Tortuga

I like that idea. A full depth bridge leads to a desire to place a vehicle (the ubiquitous bus!) on it, but in reality a road vehicle would be on the bridge (and therefore “on scene”) for a very limited time. By modelling just one edge of the bridge, the scenic break is there, the illusion of a quiet country lane with is preserved and less space is used.

Having spent about an hour wrestling a 1mm x 6mm scrap of 15thou styrene into position to replicate the brake lever stay on a Diag 1/108 mineral wagon last night, I salute your dedication to modelling fine detail!

That fireplace is a work of art. I’d never guess it was built up of styrene strip. Fiddly? At 12.5mm wide, I’d say so! Thanks for helping me decide what colour to stain the skirting in my “railway room”* by the way! I didn’t want white skirting, but had a mental block! (*best not let T’Missus see this; she thinks it’s our loft...)

I’m fairly certain that the workings to Swinden Quarry were separate to the daily pick-up goods - the problem is most photos cover workings in the late 60s with Standard 4s in charge.

Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure how much signalling Rylstone had when it opened - the only photo I’ve seen just shows the station building - although from Donald Binns’ book, I know the loop was installed after opening of the line to allow trains to pass. My thinking is that, assuming the branch was built extending to Hawes, the Midland (who operated the line) would have run daily passenger services through from Skipton to Hawes (and possibly onward to Garsdale on the S&C) and that these would have lasted through grouping, becoming reduced during nationalisation, rather than disappearing in the 1930s. Assuming that as a “might-have been” history, does the following sound plausible for traffic through Rylstone in the early 1960s? One or two local passenger services, a twice daily pick-up goods service (which existed until 1963 according to Donald Binns) and the mineral trains (lime and ballast) serving Swinden Quarry.

While physical progress on the layout has stalled (this time due to organising the loft into a suitable layout home), I’ve been thinking over its operation. In reality, traffic on the YDR seems to have been pretty sparse in the year I was planning on setting the layout: a single daily goods plus excursions. Although moving time back to 1962 gives two daily goods trains (plus excursions) I’m thinking operation might begin to pall over time. So what if I play with history a bit? The YDR originally intended to extend further north past Grassington (and the station was constructed with that in mind) so suppose it did? If the line served more communities north of Grassington, might the passenger service have been retained? With regular passenger trains and two daily goods plus traffic to the quarry at Swinden, might Rylstone have become fully signalled?

Ah. I think I’ve spotted the problem: A) not retired B) I quite like DIY and my wife knows it. I disagree with your B. I’ve read a few of your threads and if there are any bodges you hide them remarkably well under pure craftsmanship.

When did you start this again Andy? Your rate of progress is making amazing and that backscene... wow. Haven't a clue where to start with mine. Hell, Rylstone is still three bare boards with a run of cork underlay and a traverser frame; why am I worrying about the backscene?

Don’t leave! I like reading about your DC layout (everything I read about DCC seems to say “it’s only two wires” followed by pages of complex wiring explanations) and I’ve been massively impressed by your achievements in plastic card! Ignore the critics.

Well it’s been a while (over a year!) since any serious work on Rylstone and most of my railway time since I built the three boards has gone into planning and replanning the storage yard(s) with little actual progress on the layout. Fed up with this state of affairs (I want to do some actual railway modelling!), I found time after the rush of Christmas to get the boards up in their final home and actually see how much space was feasible (rather than available) for the storage yard(s). While a set of storage loops would be possible, I’ve decided they’d take too much time to construct and impact too much on the storage role of the room. Two traverser fiddle yards (as per the original plan) are more time- and space efficient solutions, although I’m going to have to forget about running 7-12 coach excursions, at least for the moment! Construction of the north fiddle yard commenced yesterday and after a couple of hours tonight, the whole thing is just about complete only requiring the deck to be added - apparently noisy bench saws can’t be used after 22:30 in case they wake sleeping toddlers.

Your modelling is an inspiration! That warren truss / latticework looks so much more delicate than commercial offerings and both this layout and Ladmanlow Sidings show what is possible with plasticard, micro strip and patience.

Thanks @Rowsley17D! The blackening definitely makes those loops less visible and I like the idea of latched hooks only on Locos. Although my layout does not allow for turning, I might be able to adapt your method to my needs...

Much better! Honestly, I can’t see anything wrong with the ballast around the engine shed that a weathering wash won’t sort out. As others have said, leave it for a bit, do something else, then come back to it.

Irritatingly on the wagon, they are kind of intrusive; I wondered how intrusive they are on locos

Thanks guys. They look and sound really neat. How intrusive are the loops, visually?

Are Dinghams handed? Also do they avoid the “Spratt and Winkle shuffle”?

I especially like the use of the double slip in the fiddle yard

Hoping the retaining walls on the north approach into New Street was the effect you were going for - you’ve hit it spot on!

I must have looked at that image dozens of times and never noticed those vans! I’m guessing they’re in use for the fertiliser and cattle feed traffic referred to in Donald Binns’ book of the branch. Would the parcels traffic have been dealt with using a special van? DaveF’s photos of the last days of the branch show a Standard 4MT with brake van, so I’d assumed parcels traffic would have been handled by the guards van of the daily goods.

Out of your three options you’ve outlined, I’d go for the third one for consistency and place the ballast mix one sleeper gap at a time using a minimal amount and a small paintbrush to position and pack it. Also be sparing with the pva/water mix when gluing - IIRC two drops per sleeper gap is plenty. The real b****r is the tiny gap either side of the tie bar: I think I used a watchmakers screwdriver to push fine (Woodland Scenics) ballast down the gap, repeatedly moving the tie bar side to side and relying on capillary action of the glue mix from the surroundings to secure it. It’s fiddly to do and a right royal pain in the a**e, but it looked OK. I wasn’t happy with the visual effect of the spring mechanism or the thickness of the tie bar though, so next attempt involved removing the spring and filing the tie bar down which resulted in a bigger gap either side of the tie bar - I’d imagine ballasting this would be less fiddly, but I never found out as I found other parts of PECO points started to jar with me! On Rylstone (still constructing baseboards) I’ll be hand building the track using C&L components and intend to lay the sleepers and ballast around them prior to installing the rails.

Thanks! I wondered if there was a prototype example on the big railway - I know class 92 diesels have square buffers... By the way Tom, is there any progress on baseboards or track? Or are you just gathering up stock at the moment?

What is going on there? Everyone seems very disgruntled with Gordon; is it because he’s been bragging about his square buffers? Why does Gordon have square buffers anyway?

Thanks ever so much for your replies! I was getting a little worried that my C&L kit had wide flangeways. So, I have two choices; build it using the supplied gauges and modify any RTR stock I have OR buy some 00-SF gauges. I take it that can use the C&L 00 gauges to help build plain track?

Thanks for alerting me to this Martin. I’ve had a read of some of the 00-SF stuff now (not all the disagreements I’ll admit) and I’ve come to the conclusion that 00-SF is effectively a narrower gauge of 16.2mm allowing a wide variety of stock with different BTB measurements to run reliably on hand built track. Can you confirm that I’ve got the right end of the stick? By the way, I’m not looking to start arguments or discussions on the benefits or drawbacks of 00-SF over standard (?) 00 here!

Hi all. Thanks for all the replies. The easiest solution seems to be to install Templot on my computer and calibrate my printer - assuming my old laptop can accommodate Templot without throwing a hissy fit that is! Sounds daft, but I’m guessing I’ll need to know the radius of my curve to do this?