Harlequin

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.

I haven't read back through the thread for earlier discussion of the nuances of GWR loco green - I'm sure there must have been pages of it! So this might be missing the point but for my own interest I grabbed the RGB values of RAL 6007, RAL 6009 and the two middle chrome greens cited by gwr.org.uk and put them alongside each other: Although your monitor might not give colour reproduction that you trust to convert to real paint, this at least shows the greens relative to each other.

Wow, that all needs some thinking about (!) but in general I will be aiming for plausibly entertaining operations rather than strictly correct operations This is a bit easier to answer: Firstly, remember that the branch actually rejoins the network at the opposite end (Holt Junction). So the branch fiddle roads need some sort of connection with the main lines. It is realistically possible for a train to leave down the branch and later re-appear on the up main, possibly having turned depending on how the various junctions are arranged. Secondly, remember that the reversing loop will mainly be used to turn locos, not whole trains, and you can see how a loco at either end of a train in any of the storage roads could uncouple, run around the reversing loop past it's train, work it's way through the points fans and couple up to the other end. In extremis it is possible for any whole train to be reversed without appearing on stage like this: Down Down train enters any one of storage roads 1-9 A route is then set from that road, around the loop and into the headshunt road 13 The trains pulls forward around the loop into road 13. [The train has now reversed and is facing Up but it needs to clear the reversing headshunt and enter storage until needed] The headshunt points at O3 are then set for the clockwise loop and the train reverses around the loop until it has cleared the points feeding into one of the West storage roads 6-9. (Or roads 9-12 if you want it to re-appear coming Up the branch line.) A route is then set from the loop to the desired storage road and the train pulls forward into it. [The train is now facing Up and it can enter the scene on the Up main when required] Up Up train enters any of the storage roads 1-12 A route is then set from that road, around the loop and into the headshunt road 13 The trains reverses around the loop into road 13. [The train has now reversed and is facing Down but it needs to clear the reversing headshunt and enter storage until needed] The headshunt points at O3 are then set for the clockwise loop and the train pulls forward around the loop until it has cleared the points feeding into one of the East storage roads 1-8. A route is then set from the loop to the desired storage road and the train reversed into it. [The train is now facing Down and it can enter the scene on the Down main when required]

Maybe a small lineside shed would be more appropriate, then. Perhaps with a few associated structures like a provender store, tin sheds and grounded vans.

Yes, I think that's best on balance. Yes, I am bearing that mind. I might use trees as view blockers in some places, maybe taking one or two considered liberties but I am mindful to keep the tracksides clear generally. The NW to SE route through the scissors is the normal goods to branch loop crossover of course. The SW to NE route gives access to the dock siding without having to shunt through the goods shed and is quite a space-efficient formation. (See Pewsey.) I had hoped that trains using the branch platform could stand foul of the SW scissor points (P6). Is that wrong? Hmmm, I see, yes... I'm wary of expanding the station too far because that's the slippery slope to the scenic area being filled by station again (!) and I'm not sure I could make the connection west of the junction points like Patney because the line almost immediately starts a 2ft radius turn whose position is dependant on the connection to the fiddle yard. I wonder if that arrangement would be a bit outside the B&H style but I think I've seen something like it in my research. It would open up the possibility of using the current goods loop for running round branch trains without using the main lines and might remove the need for the scissors. So it's an attractive idea. Exactly. Part of the reason for dropping the military sidings was to control the length of the station. (On the 1924 map I posted earlier you can see the weighbridge is on the Down side near the military sidings.) Thanks for your thoughts!

