Regularity

Even within the UK, eBay’s GSP is poor: expensive, and difficult to track because of the courier they use - and that applies to imports from abroad, too. I have had problems with Parcelforce: letter requesting VAT payment not delivered, and package returned to sender. He has had this happen twice this year and won’t ship to the UK anymore. Best service I have had has been with UPS. Never had a problem, and clear tracking.

Using hand-built track, or possibly some Tillig RTP, you can produce a much more visually satisfying look with a double slip, outside single slip, a “three-way” and a trap point: Excluding the trap, if using the definition of a turnout per the Micro Layouts web site (a single purchased item) then this is a “3-point terminus”, per Ian Futers!

One wonders why you asked… But anyway, here is a very quick sketch, based on something I actually started on 28 years ago. The red slip line is unnecessary, as the green route does what is required, allowing for a simultaneous arrival and departure, and not reducing the throat to a single track.

One slip route is superfluous: a single slip does the necessary, with the slip on the outside route. I think I have posted this somewhere earlier in the thread.

Which the late Bob Barlow referred to as a “thoroughly juvenile moment”.

Blue in winter. Black in coal mining districts? Great if lucky!

I never really progressed beyond the last two words out of those six!

The “ironclad” 0-6-0s which were the foundation for the later conversions or saddle tanks (preserved examples exist of both) were of Kitson design: the Taff Vale had some, too. The wheels, etc., seem to be of a standard size, similar to those supplied to the Mid Wales and Cambrian as 0-6-0s, and with slightly larger drivers, as 0-4-2s. Also to Carlisle on the BCR. They were used alongside the Sharp, Stewart locos of similar size, but didn’t last as long - wonder what it was about the LYR locos that kept them going until very near the end of steam?

Also, unless there was a particularly strong desire to promote a new colour, old stocks would be used up first, with new paint applied to new builds or full overhauls, and it would take a number of years to get through everything. (Setting aside those rogue wagons we know to have existed!)

Aye. But it needs some local birds, perhaps. Are tits native to the area?

Someone will make a clean breast of it!

I think that’s a “model railwayism”, a bit like feeling that you have to have some form of wooden pens for coal, and calling them staithes. I can only speak with knowledgeable authority about the former SMJR, and a few other stations which have interested me over the years, but all I can say from that is that loading docks and cattle docks seem to be placed wherever is most operationally suitable, and a variety of factors are at play. Quite often, these are placed to be near the main station building, and even if the goods yard is on the same side of the track as these, they may not be on the same siding. The key thing seems to be, wherever possible, to be able to couple up to or shunt loaded cattle wagons with the minimum amount of movement, especially stopping and starting and reversing direction. Then there is the question of how to get the cattle to the dock, and where you have placed yours makes a lot of sense as it would be easy for the drovers to drive the cattle to/from the market from/to the dock. As for the loading bank for side/end loading, the end of a bay platform seems quite popular, but it depends how much traffic might be using the bank. Most of the time, it might simply be for unloading goods onto, with occasional use of end/side loads. These might also take some time/effort to (un)load, and putting the facility on the same road as the goods shed, which might well see a regular turnover of wagons being pushed through it, would get in the way of efficient working. In short, I like where you have them, and there is plenty of prototype evidence of much weirder arrangements, too.

IIRC, in his WSP books, Peter mentions that he had a wooden track gauge (a block placed between the rails) which he thought was 18mm wide. He experienced better running than most modellers, and when 18.2mm was adopted for this reason, he checked his "18mm" track gauge more carefully, and found that it was actually 0.2mm wider than he thought, and that it wasn't his idea at all, just a happy coincidence.

I use a permanent marker pen. A rub with purple Scotchbrite afterwards and it isn’t so permanent after all!

A drummer: appeared on Pebble Mill at one frequently.

No one said that to the planners for the EWJR, at least at Blakesley: cattle had to be driven through the goods yard, but it was only at certain times on certain days, so no big deal. Click here for diagram… And no, the “cattle ramp” did not face onto the running line, but I am away from my photo store.

Yes: I try to fit beams such that they won’t be seen, but when you have a side tank, then there is less to worry about. The lines go through the centre of the hole in the axle box, the distances A and E are the dimension from there to the top of the axlebox. (If the axleboxes are accurately machined - with LRM’s are - then that’s half of the height.) The diameter of the pivot is irrelevant, at least the way I do it. The twin beams are cut from the same material as the frames, and the pivot passes through them, but yes, the offset simply reflects where you might want to put the pivot. The more accurately you mark out and cut the rubbing points on the beams (where the rest on the axleboxes) and mark out and drill the pivot hole, the less adjustment you will have to make later on. The rest of the shape doesn’t matter a lot!

In Mike Sharman’s case, he used to build some multi-stage gearings, with the various spurs etc running on axles mounted in the frames. A fixed axle was essential for this, but with modern gearboxes and cradles, and indeed with his own wonderful gearboxes he produced back in the day, there is no need. But Mike suggested it, and Iain Rice promoted it, and therefore it became the way to do things.

Freedom for Tooting!

If you had used the latter, you’d be able to turn it round…. ;) Belated celebrations for surviving another whole rotation around the sun.

It’s mostly common sense, and drawing it out like this puts some people off and leads to unnecessary denigration of compensation as being too complicated. Personally, I prefer to do this when marking out the frames. If using a kit, I would tack the frames together to make sure that necessary cut outs (for hornblock guides) and holes for pivots were in the right place. Hope this helps:

Yes. I use the underhung springs as axle-keeps, if the loco has underhung sprints. I cut them, and the hangers, separately from the frames, using thicker material (although I am not 100% sure it is noticeable) and with hole at the top of the hanger, which is a push fit onto a pint fixed into the chassis. It’s only a bit of extra work, but needs to be thought through and planned from the beginning. The position of the side pivots above the horizontal is calculated as half the depth of the axle box, plus or minus the height from the horizontal line connecting the ends of the Dean compared to the pivot point, depending on whether the pivot is above or below that point. I will run up a sketch.

BTW, what source is the kit?

The pivot for the leading axle can be as simple as a piece of rod fixed to a spacer, but if the axle is running in bearings, it will make sense to have a beam above the axle, parallel to it, transferring the weight to the bearings. You just need twin beams for the other two axles: you should find that you have more than enough material on the edge of the fret. Use the sketch I sent to give you a rough idea of the shape. You will need to drill and tap holes for the screws, then it’s a simple case of screw, washer(s), beam, washer, nut.

Nice loco, too. Such simple lines require attention to squareness and parallelism.