Schooner

Please excuse the presentation - conditions here not condusive to the accurate drawing of neat lines - but hopefully the below is a legible alternative footprint of the same features: I suspect the track formation on the RHS (from the edge: LH curved to double slip and 24° crossing to RH to 12°/24° crossing depending on alignment) would take up significantly more space than on the sketch, but less than you have available. I thought it worth trying something on paper because whilst you have a really good handle on your trackwork I remained unconvinced about the use of scenic space. Not that it's 'better' (whatever that means!), but hopefully it's helpful to see another option for the layout of main scenic elements. HTH Schooner

Because, IIUC, China is undergoing a bit of a labour crisis, particularly in the semi-skilled area I assume model railways fall into. Of course factories still can produce whatever is contracted to the standard and QA levels contracted...but the market won't bear the cost. Laying into Rapido over design choices or manufacturing issues is pointless unless you can put your finger on a better balance of compromises. Time:cost:quality, as ever.

Well hey there lil fella! Now, what are we going to do with you?

Meanwhile, I'm saddened to confirm that the Baltic is, indeed, 'kin baltic!

Sorry, I understood this to mean no scenic extensions, not that the layout as drawn is self-contained. Defs doable (and sensible), but does benefit from a little extra planning to make sure you don't end up snookered too often! I don't know if it helps, but I use a cassette on a folding bracket (just bought of Amazon etc, nothing special) to get stock on and off the layout. Useful, and adds nothing to the permanent footprint. It might be worth thinking about something similar to use as 'The Rest of the World' or perhaps as a headshunt, if only to confirm your current thoughts. Does this have to be at the front of your layout, or could it be on a length of 2"x1" somewhere convenient? The reason a few people have picked up on it is that it jars visually. Absolutely fine, but again worth just double checking other options to see if an alternative might appeal. Exactly as you are, I think, and as we all are: the best we can with our available resources :)

In short, I think all the elements are great - I love things like the 24° crossing to the gantry crane - and agree that using the dock edge for the back of the layout is a good idea and can be really effective with a decent backscene, which it sounds like is well in hand. There are some aspects which ring false, but that's no biggy if you're after more of a puzzle that a chunk of prototype (both my layouts, 4mm and 7mm are based on inglenooks on a 5'ish x 2'ish footprint). There are a couple of things that might benefit from a second pass, though. A couple questions: What, and where, are your off-scene storage/fiddle track(s)? Do you need 6' of uninterupted track at the front of the layout? Am I right to understand the layout is a quick and fun thing, to handle the shunting of some BYAs? Are you planning to use standard tension link couplings? De-coupling ramps? Hand of god? How are BYAs brought out of the steel warehouse? A couple thoughts: 6' is actually pretty long in 4mm (our natural viewing angle is about 120°, so it gives plenty of length for at least two 'scenes' on-stage...but 30 inches isn't very deep. Have you tried flipping the steel warehouses so they mask/frame the left hand of the scene, rather than taking up half the layout depth? The trackplan requires a lot of short runs and changes of direction...are you sure this is what you find fun? We all have our own tastes, but it does risk tedium rather than challenge. Play trains on it in your head/on paper for 15mins and see how you feel...my gut instinct is it may benefit from a tighter focus on the shunting trifecta (running line; loop; sidings) to give a little more flow not just to trackwork but to operations too*. It's not a small layout by any means...but the amount of area lost to large buildings and the long rolling stock risks making it feel cramped. I'd suggest choosing a sceneic element or two you really want to highlight and then use everything else to frame these. On a related note, I would focus on the prime operation you want to depict (play trains with) and work out how to get the best run length and the right balance of complexity/emb*ggerance (cheers @NHY 581!) with that, and then see what space that leaves you with for other things. Beware reverse curves...! The pieces of the jigsaw look good, I'm just not sure they're put together in the most convincing/enjoyable way. HTH :) *I'm away from any planning software for a spell, but perhaps something like an entry/exit point near one corner, feeding a loop on the diagonal, feeding sidings into the remaining three corners for warehouse, loading platform and gantry crane.

