Regularity

“…I’m half frozen, me b@@@s are going blue. I haven’t got a Johnny, A plastic bag will do. But you’ll look sweet, on the beach, with me on top of you.”

I have found that a single siding, if it be long enough (say 10 standard wagon lengths) can be more interesting to shunt than two sidings with an equivalent total capacity, as wagons need to be sorted into the correct order to be placed at specific loading spots. Many wagons - including coal, opens and vans - might be (un)loaded wherever they were left, if the (un)loading was direct from rail to road, but some traffic would require specific locations, such as coal merchant who was renting ground for coal stacking, goods requiring a crane, or goods to be dealt with in the goods shed. And some wagons that are already present in the siding might be only partially dealt with, and require putting back where they were, once the shunting has finished. Use of a shunting chain has meant that kick-backs haven’t been a problem for me (although the siding had a capacity for 4 wagons, I usually exchanged two at a time), but you still need to plan ahead with some of the moves. I took this simple layout to the Scale show, back in 1996, with one loco, one brake, 2 vans, one open, 2 coal wagons and 4 mineral wagons for the kick back. The kick-back had capacity for 4 wagons, as stated, and 10 wagons could be squeezed into the long siding. The loco run off could store the brakevan whilst the (tank) loco was running round/shunting, and the loop had a capacity for 5 wagons plus the brake van. I hardly got to operate the layout, as my two “assistants” unceremoniously booted me off my own layout! Whilst I was away, they borrowed a cattle wagon, which really snarled things up as far as the brakevan was concerned (that was the point of the design) and also a steam rail motor, the presence of which I never saw! Barry Norman very kindly gifted me his sketch of my track plan, along with the copyright to use it. I later modified it, and wished I hadn’t, as it lost something despite gaining an extra siding: 4 turnouts, the layout was 10’ long in S scale, so would be about 8’4” long in 4mm scale, but could be fitted into 8’ - as it has been for another S scale layout developed either independently or with subconscious influence! (Linked image, but my photo!)

I remember a music teacher playing that at school. I think he and I were the only people in the room who didn’t know about the other words to that song. I couldn’t stop laughing, mostly at the look of horror on his face!

Rough and ready calculation… With 60” (5’) wheels going at 60 mph, the axle will be revolving at 280 rpm. with 30” wheels, an axle rpm of 280rpm produces 30 mph. I.e. speed in MPH = driving wheel diameter in inches x 280 rpm. Since engines with larger wheels were designed to go faster, and certainly through most of the 19th century the biggest limitation on speed was driving wheel RPM (due to piston speeds, and the ability of bearings/glands for wheels and cylinders to cope with much above 300 RPM, or probably even close to it in the early days), then you can use one ratio for everything, unless you want something to go particularly slowly (or faster). Also, the speeds quoted are the maximum “no load” speeds, so it is useful - but not essential - to work at about 75% of that most of the time. Long story short, the 381 rpm will work very well for virtually anything, including a bit of high speed running every now and again (a Stirling single at 380 rpm will just about exceed Mallard’s record!) but if you only have a short run and never get up to full throttle, you can always go for something slower. Remember that the driving wheels are used as part of the trade-off between tractive effort and speed on the real thing, so are part of the “gearing” mechanism on the prototype. Also, if you have an independent final drive, then in the unlikely event of a mechanism failure, you can simply replace it with a new one without having to remove the wheels.

On which note, do you get many invitations? ;)

You will find life easier with either inside or outside hornblocks, but not with both! It will look better with outside hornblocks, and there is enough space between the inside face of the outside frames and the wheels to have compensation beams there. You could even make the inside frames entirely cosmetic, and part of the body, with slots dropping down over the axles.

If you had read, or remembered having red, Peter Denny’s WSP books on the Buckingham Branch, you could have saved yourself this lesson. An early variant of Buckingham Mk II had such a siding, but it was never used and he took it out… William probably wants too much, too soon, to find S scale suitable for him: it is not for “quick wins”.

