Denbridge

do you have a whacky loco (or indeed any ) thread ?

ooh i do like that. A few years ago there was a 5" gauge live steam stretched A3 4.8.2 apparently based on a proposal. The super A4 looks even nicer.

any pics of the never wazza close up? Im intrigued

it should be noted that in these pictures even the most diffucult areas of access would be easy compared to what James is contemplating. I recently discovered your thread and am full of admiration for your baseboard and track laying skills. And your determination to get what you want. I hope james will finally realise what is possible/practical as well as learning from your and others (costly) mistakes.

this is the thrust of what most have us having been saying for 10 pages. Its great to have ambition but this plan is simply not viable all the time that lower area is kept. There are enough areas of potential problems on the top level as it is. However they can be addressed. That bottom layer is a waste of track, timber and time. Sorry James but most experienced modellers are telling you the same thing.

As i mentioned previously,the average person only has a reach of about 30 inches. Your base boards are deeper than that. It isnt just about reaching either. To do some jobs youll need to use both hands. Plus you need to see what you are doing. So, youll need to get your whole upper body in the space under the terminus and be able to work in that space.

You still havent given any consideration as to how you will gain access to those yards and yards of track on the lower level, forgetting the helix for now. Even a800mm space between would be insufficient to gain access to over 50% of that trackage.

Platform bells were often treadle activated so would ring for all traffic.

No amount of tweaking and changes will alter the fact that it is completely impractical. Even getting trains to go up the helix is a waste of time if you can't get to the tracks to undertake repairs, undertake essential 'deep' cleaning, or rescue/re-rail a rogue train vehicle. As Scottie often remarked "Yea canna change the laws of physics Jim

I think one of the points that has come across on here (not just this thread) is that it seems common for designs to be mapped out on a computer that would just never work in reality for one reason or another. I think most people gained their ideas from dear old CJF or from magazine articles, so at least were basing their ideas on established, working formulae. I remember well the instances where a 'Freezer' plan was expanded and the builder complained his trains wouldn't run properly. CJF designed most of his plans around a minimum 18" radius and trains of 4-5 coaches maximum. They worked well, within those constraints

Platform bells were in fact quite commonplace to announce the arrival of a train.

The articles were great. It was the poor reproduction that disappointed me. But Andy has answered my concerns in a fair and balanced way, so I'll say no more.

Yuck. The little snow we had has just about gone. Now icy as hell

I realise that digital will always be superior. But it is sometimes nice to have a more traditional format. I travel a lot and squinting at a picture on a tablet is not for me. I do most of my reading on trains and planes. Andy has covered the problems with the March issue for which I'm grateful. It was sadly the worst I've seen in my chosen magazine subjects, though hopefully a one off

Stairs look great. I'm sure you'll do a grand job of the floor. No matter how good, when it comes to baseboards, screw adjusting legs are your friend

Place the screws in the hole first, then the screwdriver to the head

Oh yeah. Dutch Elm Disease and all that D'oh. I thought Oak because it is protected.

I'm sorry. I have no wish to put anyone down, but having just returned to the hobby after a 3+year break, I've been very disappointed. I will certainly look at issues, since I always enjoyed BRM, but, and this is a purely personal reason, I cannot justify spending £4.75 on a poorly reproduced magazine. I hope things do improve, if so I'll certainly buy BRM.

How does that make any difference?

I finally had time to sit down and read the March 18 Classic layouts issue. I looked forward to this sine it featured layouts and modellers I have long admired. What a disappointment. The reproduced photos are appalling. Now, I think we can all agree, that coming from the likes of Tony Wright, the originals would be superb, so the blame must firmly lay at the feet of the Publishers and printers. Very Disappointed. I now understand why friends have said BRM is a shadow of its former self. I certainly wont buy another copy without at least looking through before purchase.

Part of me wishes rmweb had been around in my younger inexperienced days. I might have avoided some costly and frustrating mistakes. One thing I'll never change though is good old fashioned hands on planning. One thing I've seen so much of, is how easy it is to plan totally impractical layouts on a computer

Liver and onions (with Bacon) was one of my few favourites as a kid. I still love it now. I've always been a little strange, I know most people hate it

Oak?

Hi. 400 mm is nowhere near enough clearance to get in to do maintenance. Especially since you would have to get to tracks at the back of the lower board. add to the fact you will have a scenic area at the front. Even an open area inside the lower board would be of no help. the average person only has a reach of say 70cm and since 400mm will only allow you to slide your arm in, that is as far as you'll get :/

I've recently come across your thread and have been enjoying reading through the posts. What a beautiful and atmospheric layout. I absolutely love it . One question if I may? Youve probably mentioned it previously, but what brick papers do you use? I've never been a fan of printed papers, but those on your layout, particularly the creamery look fantastic.