Harlequin

Hi Julian, That was just my attempt to rewrite the most useful parts of the NMRA document in plain English. The NMRA spec and the DCCWiki version of it are very low level technical documents. They're not really intended for everyday users to read or understand. DCC would be more user-friendly if there was a layer on top of this stuff that worked at a more human level but I don't know of a controller or a software package that does that. The JMRI "Decoder Pro" program gets some of the way there but it's still too techy, in my opinion. The core CVs are 2,3,4,5,6 and 29 and they are the simplest to understand, although CV29 flummoxes a lot of people because it's not really a number, it's a "bit field" (a set of switches attached to the bits that represent a number). Outside that core set things get more complicated and more specialised - so you probably don't need to know about them unless you need to do more advanced things.

Here's the basic cassette bridge concept drawn out: The concept in its purest form - the "fiddle yard" consists of simply the two bridge cassettes (and a loco spur) The scenic area (green) is thus much bigger - immersive almost. Cassettes are 1m long and spaced apart so they are easier to handle individually. Valuable space is not taken up by FY points fans. I turned the layout inside out so that the interesting goods yard is more visible instead of being in a corner. The operating well is a bit bigger. Min radius: 610mm

Do you mean the door is in one of the long walls? If so, that makes things much more difficult.

Oooh that's Smoooooth!

I picked 4ft out of the air because I thought that was about the length of train the current loops could accommodate but if the loco was uncoupled and either stored separately or provided with a siding on the layout then cassettes could be in the region of 3ft to 1m. Reasonable point but I would say that: (a.) removing a cassette ought to be made very easy so that the layout is easy to operate and thus doing the same thing for access shouldn't be too tiresome, and (b.) the cassettes would only have something standing on them if you were about to do an exchange. A lot of the time they would be clear, just being used as part of the main roundy-round circuits. It would definitely involve compromises but maybe they would be worth it for the gains, especially the increased scenic run?

This is Setrack. Very small radius turnouts and not what you want if you're trying to represent the S&C. It also lacks a crucial single slip - really not a very helpful plan!

I'm worried about the idea of making the lifting section be both scenic and also be a bridge. That's going to create all sorts of problems: The bridge will just hang in space, possibly looking a bit odd. The lifting section will be deeper, so less easy to duck under if you want to. The lifting section will be heavier and more fragile than a non-scenic version. I realise the need to maximise the scenic area and the need to combine elements in the limited space. So I'm wondering whether the lifting section across the door could also be the bulk of the non-scenic fiddle yard in the form of (say) 4ft long cassettes... Do you see the idea? Since you've got to bridge the doorway anyway, why not bridge it with non-scenic cassettes that can not only be lifted out for access but also multiplied and stored on racks for easier exchange of rolling stock. The FY in the current design probably doesn't have enough capacity to store the variety of stock you would want to run so you would already be exchanging stock and doing that on curves is not ideal. Furthermore, the FY pointwork would be greatly reduced and you'd have a means of not only turning locos but turning whole trains. Then almost the entire remainder of the circuit could be scenic, with a proper river scene somewhere... I commend my idea to the house.

I agree with TJ. The RailRoad range is messy, confusing and many items are too expensive for entry-level customers One dealer told me that the lack of clear differentiation in pricing makes it difficult for him to stock them because he doesn't know if they will sell or not.

I think the most likely scenario is that Dapol will do exactly what they have said they will do in the GWR stream: Mogul followed by Large Prairie followed later by Manor, with stretching timescales. They might be persuaded to do something else but that I guess their capacity is all planned well-ahead and anything new would be slotted in after the Manor unless the plans go horribly wrong.

Oh, sorry. I think there's some discussion about this in the Forum Notices area.

Hi Jack, It looks nice! The text on the original SBDs was stencilled and I don't think we know exactly what that stencil was before the 50's. I used a free Google font called Lato, which looks close but there might be something better yet. I applied lots of tracking to space the characters apart and Small Caps to liven the text up. The brown colour used for platforms, building edges and goods lines was a Winsor and Newton watercolour called "Fawn Brown". It's not clear what that looked like originally and there isn't an obvious modern equivalent. The only variation in the brown colour was the amount of dilution and so your goods shed colour should be related to the platform colour, and probably just a contour inside a pencil rectangle rather than solid. The crossover points would probably be on the same lever.

I think it was that way for a day or so while they tested things but they changed it back. Maybe you just need to refresh by hitting Ctrl+F5 (on Windows) to get new style sheets.

On the Lymm observatory website have a look at Grindleford. There are some useful similarities, I think. Edit: It turns out that Grindleford is a great find, simply as a rather lovely little station! It's all on a curve and just beyond the platform, the tracks are crossed by a bridge and then almost immediately disappear into a tunnel, all of which cause all sorts of sighting problems for the signals. You can see that in the SBD. For instance look at the position and style of the Up Starter! https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3841713 And notice the banner repeater in rear of the Up Home much further around the curve. Great fun!

Here's an alternative source of info, although still nothing specific to the area in question: http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/sbdiagrams.htm#mr I have the feeling we're flapping around, rather, waiting for a real Midland signalling expert to show up!

Unfortunately, it's impossible to increase the radius of the slips within the constraints of the Streamline geometry, namely 2 inches between parallel tracks and 12° angle at the centre line between parallel tracks. (That's true both for inner slips and outer slips.) To address the slips issue they will have to use a new geometry - and that's a huge step because it's no good just doing the slips, you need matching turnouts and crossings in the same geometry to be able to make sensible formations. Edit: The radius of the Large turnout is limited to 45.76inches by the same constraints. They hinted about doing "extra large" points in the Spring Report and that would also need a new geometry. I've been thinking a lot about this and made a suggestion to Peco.

Other possible Manor Manufacturers would be: Hattons Kernow Oxford Rail All of them have proven records of going direct to the factory for their own steam locos. (I don't put Rails in the frame because they work closely with Dapol on other things and so I would hope there would be some communication between them about their plans.)

Yes, it's a traverser in a box that folds up to the exact same volume as the matching Minories folding box. This box however has three sections: the neck that connects Minories to the traverser (including some useful spurs), the traverser section and a small turntable section. You can download the PDF from the blog.

More than two? Crikey! This could be an even bigger bunfight than with the Class 66s, the Terriers or the Large Prairies!

Yes, this was my idea:

No, not really. You couldn't run inbound and outbound trains at the same time (or shunt on one side while something is leaving or arriving on the other), which is really the whole point of the Minories track plan. Sorry.

@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.