Lacathedrale

@009 micro modeller you make a good point about shuttle if no runaround was required - but I'm not sure that's really the case for what I'd like to depict. If I went end-to-end then I'd probably go O-16.5 or 5.5mm scale, but I don't imagine shunting a dozen identical slate wagons would be much fun! It seems ebay has a Quarry Hunslet with cab that fits a Kato 11-109 chassis, and a WG Bagnall contractor which fits a Koppel chassis - and the pair could be mine for £125 - both of which seem to meet my criteria of being able to be run around fairly tight curves.

LNWR Coaches suitably remediated and another painted, but then the coupling hook crumbled to nothing in my hands. Each coach only had one functional hook anyway, so now it's unusable. I've also found the Ratio axles to be 1-1.5mm longer than those from Gibson/etc. so my replacement wheel rattles around like anything. I'd really rather not re-bogie them but I'm not sure what to do!

Thank you @Nick C - I've removed 7 and 23. Frankly I'm not sure I'm going to include FPLs on my lever frame at all, but duly noted for the extras required if I do. Signal 18 is because the Advanced Starter isn't a full train length from 32, because otherwise it would be off-layout. If I ever add a nice curved corner section to the layout I'll be sure to remove 18, move 17 and add the Outer Home :) Good point about potential additional shunts!

I seem to have lost my reply, which is frustrating. @009 micro modeller I specifically am interested in North/West Wales quarry settings, so motorbogies and trams aren't that helpful (though I do appreciate the advice!) and I'm quite happy with bug-boxes and slate wagons with an 0-4-0 or 0-4-2. @Keith Addenbrooke I have the space, I want a railway layout in the house rather than in the garage. It would easily fit a shunting puzzle or branch terminus (most likely with a plug-in fiddle yard) but a continuous run with a focus on scenics would be a nice contrast to the focus I've hitherto had on mainline passenger operations, and with my interest in welsh NG it seems an idea that meets both those goals. In terms of realism, I understand that bar couplers aren't unknown, and I would expect to mask at least one of the very tight return loops with hills, tunnels, bridges or dense woodland. I am not completely adverse to using wider radii - presumably 9" is suitable for everything - but in doing so I am eating up a large portion of my available space as well as overlapping the shelf - so if it's not required for what I want to run, then so much the better.

I've got a shelf above my desk about 4'6 x 13" and I've been mulling over what to put there. I have just got my larger 00 mainline passenger terminus layout to an operational state and that needs to settle for a while before I do anything else to it. I had considered some 3mmFS since it's been a long term interest and a short term, fairly self-contained project seems like a good opportunity, but despite the limited scope I just don't have the large blocks of time dedicated that it really deserves right now. I still do want to have a bit of railway in my office, though - the shelf is just a wasteland of half-printed parts and boxes of paint, so it needs SOMETHING. As massive fan of the real-life Talylynn, Corris and Ffestiniog and recently having enjoyed George Williamson's fascinating video series on building a perio-Corris diorama, I wondered if there might be some mileage in it - a combination of ready-to-run and kit-built with a focus on scenery and weathering and a continuous run. The major issue looks like it's going to be the return loops. While I'm OK with the layout protruding dogbone-style beyond the shelf edge, I'd rather it didn't - and so that means a radius of about 5-5.5" maximum in order there's a bit of space for scenics before hitting the baseboard edge. Is this feasible, or should I really be looking at making the baseboard wider around the reverse curves? I am quite happy to foregoe the double-fairlies and larger stock (though the Fairlie would be a right win if it were compatible)

@TheSignalEngineer are you able to explain the flip-flop back-to-back FPL?

My idea is for the signal box to sit between p1 and the pilot siding facing the track. @TheSignalEngineer any advice you can give about modifications I would appreciate, my brain is jelly thinking about it!

Found one of the LNWR bogies was missing a frame end, so was being pulled laterally and dropping the wheelset - so time for a bit of emergency fannying around. When I grabbed it I posed next to my recently repainted version: I haven’t made a big effort to tidy up the edges at all, but even this first pass, I think is a significant improvement. The track also got a thorough clean and seems to be behaving much better now.