Personal recommendation: Rock the leading axle axle side to side, with twin beams on the drivers, one on each side. You can then more easily fit the mechanism based on how it best fits without worrying about beams being in the way. The side beams can be made out of 15 thou material, and rest on top of the axle boxes, with a simple screw each side for the pivots. I do the same for 0-6-0s, and for a 4-4-0 or 0-4-4 would have twins beams for the drivers, with the bogie pivot as the third point. The bogie itself would have twin beams as well. Cross beam: Side beam: Diagram of 4-coupled bogie: A shot of a small 2-4-0T chassis, which has made no progress since 2005! (I know the rods are on upside down, but I was just testing ride height at the time.) Slightly fuzzy overhead shot to show the central pivot on the leading axle:

The layout I have most enjoyed over the years was the one I had 44 years ago. It was a double track terminus feeding a double track return loop: the junction for that was just outside “station limits” but within easy reach of the operating position at the station throat. If I were doing that again, I would add an isolating section on each loop, to allow for two trains to be stored in each line, giving more variety, although I had barely enough stock for that! In concept, although I wasn’t aware of it at the time, it was very similar to L.E. Carroll’s layout based on Victoria although a lot more limited. The only problem with return loops is the need for space: two times the minimum radius plus additional tracks in width and three times the length in addition to everything else - the Victoria layout looped back on itself, and meant a 3’ radius minimum within a garage, about 16’x 8’. There are alternative fiddle yards arrangement, but I think a variant on the Denny pattern with a train tray fed via pointwork (personally I would go for a scissors crossover incorporating double slips at one end on the approach to allow for simultaneous departures and arrivals) is the least disruptive: only need to get up and turn it once it has been emptied and refilled, rather than every time a train is needed. It would be possible to use a John Coulter style traversing traintable, with something to index a motorised traverser function. A simple manual release to allow the deck to be slid out and turned would have to incorporated, but the requirement for approach pointwork would be eliminated. Hmm. Now there’s a thought… But you makes your choices, hopefully to fit your own circumstances.

No one will prevent you from making your own.

I have always used red oxide primer as a base for reds and browns.

Don’t expect too much wisdom? Joking apart, you have my sympathies, although in my case they were removed many years ago…

No. They specifically said Birmingham.

General goods, a crane perhaps - one bigger than in the goods shed, and for direct loading between railway and road. The goods shed would be used for small consignments, special loads, anything requiring extra paperwork or security, or dry storage until collection. Those loads might come on several wagons, so space to store wagons whilst others are dealt with is useful. When unloaded/loaded in the shed, wagons can be wheeled out by hand or horse, and others moved in to be dealt with. Any wagons waiting to be dealt with are taking up space that cannot be used for loading/unloading, so a siding parallel to them makes sense.

What about the long stretch from north of Preston to south of Carlisle?

When my father worked in Leicester, someone in the office once said they had never been north of Birmingham. Anyway, it’s in the Midlands*, which is why the railway was called the Midland Railway. * Of England. The Scottish Midlands seem to be about Angus way, based on the railway company of that name. And the “British Midlands” are probably what the English call “The North”.

Hi William, If you can mark, cut and file accurately, the only issue with building a compensated chassis, or a loco, is one of familiarity with the tools and materials, which means time. My first chassis was ok, but needed rebuilding to chase out the slop, after which it ran very smoothly. (I tried making my own hornblocks guides, as I was too impatient to wait for mail order - this was pre-internet days when it might take a few days or even weeks.) it’s just a question of taking your time, enlightened impatience, and being prepared to redo things which aren’t good enough, until you get the hang of it. That’s the nub of the issue, expressed in terms relevant to you. And yes, I think by adopting 00 you can probably get more into the space. You are also stating that you want things to look realistic, without necessarily having them precisely so - if it looks good, it is right, rather than if it is right, it looks good. (And that latter point doesn’t always apply! So, that’s that solved. The only questions is, what wheel/track standards are you going to use, and will you be using Peco (especially the new bullhead range as they have announced a slip with makes for much more interesting possibilities) or building it for yourself, maybe with a bit of gauge narrowing to get finer flangeways without needing to rewheel everything? I liked the twig off the branch on Charford, especially the way the station was contrived to look like a through station but could be operated as a terminus. But you could have a freight line. Reception sidings and a couple of sorting sidings alongside your terminus, maybe even dealing with general goods there, and a line off to a goods/coal yard in front of the fiddle yard.

