Harlequin

I imagine a one off anniversary special collector’s item to test the market. Something pre-grouping with lots of polished metal and intricate lining. Something with great proportions and huge driving wheels. Something that relates to their existing range but breaks new ground in O. Maybe something like a Dean Single in 4-2-2 form?

Churchward did all the trailblazing that was needed in loco design for the next few decades. Hawksworth didn’t really get a chance to prove himself.

Thinking outside the box: They started in O gauge so it would be really striking for the "big" anniversary if they returned to the senior gauge! Many more prototype gaps to be filled there...

Hi Clive, Most modern OO locos are designed for a minimum radius of 438mm or "R2". Small 0-4-0s will run on tighter radii but you might run into problems with the couplings to wagons. If you made an oval with 438mm radius end curves on your board the track would be right up against the edges and so would present a scenic challenge. A simple shunting layout is a more realistic proposition in the space and then minimum radii are much less of a problem.

See gwr.org.uk for updated info about GWR Locomotive Green and some of the factors that affected it's appearance over the years: http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieslococolour.html The colour obviously has some variability but an average cleanish GWR loco should be within a reasonably well-defined region. (I say “average cleanish” because most people wouldn't want a model with a non-average colour and clearly the model is meant to look clean.) After factoring out lighting conditions, the colour reproduction of the image and any effects of scale (which is debatable) the question is, does the new model's colour look right within that average range of possible colours? At the moment, we can't really tell - but it does look suspiciously like it's on the outer edges of the possible colour range.

I have the second edition. On page 24 it introduces the subject by saying, "Linings: The period 1881-1906 was not simple" and it's not kidding! I was going to try to pull out the relevant bits and summarise but it's a minefield. However, Diagram 18 on page 47, produced at Swindon in January 1954 and titled "Method of Painting Great Western Railway Locomotives", tabulates the different combinations pretty well. Sadly I can't reproduce it here but I'd be willing to redraw it if that would be useful (and wouldn't break any copyrights). Some relevant clips from page 24: "The period 1881-1906 was not simple..." "From 1881 orange lining on either side of black band" (1881 drawing, body lining: 1/8 O - 1 B - 1/8 O) "Lining variations in 1894, 1897 and 1900" All variations "to be found on the GWR until 1906" The 1897 variation is especially fancy with double lining of both boiler bands and body plates. It was only applied to express locos and thus was contemporaneous with other variations. And then there's the Wolverhampton factor. Page 32 says, "Blue-green shade lingered on until 1902", "from May 1895 [snip] Swindon livery" (which I take to mean Swindon lining style) and "interim changes seem to be to lining styles on some 517, 36xx amd 3521 classes"

You could buy a length of Code 75 and maybe a turnout and push your suspect stock along it on a tabletop. For a very small financial outlay you would then know for sure.

Guys, see my post above about the Airwick technology. It's simply a vapouriser for water so no dangerous chemicals (they add scent but it's not required.) It is not a humidifier, so doesn't produce vast quantities of vapour. Not much danger of things getting wet. It produces a strong jet of "steam" despite having no moving parts, unlike e-Cig technology. I tried putting smoke machine fluid in the Airwick device but all that happened was less vapour and eventually it stopped producing any - I guess the hole got clogged up.

This is an Airwick "Essential Mist" air freshener: Solid state, no pumps Instant on off control of vapour generation, so it should be able to "chuff" under electronic control Low temperature, no heating element Low voltage Reasonably compact Produces a lot of mist from a small volume of liquid There doesn't seem to be any residue and the odour is, in this case, lavender (@The Johnster ) Cost about £10 in all good supermarkets You can see in the vapour generating "chamber" there's a coil around the perimeter and a metal cap with a small dimple in the middle. There's possibly a minute hole in the centre of the dimple. When the unit is put together a wick from the bottle of liquid presses against the underside of the metal cap. Does anyone know the principle behind this? Now, if the hardware couold be miniaturised and the electronics built into a decoder...

Front, definitely. Your rear is already sufficiently padded.

I really liked the look of Greenwich Park and it got me thinking so, for what it's worth (and I realise it may not be of immediate interest), here's what I came up with: It pulls together some of the things I was suggesting. The pointwork is a freehand representation with no technical details so it would probably need to be fettled to make it work but there's a pleasing flow and symmetry to it. Scale is 4mm, BTW. Each grid square 305 * 305mm.

I'm finding it difficult to make suggestions with the new baseboard arrangements but I think Chimer is on the right track.

Did you look at Cardigan? That’s the obvious template, of course. I think Cardigan’s headshunt was (part of) the very long run round loop. Should the turntable be on the station side of the engine shed?

The site has been noticeably slower for me too over the past few days. Sometimes new posts take a long time to appear (~10-20 secs Edit: this post took 20+secs to appear), some pages take a long time to load (~5-10 secs) and sometimes a graphics heavy page will load but won't scroll to the anchor point and if I scroll manually the lower content is missing but will then appear after a delay. Feels like something on the server is stressed.

