Regularity

That layout plan looks like Portreath, with an extra couple of sidings - engine shed in front of the controls, and a headshunt to access it.

I didn’t wish to upset you: leaves me on the horns of a dilemma and I must admit to feeling a bit sheepish about it. No need to ram it home, though...

If you are that close to CA, then I am afraid you will be fighting a losing battle against deviation, repetition or bawdiness, as so much of this goes on in there that you are bound to be swamped with some of the overflow...

Well, there’s a statement I never thought I’d see or hear!Modern kits must be really atrocious. In my case, and that of at least one other person I know, the experience sent us into another scale.For most, it simply meant other kits often seemed better than they really were. Anyone who thinks that K’s kits are in any way easy is the railway modelling equivalent of Mongo from Blazing Saddles: indefeatable except by oblique cunning.

Have a look at pictures of pcb track where the gap has not been filled, and you will see gaps that are far too deep for that - anything capable of something that deep would probably have dug itself into the ballast and ripped up the track in a spectacular fashion, or ripped the wagon apart (more likely). Damage from a derailed wagon would create a mild score in comparison. But let’s ignore that. Are you seriously suggesting that a real railway would let wagons repeatedly derail on both routes of all turnouts? The only excuse for leaving the gaps unfilled is that be hasn’t looked at (photos of real) point and crossings with a discerning eye. The only reason is laziness. Neither of these are attributes of a good railway modeller. After all, if we can’t model the track even halfway decently, we haven’t actually modelled (as opposed to sketchily represented) the railway at all. A tube of filler, and something to smooth it down, won’t take long to apply.

I think I’m being fleeced by ewe all.Lambentable, that’s what it is... Oops! Sorry. Mustn’t be too witty. Not on this thread.

Didn’t work: I’ve seen the film!

That’s one way to get past the rough finish of 3D printing... ...although that wouldn’t be!

Also - and always - looking at the old-maps.co.uk website: you can get an interesting shot from slightly earlier to 1:500 scale. (You will need to zoom out a bit, then zoom in on “Old Station Road” and select 1:500.)https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/256500/133500/13/100688 I think this is post gauge conversion, but with a few remnants of the extra rail still in place. Worthy of note is the crossover beyond the goods shed, allowing wagons once processed to be pushed/pulled/manhandled/horsed out and round the back, with a new load of vans pushed in. A veritable one-way system Also worth noting is that the engine release crossover is much further back along the platform, reflecting the shorter trains of the day and allowing for two trains in a single platform.

All right, don’t shout.I have removed the remarks. Anyone reading this will now think it was much filthier than it actually was. Because it wasn’t filthy. Just slightly smutty.

Like all technologies, it has its place and utility, but it is not a panacea for all situations.

I hope Mrs. Edwardian was pleased.…

Painful lessons are lessons learned most rapidly! Surely the, “WOW!” came first? (No chicken and egg jokes, please. Besides, it was the cockerel.) I hope your third reaction, though, was, “Must try harder.” Or in my case, “Making a start would be a good thing.”

As a lawyer, you will be well aware that time equals money...As an independent contractor/consultant (give me your watch, and I’ll charge you to tell you the time) I am certainly acutely aware of it. Well said. Things being made to fit an existing chassis were the bane of the hobby, and one of the big advances brought to us by Airfix and Palitoy in the 70s. Remember the errors in the Triang diesel shunter, made to fit their (soundly engineered) “Jinty” chassis? The Wills J39, fitted onto the same? What a monstrosity! If you can build pcb track, you can do the rest. That was my point. A quality finish, whether from SLS or hand finishing 3D prints, is uneconomical for a single model. However, if it is being used to develop patterns for small-batch resin castings, then the economics of it changes completely, as these costs can be spread over, say, 40 or 50 models from the first production run. But yes, I am sure it will change in time, and in two ways. Firstly, we may see ever increasing realism in virtual railways, and the 3D design will really come to the fore here. For those who are “frustrated train drivers”, is there any need for Model railways at all? Secondly, there will come a time when high quality reproduction units will be usual in the home, and rather than buy most things, people will order a design, download it and have it printed and rendered. We might have to insert a small motor.power pack, but that would be it. Neither of these will happen immediately. But then again, back in 1990 I saw what was being done in voice and speech recognition technology and thought, “That’s a long way off,”* but look at it now - you only have to have a DJ shout “Alexa” or “Siri” over the radio and chaos ensues in several million homes! * 28 years ago, but we have been able to tell our phones to make a call for a long time.

Many, many, many bays were signalled only for departures. Reason being, no run-round loop, so running round would require the main platform road anyway. Once run round, the coaches could then be put in the bay, where unlike a carriage siding, they can remain undisturbed until departure time. Most bay platforms were more than long enough to cope with the usual daily train, plus a bit more for the odd parcels/milk/npcs vehicle. Most main platforms were long enough to cope with the peak loading - and then not always!Barnstaple is a port on the North Devon coast, and a lot of its coal was delivered by boat from across the Bristol Channel. Anything else would be loaded directly from wagon to cart/lorry on the mileage or short roads. There were also two other standard gauge stations in the town, plus the L&B. The important thing with all track plans is to understand the situation and services surrounding them: looked at in isolation, you can very easily draw the wrong conclusions. Phil: the fuel siding was for petroleum and diesel, not coal. Wagons were probably pinch-barred into the siding by some sturdy men, or a rope or chain was used connected to an engine on the parallel siding. Addendum: The “short road” is still longer than most people’s main goods sidings.

I’ve waited years for the right audience* to say this to: If I added your wit to mine, we’d still be no further along... * One that sees the humour, not the insult.

My teenage years were from ages 13-19, inclusive, what were yours? So you say: must be a phrase you are going through...

Nice. Be careful to avoid short circuits in the blue circled area. The rail needs cutting back to the red line, and you need to add another insulation gap (marked by President Trump’s hair). Looking at that, you need to make sure that the copper surfaces of the interlaced sleepers aren’t touching each other, too. No wonder the prototype stopped using interlaced sleepers - too many short circuits! One request... before you paint it, but after you test it, please fill the insulation gaps in the pcb!

You sure that’s not H0? PS: This is a 1400, surely?

That’s very kind, but I fear that you may be only half-right... Dang. I’ve done it again, haven’t I?

Unlikely, I suspect. But no reason why you cannot use a tank from a model as the basis for your own.

Don’t worry.I get lots of help. The missus is a consultant psychiatrist. (True.)

Useful info: maybe Bill had used SLS? But when I mentioned 3D printing, 3D printing was what I was criticising.

You do rabbit on... That young lady appears to have dropped her phone, but has not yet realised it.

Back on thread, I must admit to rather liking the Brighton electrics, but I wonder if that’s because I was born, weaned and bred on a diet of OLE, plus 08s and 25s ?