RobinofLoxley

That picture of the rocking tanker, is the diagonally opposite wheel in a hole or on flat rail at that point? The opposite wheel is resting at the bottom of a frog pothole 🙂 Right. This can only happen when one end of the model is heavier than the other. It will be inevitable sometimes with asymmetry built in but it needs balancing. Needless to say 4 wheeled creatures will all be susceptible. Not sure exactly what to do to correct but im thinking small weights near the centre..

That picture of the rocking tanker, is the diagonally opposite wheel in a hole or on flat rail at that point?

Another thing to be wary of with what I would guess is a plan from free track plans is that the plan may turn out to be drawn using first radius curves. Certain locos cant negotiate a first radius curve. Its understandable to specify them where space is tight but not if its to create a plan with many operating limitations. Cliff you can also download a demo version of a modelling software called Anyrail and have a play around with it.

Although a straightforward roundy layout may appear less interesting than what you have drawn up Cliff, it will at least work. There are plenty of compact plans around that are adaptable for 9 x 6 and examples can be found by working backwards through the layout and track design section.

You had an Ambassador!! I'm amazed you ever got to an exhibition in it! But mine did take a 3-piece suite one time

I have it only as an outline plan, but I have been giving some though as to what I would do for a project once my loft layout is fully operational, and I am just filling it with landscaping stuff, much of which is already built. I constructed a test rig based on a single spare oak laminate plank which is about 4 feet by 10 inches and have decided eventually to make a layout using several of those planks or similar, that will fit in my car, so I could exhibit. I can either have a basic branch line layout in OO or something much more elaborate in N or TT. These planks dont warp so any frames will be to conceal and protect operational stuff underneath, so while they arent light I won't increase the weight too much by building on them. I could go up to 20' in length that way. Is that optimum, I dont know.

Well.... I have had a very rough go at the bits I didnt get on with - cant say didnt like because that's not true, but I simply wondered if there were better alternatives - having somebody making suggestions can be helpful if you are feeling a bit stuck. The things I was uneasy about were (Relating to the iterations posted on Nov 14th): the siding off the branch line above the station, which you have corrected already (Mine is different but there you go); the fact that despite having two 'arrival/passing loop' roads in the yard area, the only access was from the up main, made even stranger by the fact that the natural access end is from the cassette exchange so train length and make-up would be limited (yes the same train can reverse in from the upper end, but that's no better) - so I put in a cross-over so that grants access from the Down Main. Then there's the yard - my opinion only, no right/wrong, is that both sidings fans should go through a common cross-over from a single loop, rather than two. I dont know what your intention was with the goods shed, having in effect a run-around. I actually couldn't work out what the 'core' movements would be. The plan doesn't conform to your geometry especially near the cassette end but I think everything I have drawn would fit!!

There might be an alternative way of drawing up the track plan so as to comply more nearly with the comments relating to signalling it with more prototypical operating. Thanks to @Flying Pig for the real Ramsgate, I was thinking along those lines although as it stands there wouldn't be the space left for platform roads within what I presume to be an absolute limit of 8'. What the proposal had though was a bit of extra width on the boards and this feature could be used more fully still, providing that clutter was acceptable.

How much difference does it really make if a loco runs briefly onto the arrivals line compared to running up the departures line then crossing arrivals to reach the shed. Traffic on arrivals has to be stopped in both cases

What happens generally when you look at putting a layout in N gauge compared to 00 is that the space required for set piece items such as stations reduces by approximately half, so that the corresponding space for 'free' track increases. Although the opportunity not to squeeze the size of platforms either length or width opens up. You have to remember that modelling scenery etc gets more intricate as everything is half the size, so to some extent the requirement for items such as the number of houses in a street, also doubles. Planning the layout is also affected as the number of track pieces required can also increase. Then you have to decide which track code you want to use. I hope you have had a really good look at the difference in the model sizes.

Fascinating Barbados. There was a lot of money in sugar, enough to replace an entire railway it seems. But I was looking at the Birchoverham market postings, and having quite a few problems with some aspects of it. It isnt any easier to look at the varous iterations on here, it's a pity that the changes werent highlighted as you progressed. I couldnt find any earlier versions of the scheme which is a pity as I couldnt understand what was happening to the left of the drawing. It looks as though almost every activity has to go through the turnout to the left where the 2 main lines drop to 1. And is that one branch crossing both mains and then heading away somewhere? Complex and interesting as a layout but for me there seems to be a concentration of turnouts at the upper part that dont do much more than provide access to each other in some cases. A prototype might be simpler, though i can see that something like this might have come about by companies amalgamating for example. Ive got one specific objection, to the routing of the branch line to the right, if i get a minute and remember to do so I might draw that bit out.

I just acquired an lcut signal box kit from their stand at Warley. Not having built anything that requires any painting or finishing I was intrigued to see if the brick lines on them, which have almost no depth to them and are therefore correct in scale, could be mortared or not. Happily they can and the result (no photo as Im still testing) looks good so far.

And in my experience, wheels tend to be running inside their ideal separation if they are not correct. Outside and they are close to falling off their axles in some cases, but also they won't go round tighter radius corners.

Thanks for all the replies. I didnt have any wire handy thin enough to do a mechanical clean, bearing in mind that as the product had never been opened yet didnt flow, it shouldnt have been necessary. So I tried heating, which worked, but I remain very averse to doing this. But then I once saw a Lebanese tanker driver checking his tanker was empty by holding a cigarette lighter to a vent. This was aviation fuel by the way. (And not this century).

Probably not this iteration https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 414 Plenty to choose from if you dont like that one!

No evidence the cap will unscrew. So much force is needed to move it at all, breaking it would be inevitable.

Martin, the problem is that nothing happens when I do this. You can find suggestions in the online world to heat the tube (with a naked flame); I can't imagine anything more stupid (well I can, but I'll leave that for now).

I have just bought a bottle of this stuff. There are no instructions as to how to open the container. Can anyone enlighten me? Cant see how selling something like this, with hazchem labelling, can be sold without clear instructions for use but there you go.

The Helix part should work. There were demonstrations of Helices at Warley on N gauge layouts within the likely constraints of the layout. However the upper level turnout labyrinth so far from the platforms looks wrong. Thinking a bit further about the proposal, I'm not sure why two helices are required. They take up a lot of space, I cant see why a single one cant be used, unless it was envisaged to have just a single road in each direction. With a double helix, they can form the ends of a return loop with a series of yard sidings in between them. It would make more sense if the free end at the bottom as its now shown, was the sole helix access. The station becomes a true terminus, locating it becomes a lot easier, and further space remains to flesh out the location concept. Given the look of the station as drawn we could be looking at Marylebone..

I cant tell. You get a little instruction sheet for the solenoid; how many of the solder tabs you have to connect depends if its a basic PM-2 or equivalent or if it has an auxiliary switch included that you intend to use. With basic switching there will be power from the CDU to the central pole of the switch; two power wires from the momentary on poles of the switch to the CDU, and one power return from the solenoid to the CDU. Obviously power from the DC controller source or equivalent to the CDU as well.

The critical thing that you need for such a set-up is a spring loaded switch which defaults to a central off position, and provides a momentary on when the switch is pushed either way. A Solenoid switch only needs a momentary burst of power and continuous supply to the coils will damage them quite quickly. As long as the CDU and solenoid are wired correctly, thats it.

That question relates to the OP hiding the fast line for half the layout, in a tunnel, deliberately. Im questioning that idea.

Interesting exercise @Chimer in stuffing a corner. Platform length is a problem, which might be mitigated if you took out one or other of the relief lines; I'm not sure if they are actually there according to that picture. On a related subject,i was just looking at the plan I drew up and noticed that I had drawn it on a footprint of 2.95M square, when it should have been 2.95 x 3.77M, so I actually have 80cm to spare in the long direction. So theoretically I can increase platform length by that amount.

I would agree with this, part of the train looking to be appropriate size is the overall surroundings and part is the size of specific model items such as platforms. In this particular situation the 'straight' run behind the station is completely open but a train that is nearly half the room length at 1.5M is going to dominate the scene even if its slightly short as a prototype. Handy then that there's a photo with a 5-car train and it looks fine. As it happens I've opened up the platforms to 1.4M curving them in as per the prototype. On the plan I've drawn up the longest open run for an express is actually on the opposite side to the station. Its quite exposed.

@123* thanks for posting the drawing - you can see how far out you are from the rough in-your-head drawing to the real space required for Darlington station for example. I dont think the other bedroom is any better although it has a slightly longer perimeter the door position is worse, unless in either case the door can either be made to open outwards from the room or slide. Being a roundy you have to get inside to operate, would you do this by crawling under the structure or having a hinged section? Forgot to add - long tunnel, does it fit really? Plus it has to all be liftable for access. Also hides a major train for half the run?? Interesting to note in the photo a 5car HST approaching....