Update: I thought about whether a true operating well would work but unfortunately that would make the layout wider and then it would only fit in one location in my house. Worse, the whole design would really have to be turned inside out so the operator could see the scenic area from the well but then the staging of the scene wouldn't work for exhibition. Operation of uncouplers in the goods yard will just have to be made as reliable as possible! Station track plan I decided that I was satisfied with the run round facilities as originally drawn because HP is a small station in the countryside with very few, if any, terminating services. When run round is needed the main Up line is used and for that reason I have also retained the double-slip at the west end of the station (J6). Part of the thinking behind that decision is not wanting to make the station busier with more trackwork, which would make it look more significant than it is and would squeeze out some surrounding scenery. Similarly I toyed with the idea of adding a second branch siding but decided on balance against it. Many small stattions on the B&H (extension) just had a simple goods loop directly off the main line with a siding at one end. The double-slip could still be changed to a single if the run round manoeuvre was allowed to reverse from Up Main through the branch junction instead. I need some expert opinions on that, please. Most goods services run through and the goods yard is only intended for local traffic, not for exchange. In special cases when wagons need to be transferred from mainline trains to branch trains (or vice versa) they can be left in the goods yard spur at R6-S6 or the branch siding, H5-K5. To make it easier for Down traffic to leave or pickup goods vehicles I've added a siding of the Down line behind the signal box (H6-K6) with catch point. Patney & Chirton had a similar siding off the Down military loops so it's in the spirit of the place. I moved the goods shed as far right (east) as I could to help with shunting the branch siding. Behind the scenes I realised that the turning triangle wasn't very useful because a locos can be turned simply by running round the reversing loop and that's a simpler move that all the starting and stopping and changing points that the triangle would have required. Removing the triangle simplifies the reversing loop baseboard and opens up the centre of the loop for some loco storage spurs. Exchanging a small Y for a 3-way point at the left allows further storage spurs inside the end curves at the left. Landscape From my visit to Patney I realised that a big river or canal on the layout would be out of place. The area is a shallow valley between higher downland to north and south with only small watercourses crossing it. (That's partly why the railway is there of course, Duh!) That also means my plan for a water mill a la Kintbury had to go - but that's OK because a simple scene will give a better sense of the place: Chalk downs in the far distance with beech hangers on their shoulders, small fields blanketing the more gentle undulations nearby, hedgerows full of hawthorn and blackthorn (possibly in bloom), red brick cottages with thatched roofs. I have started to sketch in a possible landscape: The fields looks small but they are deliberately compressed and I would aim to play perspective tricks to by making hedgerows and other features under scale towards the backscene. I've got a cunning plan for making the tracks disappear on the left without using the hackneyed overbridge or tunnel mouth. I'll have to do some experiments to see if it will work.

That's really interesting and, as you say, would make a really unusual manoeuvre for a model. I had an inkling that's what you meant but I've never heard of it being done before - it sounds a bit dangerous! Excellent. That adds even more to the operating potential.

I couldn't see an obvious place elsewhere on the forum for my photos of Patney so here they are: https://photos.app.goo.gl/q6PB1CSkSpPizKzB8 I believe the footbridge (or at least a footbridge) is retained to allow a public footpath to cross the line - even though the road bridge is only a hundred metres away. Edit: Although the villages of East And West Kennett are only a few miles NNW of Patney the nearest river is the Salisbury Avon. In fact, the main line crosses over it just half a mile down the tracks without any drama because it's not much more than a stream at that point.

Noted but remember that this is a smaller design than Upton Hanbury and so something's got to give! The Junction adds a different set of operations, which to some degree compensate for the loss of the dedicated refuge sidings and the simpler goods yard. One of the major goals of both Upton Hanbury and Hannet Purney was/is simply to see mainline traffic running at speed - something which a BLT just can't do. I think (hope) Hannet Purney still ticks that box. The difficulty in running round has been noted already. It can be done but you have to use the main line. I'm thinking about that. And as Mike says, there are opportunities to use the branch platform loop, and maybe even the branch itself, as refuge for slow good trains (er, if I understand him right...)

Post-war 1:2500 maps have the 100m grid on them, which makes it easy to measure distances. You can match known positions on those maps to the same positions on older maps to get a pretty good distance measurement. With Google Maps you can right click on a point and choose "Measure Distance" then click again to get a measurement, And again, if you can match known positions on the Google map to an older map that then allows you to get reasonable distances from older maps.

Those are JPEG compression artefacts.

Colour perception is subjective and people can see the same thing in different ways. Remember that widely publicised meme recently about the dress that some people though was gold and others thought was blue. I don't see "green" but I do see a colour that is "greener" - so I can see what Cofga means. FWIW: If you use your favourite graphics program to sample the pixels in Cofga's image they do have a slightly greener hue on the Collett corridor than the Autocoach. That was just one pixel on each coach - possibly an extreme case. To assess it properly an average would need to be taken under controlled lighting.

Slightly off-topic: I've investigated and I don't think it's possible to create a larger radius slip within the Streamline geometry of 12 degree turn & 2 inch track centre separation. A small change to the crossing angle would allow an inner slip (point blades within the crossing diamond) to have a significantly larger radius (e.g. 9 degrees should allow something like 42in radius). But it would no longer be part of the Streamline system. You'd need at least a matching 9 degree straight point to create a double-track crossover and, really, a whole set of matching 9 degree points and crossings to make a new system and then formations would generally be longer than the Streamline equivalents, even if you allowed for closer, more prototypical, track centres. An outside slip at the 12 degree crossing angle would break the Streamline 2 inch track separation requirement. So that's why the Streamline slips have such abrupt radii and why they are the only game in town.

I went to STEAM today and then detoured down to Patney to have a look and get an idea of the landscape. I'll post some of the Patney photos in a suitable subforum later. I need to gets to grips with the new camera and gallery apps that seem to have been installed on my phone first... Grrr...

That's right. Here's the formation aligned horizontally on a 305mm (1ft) grid: The two large Ys in the running lines are part of a longer curve (that's the main trick here) and the opposing large Y allows the branch to start diverging from the main lines at a relatively shallow 6 degrees.