?! That's a 50% percent increase - do the same to your commute and suspect you wouldn't use a diminutive but expletive! In addition to Andy's points, it's worth bearing in mind the extra strain this puts on container terminals, and that increased transit times exacerbates the shortage of available containers. It's a big deal all round.

Maybe Part V 32 referred only (or was applied only) to public land - the street running section perhaps?

Thanks, I enjoyed reading all of that! From a modelling PoV my takeaways were Max 4mph Flagman walks ahead (I think he might be shown having a chat, or leaning on a post to watch the train onto the quay itself) "red light exhibited in a conspicuous manner on each side in front and showing both ways, and...also a red light on the rear end of the train." the last of which might require the purchase of some crimson nail varnish...

Sounds ace, do share! @drduncan, also coming at it from the 'period-correct related trades' angle, using oak, Number 1 larch and pine to keep 10(00) ton of water out rather than 10 ton of coal in, but gut response is 2x14" possible; 3 x 9"-10" (on phone, can't be doing with fractions!) possibly more likely.

A veteran of which campaign, Graf von Götzen, she of the cruiser gun which started the whole affair, is, to the best of my knowledge, still in service: Which is amazing on several levels. Has there been a model made of Simson's be-skirted Circus?

Another win for freedom and poke in the eye of Brussels right there! Thanks for the info

Barkeeper, black Terriers for evvvv'rybody!

True. Perhaps giving @Stubby47 a gentle nudge wouldn't be too presumptuous. The system held a lot of promise and I'd love to hear the latest.

All together now!

Do they really need any more encouragement?!

Picked up and thrown down in disgust IIRC. +1 to Kevin's point, please. Above 50 on the controller, all my locos are surefooted little sweathears. However, in the band at which they permanently operate (c.20, when they start to move, to c.30, when they move too fast) it's a different story with a much higher attition rate!

Too right I can!

They're all hiding... (Sorry, couldn't help it and it supports your point re driver diameter!)

@Siberian Snooper and this is a good shout - often better results doing half the job twice, if you know what I mean!

Solder? Comes undone much more easily, and can be chased down to a sacrifical end/'solder-sucker'd off...?

Breaking strain of a wet kitkat, me! It's a great little loco by all accounts, and that price is less than almost any decent 4mm RTR in 2024. I don't need a Terrier though, so very much on the lookout things to use a Terrier chassis for. @woko's done some gorgeous 7mm prints, time to check out his thread for inspiration... Has nobody here done the 00 thing and used a Terrier chassis under something else? Purists! :)

Indeed, I am very much looking forward to getting stuck in to 7mm - the heft appeals an awful lot. Then it'll be a case of weighing up big stock ( = good = 7mm) vs a big layout ( = good = 4mm) to settle on a longer-term project... ...which looks like it might be 1:64 on 16.5mm track... Worry about that when I get round to it, tho! Ta! Bon, thank you - though I note kit prices are correspondingly (and fairly) higher. Quite! Not something which worries me unduly - I maintain a healthy veil of ignorance over all possible finer details :) - but it would be more noticeable in 7mm, for sure. There is, of course, no reason not to run the Terrier as a Terrier, but it makes little sense as they are so distinctively and clearly Brighton as-built. Perhaps I investigate c.1880s LB&SCR stock? Whilst it could get an LSWR paint job to pair with the B4 for a 1900s setting...but that makes little benefit to the layout as it stands. With half a plan to have modular extensions in time, a small platform served by Terrier-hauled 4W pax stock is on the cards, but is a ways off yet. I would like something to boss about some earlier wagons (1850s-70s builds) but had thought this might be a good excuse for a first foray into kit building, if not the Minerva Manning Wardle. Perhaps the Terrier could be sympathetically mucked about with to give the impression of something a little more generic which would fit the bill. Answers on a postcard! The third and final proposed setting is pre-1924 Midland, with the Deel-meister conducting affairs. So to speak. These three give a modelling scope of 50+ years and about well over 100 miles of coastline which should be enough to maintain interest indefinitely...but...worth bearing in mind that Ingleford started with the same idea and fairly quickly zero'd in on a single, early, setting...so who knows :)

Obligatory response: