the structures they'd looked at this morning (between Okehampton and North Tawton) are sound, just a bit of "de-veging" to be done. The PWay will be separately inspected later this week.

Interestingly, they were unaware of the proposals to build a new station on the Eastern side of Okey...

Hi, It’s a bad idea to use your email address as your account name, if it’s real, because the spammers will pick it up.

After today's upgrade the forum response is consistently good for me at the moment and better than it's been for some weeks.

That might change as the server deals with more requests and more users online but it's looking good at the moment!

@AY Mod Did the upgrade address any performance issues?

There is no right answer to this - everyone will find an approach that suits them, including not drawing anything but laying the parts out on the baseboard!

However, many people are very familiar with software solutions in their lives these days, it's not a passing trend. That, and the sheer power and flexibility it brings is why I recommend software (I'm a programmer by trade, so I would!).

It's true that some software is really difficult to learn, unfortunately, but there are teams of very clever people spending a lot of time and money to make products that are both powerful and very natural and easy to use. You have to find a program that suits you.

P.S. I love to see your drawings, Nearholmer. Please keep them coming!

Hi Amanda,

Everything you mentioned is plausible on a generic GWR branch line except that the 4 wheel coaches were being phased out around the time the 57xx was introduced and the Dean goods and Mogul imply heavier traffic than most branch lines.

The 4 wheel coaches lingered on in use as passenger coaches (rather than being used for other purposes) in Wales.

So you could easily invent a fictional branch line dated 1929 onwards (because of the 57xx) with all the ingredients but the Dean goods and the Mogul make it slightly more difficult. If you replace the 57xx with one of it’s very similar predecessors then you can push the date back.

To find a prototype location that employed that combination of rolling stock would require some research. The Whitland to Cardigan branch certainly saw the use of earlier panniers with 4 wheel coaching stock while small prairies were hauling goods but I doubt it ever saw a Dean goods or a Mogul. (I would be delighted to be proved wrong, though!)

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/llanglydwen/index7.shtml

2 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

Bear in mind that a 10 x 5 actually needs about 14 x 9 of floor space when you take into account access around all sides. 10 x 5 is bigger than a double bed. When you get to that sort of size you're better off using all the available floor available and putting the operating space inside. See the HOGRR for an idea, which was designed as a beginner layout and is no harder to build than a solid 6x4 or similar.

 

The big advantage of any CAD software is sorting out the pointwork geometry, which doesn't always work the way you think it does when planning by hand.

 

Cheers

David

I meant 10 by 5 with an operating well, as per the OP.

5 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

Bulldog, revisited small prairie, Manor, Saint, DeGlenn Compound, Aberdare...

 

Running for tin hat!

4 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

There are dozens of GWR prototypes that could be made.

 

Even with just the 4-6-0s there is the County, Manor, Saint, Modified Hall (cough)….

 

Then the myriad of 4-4-0s (they already have the correct chassis for some of them from the Dukedog and City models).

 

 

 

Jason

Yes, exactly.

A proper, fine scale Dean Single (in 4-2-2 form) could be a showstopper in the mould of the Stirling Single and the upcoming D class.

Where's me tin hat? I'll have to re-pot the petunias.

I think there's still plenty of scope for new RTR (G)WR loco models.

There are pre-Churchward loco classes yet to be done and, as technology and fine scale quality move ever onwards, many others that could be profitably updated.

Imagine the humble 57XX pannier tank with compensation, conversion to EM designed in, easy-fit DCC, built-in keep-alive, speakers and firebox flicker, optional top-feed (!), wide choice of GWR/BR shed codes, etc., etc... They would sell like hot-cakes!

Maybe I'm "straying into the realms of fantasy" but it's a nice place to visit occasionally!

The original 6 * 6 layout is severely compromised by the space and it should be possible to do much better in 10 * 5.

If you can make a computer program work then it's best to use one, IMHO, because it's much easier to try things out on screen using as many or as few parts as you need. You can use a drawing program rather than track planning software if you can make accurate symbols for the turnouts and curves. That's how I create all my track plans. (I have got some Settrack/Hornby symbols if you need them.)

But for a small layout, if the baseboard arrangement is obvious, then you won't really lose much time or money by buying some track and playing around.

Here's the revised drawing with the new info about corner angles taken into account:

I've turned off some details and added a 100mm grid to try to help with setting out the curves.

Hi John,

I think everything's still OK. This is what happens where the branch line enters the scene:

I just need to connect the branch line to the first curve again and I will do that by sliding everything very slightly to the left.

Notice that the engine shed line in my proposed plan just crosses the edge of your lift-out section (the dashed line is my best guess as to where it is). The easiest solution would be to swing the engine shed more to the left, more diagonal, so it remains on the fixed baseboard. So only one line to cut if you need to remove the lift-out. What do you think?