Harlequin

Cakebox?

So you're talking about something like this, right? I've shown two 3*2 boards and a 2*4, because you could buy kits for those sizes that wouldn't cost the earth and that just glue together. Search for "Laser cut baseboards". Edit: You could add two thinner boards to get round-the-room running: That would probably require part of the boards to lift out, depending on where the door is and how it opens. That's not too difficult.

There’s another very important signal box sound: A big clock slowly ticking away. And can I also suggest birds twittering for atmosphere during those long pauses between railway activity. The old BBC film, “The Signalman”, contains long passages of just signalbox noises (possibly from the archive mentioned above) without music interfering - because it’s a ghost story. I used to have it on reel to reel tape and played it when running my railway back in the 70’s. Edit: If the both the sound module and the signals/points are DCC controlled then it ought to be very easy to send commands to both synchronously using software like iTrain or JMRI.

Hi GridNorth, If the room is 8 by 5 then I don't think a 6 by 4 board would fit in it along with an operator... By 7 by 2 L shaped do you mean a 7 by 2 rectangle with a 5 by 2 rectangle at right angles? (A 2ft by 2ft arm wouldn't be much use.) Everyone building a small model railway wants more space. It's probably best to do the woodwork now to make best use of the room even though it might seem daunting, because it will pay you back many times over. You can get someone to make baseboards for you - there are a number of good kit manufacturers. Unless you're just going to knock something quick up to play with, I suggest you don't make the baseboards before you design the layout. The layout should determine the boards, not the other way around.

Here's your old layout scaled to 9ft wide and dropped into your new 5 * 3m wide space: it looks like you've got more than 9ft to play with and if I've guessed the orientation correctly the lifiting section would have to be a in different place than the old layout. We need more info, please. It would help us if you could measure up and tell us the internal dimensions of your new space, including where the entrance is and where the layout would sit in the space. Accuracy matters because a few centimetres might make the difference between being able to fit in a set of points that make the layout work or not and having to do something very different, possibly not as good.

I think the body is riding too high on the chassis (both loco and tender) and the shape of the top of the firebox is a bit suspect. I'm not sure either of those things will be an easy fix but I'm willing you on!

That all makes sense, and I guess we can all see roughly how the new layout might be arranged, but with respect it doesn't tell us what the problems were. It tells us about the solutions that you've already decided on... If you tell us the problems you encountered we might have different solutions to suggest - things that you might not have thought of.

(That would do well in the market for gimicky toy trains that's being created by a certain TV programme...) This thread is veering wildly off topic. Sorry.

I believe the coupling/connection is a Dapol innovation and will appear first on the Mogul along with a some other clever bits of product design.

Hi, In the other thread you said that the new shed was 5m * 3m but that you would reserve some room for your work area. Could you move the work area inside the operating well of the railway? Then the railway could run around the outside of the entire space. It wouldn't have to be all scenic but it would allow a good long run along one side for a scenic station with larger radius curves at the ends. Was reaching across the baseboards ever a problem with the old layout? What would you consider the maximum baseboard width, bearing in mind the need to reach the back corner? Finally, I'm just going to put the cat among the pigeons! Since you are proposing to change era and replace a lot of your stock, have you thought about changing scale at the same time? How about O gauge in your 5m * 3m space???

Makes sense! Personally, I would make the cut-off sooner: if it can't climb the grades with a useful load without relying on the magnets-and-steel bodge it would go in the box. Save a lot of faffing around! You could apply route restrictions like the GWR. Some locos cannot be rostered on some routes. That might save a few from the guillotine!?

I assume you have a daVinci-like sketch of your revolutionary invention on the back of a fag-packet? Can we see it, please? Tangentially: I was on the Eskdale and Ravenglass last week and as we proceeded forwards down the line the sounds of the wheels on the rail joints came first from the back of the train and moved forwards past us up towards the loco. I tried to explain the concept of strobing to my companion but I don't think she got it. The wavy motion of your mag-barge oars would do something similar when filmed...

