Harlequin

Shame there's not much for us GW fans. Maybe another year. (Bicentenary in 2035 but that's a bit long to wait!)

Nothing really new for GWR fans, sadly. Some use of existing tooling.

Best to decide on the fiddle yard design at the same time as the scenic part because it can affect the position of the connecting track. For either a sector plate or a traverser, locating the connecting track further from the wall (assuming there's a wall behind) allows the sector plate or traverser table to move further and so to have move storage tracks. And the more storage tracks the better.

Branch Line Terminus

Acrylic paints are also based on oil of course. However, "oil-based" doesn't necessarily mean petro-chemical based. There are various manufacturers removing solvents completely from their paints (so less smelly fumes) and using plant based oils such as sunflower oil and linseed oil.

Hi SteamRich, If there’s room for a fiddle yard at either end, then the same space would support a larger scenic area and a single FY. That would mean yet another BLT layout, admittedly, but you can see why they are so common. The platform needs to be aligned with the loop. The road crossing makes it very difficult to disguise the track's exit to the right. What do the two sidings do and why do they have separate connections to the main line? More likely to just have one connection and then fan out but In the space available it might be better to just have a single siding.

Hi GELady, It looks lovely. The next thing to do is to draw it to scale to find out how long it is. It will probably be easier to do that in a computer program. Which is the viewing side?

There's one obvious answer that fits your hackneyed cliche scenario perfectly... - A Bay platform where the branch train can stand aside while the goods train is being dealt with. You might also get some inspiration from Kingsbridge, which was a GWR BLT on steroids - and all on a curve to boot... Apparently a very busy place in its heyday.

It's sporadic for me. Mostly OK but the occasional slow response. Just had one that took 19 seconds, for example.

Problems with certain wheelsets causing shorts on Bullhead points have come up before, I'm afraid. Near the common crossing the closure rails are quite close together and since they have "opposite polarities" wheels that are outside the tolerance expected by Peco can cause shorts (one reason being that some bogie/pony designs cause the wheels to crab across the track when turning). I guess the first thing to try is to check and adjust the wheels if possible but some people have taken to modifying Bullhead points to overcome this. For example: It's rather sad because these turnouts were designed to overcome some of the problems of electrofrog turnouts, to make them easier for people to understand and to not need modification... P.S. Fingers crossed for 31102! That might show another potential answer to problem: Just condemn models that short out Bullhead turnouts as being "too coarse for modern standards" and replace them with more modern examples... ?

You could try just sliding the fishplates back and forth a bit and maybe crimping them up with pliers. Not a permanent fix but it would be diagnostic.

Indeed the official map of The Merioneth and Llantisilly Rail Traction Company Limited shows Ivor's branch lines being directly connected to the "Main Line". But then, maybe what they called the "Main line" was narrow gauge too in the distant top left-hand corner of Wales!...

Ivor the Engine As I said before, the sound project for Ivor could be amazing - especially if the manufacturer could license sounds from the series with Oliver Postgate as Jones the Steam. There’s lovely. I think Ivor was a narrow gauge loco, is that right? If so then maybe he should be O-16.5 so that there’s room for a decent speaker and all of us OO modellers could run him on our layouts for fun. Would that work? If so it would widen the potential market for him.

Just reporting.

It’s been getting gradually worse for me too over the past few days. Not every fetch is slow but those that are are becoming more frequent and longer.

The problem with any kind of removable cover is that you would spend most of the operating time with it removed and lifting or removing it becomes a small chore that might put you off operating sometimes. So my suggestion is to do something permanent to visually separate the FY from the scene behind. Just manipulating the sight lines might be enough but a wall or a fixed partial cover might also do the job.

I believe there is a worldwide shortage of one or two chemicals that are used in the production of plastic products, such as acrylic paint. So hopefully the availability problems are just temporary. (The same chemical shortages might partly explain why so many new models are being delayed.)

Here’s Minehead station building about 18 months ago: https://photos.app.goo.gl/T5vcjLgPt754dmPS6 Preservation era so take with a pinch of salt but it looks good!

Lovely idea! Challenge accepted... GWR road fleet number 2020 was a Thornycroft A1 4 or 5 ton lorry introduced in Nov 1929. It probably looked something like this: but it would have had a UW or GC number plate. The only credit I can take for this is for remembering where to look it up! Atkins, "GWR Goods Cartage - Vol 2" Don't Panic!

What about a simple fiddle yard on a slightly lower level in front of station B? The junction would be just outside station A. From there the single track line to B would rise very gently on the outside and the double track line to the fiddle yard would fall very gently on the inside. The fiddle yard would be just low enough that from your normal eyeline vehicles in it would be visually separated from the station scene but without needing to be hidden itself. (Maybe 50mm difference?) A fiddle yard in that position would be easy to access and there would be more room in Area C for a scenic run from A to B. Edit: Furthermore, the outside platform at station A (the one suggested to be shorter) would then have an obvious purpose as the "bay" platform serving "branch" station B.

The new "Twistlock" point motors have an optional redesigned microswitch that fixes mechanically to the motor: If anyone has actual experience of using these new products their comments might be useful.

Here is an updated version of the 1920 box diagram for the 12 lever frame, later modified by the removal of the shunt ahead signal and the closure of Lustleigh box: I've also made various other tweaks thanks to everyone's suggestions above. (I haven't changed "Caution" to "Danger" because I found a period example using "Caution".) Question: Would the occupation crossing have been shown on the box diagram in some form?

Yes, possibly. I think the later version would but conversely possibly not the earlier style? Yes, that's the route we will probably go down. It's PT's decision. Sounds interesting! Thanks yes, we also found reference to the 15-lever frame being replaced in 1920. So for PT's period we can ignore the earlier frame entirely now. 12 levers only. The AB suffixes are on the 1950's style BR(WR) diagram, which we will probably not use now. Good point about 10 and 12. That will be fixed, thanks.

Thanks Tim, "GWR Signalling Practice" by Smith and the Great Western Study Group, says the label should be , "in one of the bottom corners". I guess that bottom right was preferred but if there wasn't room because of the drawing (as in this case) it would be fixed at bottom left. I should maybe move it further left, though.

I spotted this on BBC Four last night, while watching "Flying Scotsman: Sounds from the Footplate": Not only on it's own post but with a finial! This is on the SVR so may not reflect true (G)WR practice but I thought it might be interesting. If you want to see it in the context of the film and the driver's comments about it, go here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b087k5rf/flying-scotsman-sounds-from-the-footplate and click the timeline at around 38 minutes.