Intentional use, or an accidental pun?

The only questions you need to ask yourself are varieties of “how much”: How much layout do I want? How much space does it need? How much space do I have? How much money will I put towards it? How much time will I be able to spend on it? The more you want of the first two, the more you need of the other three, regardless of whether you go for RTR or scarchbuilding (as two extremes). The less reliance you place on RTR, the more time you will need, but it may cost you less money. The curves you can fit into your space may do more to determine the best scale/gauge combination for you than anything else, when it comes to matching available space to what you want from a layout - not from individual models, but a layout as a whole. If you start off with RTR, with the aim of eventually changing tack to an earlier era with finer tolerances, and more hand building, then bear in mind that the initial time will require a fair bit of money and time to get anywhere and that time and money will have been used up against what you might really want - unless you are happy with something simple like Leysdown. On the other hand, a simple layout like Leysdown can be built fairly quickly to finer standards as well as for RTR, and would give you the chance to see if you want these finer tolerances in the first place. As I have some of you hand built models, I know you are capable of producing work to the required standard, so at least you don’t have to worry about that. I built a simple 4-turnout layout very quickly: baseboards one weekend, got the cork down one evening, and had the sleepers down and ballasted by the weekend, ready for laying the track, which was another weekend’s task. (With quite a few breaks as it was a bit tedious.) Using RTR track would have saved me maybe a week of that effort, and everything which followed would have been the same whatever I was doing. That layout went to three shows, and then became someone else’s. He rebuilt a few things and then extended it. On his death it went to someone else who has reduced it back to more or less the original size, but it is still a bit too big for him so it is coming back home to me, 27 years after it was first built. It started with 4 turnouts, but I added a fifth, and the second owner added a sixth (which I felt unbalanced it a bit). It has reverted to 5 and I shall leave it that. In the interim, I have built the stock that I meant to build for that layout, but not the planned successor to it, although there have been a number of false starts! It will still serve me well, despite its modest capabilities. I also have Lydham Heath to play with, for all that it has 3 turnouts with the fiddle serving as the fourth. 2 locos, 1 coach, 1 brakevan, and a dozen wagons. Surprisingly satisfying to operate. The point is, I have had quite a few attempts at something “more” to match the enjoyment I have had operating East Lynn, but to no avail. It’s quite a lot of work to build something like that - which is not always off-putting - but it only really comes alive as a layout when there are two good operators working the terminus (plus a third good operator if Nunnstanton is connected) otherwise there’s too much for one person, and if one of the operators isn’t a “natural”, then it can get frustrating: something to bear in mind, if you want a layout that really is at its best with more than one operator - unless you want to have an automated fiddle yard, like Buckingham.

Ah, touché! (If you had seen the mangling of French that autocorrect correct had made of some attempted responses, you would see that typo as quite mild.)

Ah, desolé.

Les cork sheet rolls sont arrivé, vraimont?

They certainly have more reverence for Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Chaucer and Shakespeare.

When he was a toddler, I could always get my son to do what was requested when he didn’t want to, simply by providing him with an alternative but less desirable option, and letting him choose. It strikes me that Petulant Putin needs a similar situation, and the “West” needs to come up with a way for Putin to claim some form of “victory” at home, which won’t make anyone else - particularly Ukraine. Not an easy solution, but made harder by Macron and Scholz playing to some part of their domestic audience.

Quite. Very nice people, very awful politicians!