Magnets on the track and under the loco: Maglev!

On another thread (Wright writes?) there has been talk recently of the profile of the wheel treads being important for traction. People have had wheels re-treaded or re-ground and got improved pulling power. That makes sense intuitively: If the tread is angled at all then it will only have a tiny contact patch with the rail but if it's flat then it will make much better contact and the coeff. of friction should be consequently greater. Martin: How do you feel about gluing magnets to your locos and iron plates to your track and having to disguise both???

Hi Neil, If you move the backmost tracks even a few inches away from the backscene you'd have room to do some simple low-relief landscaping behind. Or even better, curve it away to get some variation. Or even better still, make the tracks a figure of 8, which would do a number of things: Level changes (OK for Thomas and a few wagons, not so great for longer prototypical trains). Bridge with trains crossing above trains - visually a lot of fun. Embankment along back would not need so much landscaping behind (possibly simply sky) because it would create it's own horizon. The levels might be tricky to work out. You'd need around 65-70mm from railtop to railtop when the tracks cross and that would have to be the summit with gradients either side. Ideally, the crossing bridge should not be central or else it would dominate the scene.

Here's my earlier idea fleshed out a bit: The crossing angle is wider and that allows the platform to be longer and the private railway to be separated better from the main line. The mill private railway runs around the front on the mill/warehouse and into a simple yard. On the left it dives into an open shed and when it's hidden, turns back under the cover of some low relief buildings to create a headhsunt. On the right the private railway disappears behind a wall and enter the fiddle yard. The mill complex buildings hide a line connecting the private railway's headhsunt with the fiddle yard. This allows the yard shunter to move around in interesting ways and allows it to run round wagons. The private railway would be embedded in the yard surface and that would hide the two settrack 2nd radius points. The back link between the open shed and the mill complex should probably be hidden but I haven't shown anything yet. I haven't made too much effort to line everything up or work out building interfaces so things might need shuffling a bit.

With DCC you will need to do similar amounts of wiring as DC, possibly more, depending on how you want to go about things. It's typical to keep all parts of the track powered up at all times rather than switch them on and off manually and that can mean more wires if you were used to allowing the points to switch power to sections. With all sections powered up all the time you just choose a loco on your controller and start driving . (You still have to set the points correctly of course!) That also means that locos with sound and lights keep working while they are standing in sidings or whatever. For instance, you want to hear your shunter to continue idling while it waits for a passenger train to pass by rather than artificially going silent. Maybe you could make some of your boards movable so that they could be hinged up to give you comfortable access to the underside for wiring...?

Yes, exactly.

1 point is 1/72th of an inch so in 4mm scale that is 1.05 recurring inches. So you wouldn't be far out assuming that 1 point equates to 1 inch.

OK, thanks. I was emboldened to suggest that from the evidence of the GWR terminus trackplans I've been looking at recently but I should have kept my trap shut. (It's possibly academic in Martin's case anyway.)

Hi Martin, To my eyes the NM panel looks a bit cramped. Could you spread it across two sheets (using about 1.5)? That would allow room to breathe either side and room for the line to Snarling Jcn to be seen more clearly as the only line leaving the area. Also, the border lines are visually identical to the track lines (same weight and colour) which makes the diagram a bit more difficult to read at a glance. Maybe you could de-emphasise them by reducing size , including the curlicues, or changing colour? I’m not sure what would work best. P.S. I don’t think you need FPLs in loco release crossovers (e.g. 23) because passenger vehicles should never traverse them.

What is the max width and max length?

The Facebook button uses a simple link to a Facebook url that includes the url of the current rmweb page as a parameter for Facebook to build a post around. Facebook knows who you are and whether you are logged in through cookies it has placed on your machine. Rmweb knows nothing about your Facebook account.

Essays from the respected and knowledgeable members of this community are very welcome. Imagine the chaos and the arguments if we were all invited!

I'm following this discussion with interest but I'm struggling to see the difference! Could someone put an arrow or a circle on one of the photos showing the location of the cover / missing cover, please?