Thank you @bécasse I want to show the Advanced Starter and Shunt-Ahead signal on the layout - there is a road overbridge scenic break so that seems reasonable for me to justify it! Added as No. 18 and everything shuffled up one. @Grovenor not sure how I missed the Up Main shunt signal, but added. I added as a new lever instead of the spare lever 9, because with the normal lies to shunt P1, P2, P3 only involves levers, 28, 29, 30 and 31. The siding and dock from the up main both require levers on opposite ends of the cabin (30, 31 and 3, 4) so on balance a higher numbered lever would be better - but I reckon it needs to slot in below the up main point levers? @Michael Hodgson - I haven't built a single working signal yet, so I don't quite want to say I'm going to build a gantry with 9 on it - we'll have to see!

Well, I can't quite believe it myself - but the layout is fully operational. There is a small list of things to do, the main one being to give everything a good clean - but I ran out all the locos and coach rakes and back, did a bit of shunting, etc. and no fundamental problems as far as I can tell. The once, and future king Stroudley's Suburban Survivors Frankly I feel a bit like a dog who has caught his tail - so it's definitely time to slow and and reflect a bit before anything else.

I couldn’t sleep at all this morning and I’ve been up since 3 o’clock - so I managed to fit some hooks for tension lock couplers onto my bogie coach rake (for which a little part of me died inside, and the only solace I can take is that it’s temporary) My LNWR set of coaches arrived and I think the eBay auction description was a little poor form, but I’m sure they’ll brush up well. I need to find a 14mm wheeled axle from somewhere, and one coach buffer - but the biggest change is going to be painting them properly. The above picture is a quick colour test using Vallejo Nocturnal Red mixed with Black. The intermediate section is just to use up the paint on my palette. I have a extremely light blue grey which I think I will use on the panels, but it’s already looking slightly more respectable!

Thank you, @bécasse - I was basing my initial signalling ideas off Mr. Denny's Buckingham - his consideration was that signals should also energise model railway track sections, and so needed many discrete signals to support the exact moves proposed. I'm pleased to see in real life it would be significantly less! Ground Signals - removed 21, but made 19 and 20 red. Release Crossover - I had already expected this to be a ground frame, hence 'G', with 12 being the release. Distant vs Shunt Ahead - Fair point, and I understand the distants would be red fishtails, but to keep things easy to edit on the diagram they are for now marked in yellow. Platform Shunts - Also a fair point, removed. Presumably the platform shunt signals would be required if no 17 was the home signal for the next box along, rather than being an advanced starter? Here is a further slimmed down signalling diagram taking your advice into account, in what I hope is the final iteration: I have numbered as follows: 1 & 2 - Down Crossover w/ FPL 3 & 4 - Loop Crossover w/ FPL 5 & 6 - P2/3 Crossover w/ FPL 7 - Loop/Dock Point 8 - Ground frame release 10 - Siding shunt signal 11-13 - Platform Homes 14-16 - Platform Distants 17 - Advanced Starter 18-20 - Platform Starters 21-22 - Shunt Signals 23-24 - Pilot Siding Signals 25 & 26 - Pilot Siding and FPL 27 + 28 - P2 Departure Point 29 + 30 - P3 Departure Crossover My logic for this is that starting at one end and working inwards from either end, a signalman can pull off the turnouts in routed sequence for the arrival or departure of a train, ending in either Platform distants or the Advanced starter which straddle the middle of the frame. In order to facilitate that I have changed the normal lie of what is now 5+6 so they only need to be reversed for arrival into P2, which is the same end of the frame for the rest of the arrival points and signals. I'm quite happy with this and hope it's the last iteration!

Thank you @Michael Hodgson! Some renumbering as below: Missing pilot siding shunt signal - I'm not that smart, I'm afraid! Added as 18. P3 Runaround Loop - I am happy to omit 9 & 10 and save me the trouble of building and motorising them. The ground frame unlock lever (12) would be interlocked with 3/6/13/16 in some way, so I don't feel that the crossover requires signals. I'm happy to be disabused of this notion! Shunt signals to loop/dock: I have condensed the original 7&8 into a single 7 Shunt signals from loop/dock/headshunt - 19/20/21 are all suitable positions for yellow shunt signals, but according to https://www.railsigns.uk/sect3page3.html these were not in use until post-1925. I am not about to double-up these for the sake of it, so I am thinking of omitting them entirely unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Thoughts?

