Harlequin

Hi Alex Why get your locos out of your display cabinet only to hide them inside an engine shed??? ;-) It might be better to model the engine shed in low relief (I.e. just the opening end of it) so that you can see the locos and that would give you more room for your trackwork and other infrastructure. The non-scenic section can be hidden in a different way if you really need it. And from a design/display point of view it might be better to arrange the shed lines to be running diagonally so that locos standing on them are seen in 3/4 profile. I’m not sure quite how/whether that would work but it seems like an idea worth thinking about... Should the access line to the shed pass through the coaling tower? And should there be a coaling tower straddling the tracks at all? It depends on your region and era. The three way point should probably have a short section of plain track between it and the turntable. I think the symmetric three way is only available in Code 100 so is that your intended rail profile? The turntable looks very close to the edges so make sure that the hole will clear the frame work below. Two water towers? They look rather small in plan (as does the coaling tower) so maybe you mean water columns?

Your world is cleaner, better maintained and more organised than the real world! And there's nothing wrong with that - it's your world to do with as you see fit!

Yes, good point. So when the FPL lever is standing Normal the FPL is engaged, that being the safest default. I think I've read about (and seen discussion on RMWeb about) FPL levers that stand Reversed when the FPL is engaged but I think that's much less common.

So, is this right: The bar shown in the photo is a lifting locking bar, probably associated with the FPL for 5. When the signalman pulls lever 4 (the FPL for 5) it simultaneously attempts to lift the bar and engage the FPL. If there's no train standing on the bar it lifts fully and the FPL engages but if there is a train standing on the bar the bar won't lift, the FPL won't engage and the lever in the box won't travel the full distance so the operator has immediate physical feedback about the presence of the train. ?

Hi Echini, The mechanism you are asking about is a detection bar of some sort. The experts should be able to tell us its proper name (there are different kinds of detection bar) and how it interacts with the rest of the signalling system.

"Swindon Egyptian" was a version of Clarendon created in the Swindon drawing office for use in their cast loco name and number plates. It's a different style than the sans-serif font used in the notice that flockandroll is asking about.

Gimp is a painting program and while I'm sure you can do a lot of good text editing in it there will come a point when the text is committed to pixels and you can't edit it any more. You need a drawing program. Something like: Adobe Illustrator (expensive) Affinity Designer (very good and not too expensive) Xara Designer (good but getting a bit old now) InkScape (free but clunky like Gimp) Corel Draw (as old as the hills)

HI David, All of those things can be changed at will in a drawing program without losing any quality. No need to use an image viewer. Furthermore, you can go back at any time and examine all the settings that are applied to the text so you don't have to remember what you did.

As JP says, it's difficult to find an exact match. There might be one out there but it would take a bit of searching. The closest I have found so far (and it's still not right) is "Old Sans Black": That has various typographical tweaks applied to it: Aspect ratio changed, tracking applied, small caps applied, line spacing tweaked, some extra fattening to account for the casting.

Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk Tk-tk

Nicely done, sir! Not sure of the relative prices but the Latvians are big producers of Birch ply and there are various importers in the UK. Search for "Riga Ply" and you'll find both.

The traverser was intended to extend out into the room on full extension drawer runners with the connecting lines near the front of the layout. That maximises the number of traverser roads and temporarily grab a bit of extra space in the room when operating.

Hmmm, well, I'm not sure that my idea is going to suit you in that case. The basic thoughts are still valid so I'll get back to you if I can come up with something better. I wonder if your requirements are making things difficult: It seems to me that a double track line is most likely to terminate either in a town or city or at the coast and I'm not sure how likely the latter was for the Midland. Also, by inserting a loco release crossover you will seriously shorten the lengths of passenger trains you can handle in such a tight space. Minories (in the same 7ft length, note) avoids a release crossover partly to save space and partly to make operation more interesting. The Minories "bay" was originally a spur for the pilot loco. BTW: Should we assume that the layout is against a wall?

Hi TA, I had some thoughts: There's always the temptation with small layouts to cram the baseboards full of track work. This means that the scenic elements are inevitably compromised and the layout gets pushed into over-familiar patterns, such as saying that the setting is urban, to explain the tightness. So to fit your desired rural setting better, it might be best to keep it simple (be ruthless and only keep what you really need) and don't push the track out to the very edges, leave room for non-railway surroundings to set the scene. It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points. If the outermost crossover in a double-track feed is trailing (as it is in Minories) then it is only really used to get outbound traffic onto the Up track and is not a fundamental element of the work within the station. So, as a reasonable compromise you could omit a trailing crossover from the scenic area. The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing. I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here?

Oh, I see... So this coach would just glide silently through the scene like a ghost and exit on the branch line, hopefully without re-appearing. I'm going to need a bigger catapult!

So some sort of adjustable catapult in the fiddle yard, then, so that every time you use it the slip coach glides to a halt in exactly the same spot against the platform face.

The run round in the right-handed terminus is very small, limiting the size of both passenger and goods trains. Remember that Minories didn't have any run round loops. It relied on pilot locos to shift carriages and the goods depots that it acquired in later variants were all kickback arrangements, so that the hauling loco could never get trapped in the goods yard. The main problem you've got is the very tight space constraint. If you want reasonable length trains then you need to maximise the use of the space. E.g. start the throat pointwork as soon as you possibly can on entry to the scene, try to combine functions where possible, and exploit the depth of the baseboards if you can. On the other hand you might make a feature of only having very short trains arrive at the station. That would be unusual and quirky and would give you a bit more room to breathe.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have reverted to the first motor type and that that's what you'll get as a replacement. It certainly sounds like it from the technical description. Please post a photo when you get it so we can compare with other motors fitted to this model.