Ideally it should be lightweight as well so that it's easy for the child to slide in and out by him/herself. So, what about simply buying an internal flush door? They are light, rigid (esp. when filled with honeycomb), roughly the right proportions and not made of MDF. You'd have to cut down the length and fit a new end piece. 33inches width easily available, not sure about 36, though. Maybe put some simple sled runners underneath to raise it off the floor and make it easier to push around.

I have to say, I don't like the way the tracks generally curve in the opposite sense to the turn within the throat - it makes an unnatural-looking kink to my eye. (Maybe the exit to the FY wouldn't need to be perp. to the end...?) If you omitted the topmost platform line, or made it be departure only by moving the points to the right, then the platforms could be longer and there would be more room for the main focus (the two main platforms and ther release line) and the scenics. I hear what you are saying about operations and obviously it's your decision but the alternative options just look worse to me! The Bitsa stations force some of the action off-stage, The curve in an 8 by 8 L shaped layout would probably take too much room, micro layouts have to be assembled elsewhere to operate and you get much better photos on a big, fully scenic layout than a photo plank. BTW: The variety of rolling stock you mentioned earlier would need a lot of off-scene storage. I hope you can find a solution that works for you...

It's a tricky business! Could you combine the throat with the scissors and make use of the turn in the throat to get some natural crossing angles like Minories does? Then it might be possible to model the whole station within your 10ft, including the characteristic release crossovers but ignoring the fiddle yard. (Bear with me...) That would: Give you the full scene, making a great display on your wall Allow you to work on the full model Give you the opportunity to take photos Reduce the number of joints and so reduce limitations on trackwork Allow you to do limited running by moving shunters and pilot locos around within the scene Then when you really want to operate it properly you move it to a bigger space (exhibition?) and attach the fiddle yard (which could then be bigger than you've previously shown).

This is related to what I was saying above: if you can draw/paint the line thin enough, i.e. to correct scale, then I think the exact prototype colour should look right. However, if you have to draw a thicker line then by mixing the line colour with the background colour it should have the same visual "weight" as the thinnner, brighter line. Edit: Furthermore, I'm suggesting that the correct colour mix can be calculated from the ratio of the scale line width to the actual line width - although I realise it may need to be tweaked after that. That's my theory. I really must go away try it!

Very interesting! Some observations: Firstly, It might be easier and more flexible to use a drawing program to create the graphics. That's for three reasons: Everything is always editable in a drawing program - it's only committed to pixels when you print or export as a bitmap. That means mistakes are more easily fixed and it's easy to copy inidividual parts and re-use them. The graphics in a drawing program are described mathematically so a curve is a perfect curve all the time you are editing it - again until it's committed to pixels in your printer. Drawing programs usually have more powerful tools for making precise lines and shapes. For instance, most can define a "brush stroke" which would allow the orange, green and black elements of GWR lining to be drawn at the right spacing along any centre line you want to draw. That makes life much easier! Secondly, Since we're interested in very fine lines we need to think about how big a printer pixel size is compared to the line width. If a pixel is bigger than the desired line width then the resulting line may be wider than expected and have jaggy corners. Some good printer drivers and some graphics software automatically overcome this by "anti-aliasing" the lines. Anti-aliasing works out the proportion of each pixel that would be covered by the thin line and mixes the line colour with the background colour by that proportion instead of simply setting the whole pixel to the line colour. Sorry to get this technical but I have the feeling that by taking these things into account it might be possible to improve the results. It needs a bit of measuring, a bit of maths and the time to experiment!

Here's a version with a few tweaks - most notably moving the end loading position. And revised fiddle yard as discussed with Martin.

I happen to have the GWR BLT book open in front of me. It says: "During the heavy snowfalls on Dartmoor small 19XX class tank locomotives fitted with snowploughs were run up and down the branch between trains, often backed with a rough 45XX [snip]. 0-6-0 tank locomotives were used as they could be turned at either end of the journey to face into the snow, using the 23' 6" diameter turntables provided at Yelverton and Princetown"

Yes, my statement was based on stations I had been looking at recently rather than a proper survey. I'll do some more research. Good point about ground levels.

Hi G-DIMB, Some of your track is very close to the outer edge of the boards. Have you thought about how you will make it work scenically? I hope you don't mind me saying this but, the track plan is quite regimented. If you made it a bit looser and more flowing it might look more realistic. Is there room for the goods shed to work properly? "That would be an ecumenical matter"

4575s were very commonly used on the Cardi Bach - at least in later years. There are lots of photos of them at all locations on the line and they appear in a Railway Roundabout film about the line. Moreover they sometimes double-headed goods trains because the line was so windy and undulating. And even better I’m sure I read somewhere that small prairies triple-headed occasionally, presumably to save a light engine movement! But I can’t remember where I read that, so it could be my imagination...

Ooph! Thanks Martin! As you can see there are always improvement to be made! Obviously you can call the station whatever you like but I wonder if my idea for the name should have been "Lamstead" rather than "Lambstead"? BTW: My leanings are always towards the GWR and obviously using Lambourn as inspiration heads in that direction so you might want to check the details of how other companies did things if you're going to set it somewhere else.