My first attempt at signalling: I understand that yellow shunt signals can be passed at danger, and all of those so noted appear to be able to be passed as such. I am however, not at all sure if 'yellow shunt signals' as even a thing in 1911. Though the LBSCR/SR were quite generous with their shunt signals, I feel as though these would all be through hand signals/etc. from the signalbox rather than in situ. If anyone has advice on this it would be gladly appreciated! Signals 1-3 and 4-6 are home and calling on/shunt signals for the platforms. I understand this could also be represented as distant and stop signals respectively, but ringed shunt arms are slightly more unusual than fishtails so I'm likely to keep this as is. Signals 7 and 8 are for the loop and dock, could potentially be condensed into a single signal but I can see arguments both ways. Signals 11-13 are starter signals for departure on those platforms, and 14-16 are shunt signals for carriage marshalling and pilot movements. Signal 16 is a shunt for the pilot loco siding. Signal 17 is notionally the limit of shunt as advanced starter and would probably also have a slotted distant on it (for we imagine a junction slightly further along)

Excellent, thank you - I could reassign 4-8 as 8-8 and then have the remaining 4 normal to have arrivals defaulting to P3, but half the fun in this layout is likely to be the shunting around of carriage stock from trapped locos - so I don't want to make things too easy for myself. I guess the biggest take-away from this is that I need each lever to be able to potentially make two circuits for two separate point motors. If I'm using mechanical interlocking that's all that's required and I think based on the complexity required for FPLs and signal levers to electronically interlock it'd just be simpler to use mechanical locking :)

As expected, the Zimo chips were a world apart and worked perfectly as soon as I had disabled acceleration/deceleration (since I use that function on the handset) - it had taken them about 25 deconds to get to full speed before that. I have (as is tradition) lost one of the chassis fixing screws for Boxhill as well. Sigh. If anyone knows what spec the screw is I'd quite like to buy one, particularly since it's also retains the coupling :( The LNWR Precedent performed admirably, but my hope that the 21-to-8-pin adapter would be suitable was dashed, the tower of power is just too tall to fit inside the diminutive tender. It does tend to lope a bit, and my hope is that with running it in will smooth out. I have also worked out (with the help of a number of people in the Signalling subforum) a notional signal box diagram of the layout - it's still a WIP and requires the actual signals to be represented, but I'm quite happy with it so far: It's not something I'm really working on too actively except during downtime at the office, so I am permitting myself this extravagance :) EDIT: I have finished the basic cladding on all the platforms, though there's a little bit to do on the concourse. I think I need those buffers recessed into the platform surface on the running lines, which may involve some cutting - so I'm going to call time on this particular sub-project for now. In terms of the next few working sessions: 1. Recieve and fit the 21-pin Zimo decoder into the Precedent 2. Repair the dings on the LNWR rake (one missing axle, one broken coupler, one missing buffer) 3. Fit bars for tension-lock coupling to the scratch-bash rake That done, I am somewhat befuddled to say: the layout will be operational!

Updated track diagram: For the sake of convenience I've kept the original numbers for the levers. I appreciate these will all change in due course: 1 - Down Main Crossover - requires FPL 2 - Up Main Crossover - requires FPL 3 - spare 4 - Platform 2/3 Crossover - requires FPL 5 - Sidings/P3 Crossover - requires FPL 6 - Headshunt 7 - spare 8 - Platform 1 access - requires FPL 9 - spare 10 - Loco Siding 12 - Platform 3 Loop crossover

The F360 files might make things simpler, but in no way do I wish to take away any of your thunder on this one! The S4 lever frames have closed ends every five levers into which there are tube bearings for the microswitch mounting rod, which presumably limits the flex to something reasonable. While thinking about how to provide intermediate support, I reckon I've imagined a better solution overall: a clamp-type attachment onto the rear leg of the frames which is held in place with nuts/bolts, providing a pill-shaped boss with the two bearing holes for the rod to register through. I imagine a pair of 2mm mounting holes in the rear leg would make things easier, (or indeed simply adding the bosses to the frames) but it would then be compromising the original and prototypical design.