Thanks! I wonder where the sparkle comes from? "Less is more"? Or maybe just repeated revision until it's right. Yes, more or less. From most angles trains will be obscured by trees before they leave the scene but there's still a problem with the head-on angle. The tracks behind the backscene can be ballasted and given minimal scenic surrounds but the main problem is the hole in the backscene. To disguise that my idea is to bring the tree canopies from either side together over the tracks so that they just touch and shape them to suggest you are looking at the trees behind the backscene in perspective as they curve around the cutting. BTW: The mainline really does head into a tree lined cutting to the west of Patney. I used a Google aerial view of those trees to paint the wooded areas on Hannet Purney:

Here's the latest version of Hannet Purney. Track diagram: @Flying Pig's and @The Stationmaster's suggestion of a second connection between the goods and the branch loops just after the branch junction Goods shed moved to the new section of the goods loop. Scissors access to Dock siding removed. East crossovers simplified to avoid double slip. Now more like Patney. East portion of goods loop gives an alternative run round route, so long as there are no wagons standing on it. The goods yard is still very simple (see below) Here's how the changes affected the layout (previous track plan in red): I pushed the entire station 20mm south to make more room for the goods yard and use the space better generally. This makes the transitions into the end radii slightly better as well. The island platform has a more curvy balloon shape. The dock siding is further from the road overbridge, making the gradient of the yard access road a bit easier. And the full layout plan: The station overall feels a bit longer because the two western sidings surround the branch junction but I think I can disguise that with scenery. The goods yard is much longer now because of the new position of the goods shed. That's OK I think. Quite prototypical. The goods yard gets closer to the backscene because of the turning space needed behind the goods shed. I think that's OK too - the copse behind the fence should hide that proximity. I imagine lots of clutter lying around in the goods yard and I suggested a few piles of roadstone and coal. The two crossovers at the east end of the station use small radius points, something I'd usually avoid but anything longer changed the angles too much. Even so they are better than the double slip. @Tallpaul69 asked, effectively, whether the activity of this simple station will be interesting enough for me. I think the answer is, Yes. The main goal is to see mainline traffic running and as @The Stationmaster has pointed out there are a lot of interesting variations to those traffic movements. I'll also get a lot of pleasure from simply seeing the famous named services come through (legitimately!) - the Cornish Riviera, the Weymouth boat train (I think), etc., and other characteristic workings such as the Bristol to Paddington via Devizes with it's siphon and the big 2-8-0s hauling long distance freights. The small volume of goods handled at HP suits me fine and adds a little bit of seasoning to the recipe. In fact, even on this very simple track plan I can see that goods shunting could be quite intricate!

When I was researching these types of motor, looking for a replacement, I found out that they are mainly used in, ahem, personal massagers... So they are almost throw-away items and not engineered for prolonged running. <Fill in your own punchline here.> However, I think the chassis will still accept the earlier type of motor if you can find a source for them.

Hi Craig, Thanks for your comments. It sounds like you understand what I'm trying to do. In the space-time bubble where Hannet Purney exists there is no military traffic at the station and the dock is just a normal goods loading dock - a mini-platform with end access. The scissors was due to me not quite understanding the subleties of Pewsey and the implications it has on operation of the branch platform. Yours is not the only criticism of it and it's on the way out! Watch this space...

Hi Tiny, What David is saying is that the facing points are not typical of UK practice, which runs on the left and prefers trailing points where possible. As drawn it’s more like a right-hand running European model but that’s no good for you, I guess. Other problems: Hidden storage under scenic area difficult to use. Entrance will look odd, how do you know when to stop and how do you deal with stuck trains? Kick back sidings top left outside the circuits difficult to access. Kick back spur top left inside the circuit difficult because the long siding feeding it has to be half empty to use it. Sidings at top don’t seem to have a purpose. What will you shunt into them and why (in the preservation era)? Coal drop headshunt probably too short for loco plus one wagon (unless maybe an 0-4-0). Coal drop ramp very steep. (Preservation era coaling would probably be done by a JCB, telehandler or similar.) Crossovers between platforms create clearance issues. Corner radii very tight as has been said above. The shed area is overpowering - that’s the element that squeezes out the scenery more than any other. The engine shed itself actually hides locos and if it's more than two locos deep makes the ones at the back difficult to get out. Sorry, but you do need a complete rethink, as David said. RMWeb is here to help you!

Yes, me - and you even commented in the thread! The eventual diagnosis was that one of the motor coils had shorted and Oxford very kindly sent me a replacement. I have fitted it but it's not yet running properly - a whole new round of diagnosis needed. -Sigh-

I copied the hex codes when I made the panel above and I obtained hex codes for the RAL colours from two independent sources. The two gwr.org.uk colours have very similar hues and are highly saturated (not much white mixed in). RAL 6009 is a similar hue but very much less saturated and RAL 6007 is a very different hue (much yellower) and again much less saturated than the gwr.org.uk colours. I know that you can't really compare photo colours with screen colours but just for interest: Mikkel's photo of Belton RAL 6007 is slightly bluer than the gwr.org.uk colours, not as saturated but it is closer in saturation than the RAL hex values are.