1 & 7 becoming just '1' makes sense and so done :) I'm not sure about the normal lie change for 4 and 5 - could you please explain your logic behind the change? It would appear that the down main would then run into the loop as normal, and arrivals into both P3 and P2 would require 4 to be reversed. The connection between 4 and 8 is only used for departures from P2.

Yea, good point - I hadn't considered the drawing was showing an impossilbe arrangement! Refactored to show normal lies and numbers, and linked tie rods of the Double slip: I think I've just had a eureka moment - because neither of the left/buffer end of the double slip is valid from the perspective of the throat, and so reversing the 5 in the throat MUST reverse that of the slip.

Yes, the Peco turnouts have a single bar for both roads on either side of the turnouts: Is this what you meant? I can't quite see how this works though, because getting from the up/down main to carriage siding requires 5R in the throat, but 5N in the slip? It seems to defeat the whole point if using a double-slip in the first place if I can only cross it in one route? I'm starting to think it might be better to just have these as three separate levers, my brain is like scrambled egg!

I'm sorry, I'm getting muddled up trying to figure this one out. I've re-written this reply a few times trying to puzzle what the implications are :( Do you mean right hand while approaching from direction of travel, or right hand from the plan's birds eye view?

@Michael Hodgson I too am expecitng to use the up main for shunting - the notes and signalling on this plan are a great first draft but do not reflect the 'current' status - which is why I'm mainly focusing on the levers. I did mention in my OP "I'm not worrying about interlocking or signalling at this point," The period I'm aiming for is 1911 - I just wanted to clarify the potential difficulties and cost-savings that might be at play. Particularly the length of rodding runs. This is a secondary terminus after all! Setting aside the signalling just for a bit, since that's got a lot more rigour to go through, to talk through your points: 7 and 1 - Is it simply a factor of the normal lie, that 7 being set to reverse must require 1 to be reversed also? It's not clear to me why the normal lie of the Down would be much more likely to go into Platform 3? I am very much standing on the shoulder of giants here,. Arrivals to P2 - as you have surmised, definitely through 5 normal - the crossover formed by 4 and 8 is for P2 departure, which blocks the fewest other platform roads. Arrivals into P1 - I like the idea of Arrivals into P1 being relatively rare, but I'm not about to start pulling up the track at this point :) @Jeremy Cumberland can you please clarify about 6 and 5? I can't see why they need to work together and it seems your second sentence contravenes your first? Would the trap point for 11 really work on the same lever as the actual point on 10? I'm happy to save some space and locking!

Excellent, that's a lot of patience, right there! Reviewing the S4 Society frame, it looks like they mount microswitches against the long end of the lever arm, while the bottom of the lever is as you have described for connection to an interlocking system. Maybe this could be facilitated with exterior end plates through which run the 2.5mm rods for the microswitch to mount to? I've whipped something up in Fusion360: The idea being it could be fitted non-destructively as a girdle to any existing lever frame of your design to provide an interim microswitch solution while interlocking/etc. was worked on. I'd be happy to continue this if you are at all interested, though I imagine your solution would be far more elegant! More along your specific point about fragility - I wonder if the addition of a brass plate infront of the catch-rod guides and atop the frame rails might be a simple expedient for stability? I would've thought the hooks for the springs would be the most fragile aspect.

It occurs to me on my layout, while musing about signalling at the office, that there seem to be three pairs of turnouts which always need to actuate at the same time, those marked 2, 4, 5 and 9 below: It seems than rather interlocking where the first lever unlocks the second lever which then locks the first - they could simply be keyed off the same lever? Number 9 is a local ground frame, unlocked by signal box Lever 12 Are there any other pairs I've missed, or obvious muck-ups? I'm not worrying about interlocking or signalling at this point, but it's indicated on this plan courtesy of @Regularity and more generally on the horizon while I think about levers, frames, microswitches, etc. Incidentally my assumption for the default position of the turnouts is that Down Main runs to P2, and P1 to Up Main, and Loop into Turntable road.