Miserable

2 hours ago, Joeh260 said:

Definitely makes it look a little bigger. The only two problems I see with this track plan is the reduction of the fiddle yard size and the possible gradient that may be needed to reach the same height of the fiddle yard however I still need to fully sort the space before I can say if it will be a problem. 

I certainly don't think much more track needs to be added but the station areas track plan could be altered if the is a much better solution. On the longer strait piece of track the goods yard could be placed there or sidings but it may look better with the main focus of that section being the scenery and not the track and just keeping it as a long(ish) run towards the station which could be overall more effective.

Just another thought. It would depend on the geography of the room a bit, but I'd be tempted to look at the station/yard bit going diagonally from the top-middle to bottom right. It would 'waste' a load of space in the top right corner but you could ease the curves somewhat which might be nice, and perhaps move the headshunt onto the approach line such that it can be accessed from all the roads. Also, just another random thought, if you did that you could have the layout/fiddle yard interface also half way along the top. I'm assuming the bit between the layout baseboards and the fiddle yards is a removable bridge for access, but there's no real reason why the fiddle yard sidings couldn't all extend over the bridge, coming together just before the scenic section, vastly increasing storage space. Just more random ideas!

1 hour ago, Dagworth said:

Does anyone make a model lever frame with electrical locking of the lever positions and with switches activated by the levers?

 

Andi

There's this. I think they have a UK agent or something, https://modratec.com/

38 minutes ago, Joeh260 said:

Just as an idea what do you think something more like this. Do you think would be an overall better option? It would significantly reduce the fiddle yard to 5-6 roads that can hold a locomotive and 4-5 coaches however it significantly increases the scenic area and reduces various other issues. I know that the space isn't very well utilised on that plan listed below but couldn't use any more track on the free version of AnyRail.

6.pdf 64.51 kB · 3 downloads

 

any ideas/input?

Well that certainly opens it up! Potential for interesting bridge or such on the approach. I suppose having the goods yard split adds operation potential, more need to cross over and such. One of the appealing features of your designs is avoiding filling every space with track, they've all had a nice small country station feel to them. Obviously it's up to you but I'd not go for a whole lot more track - J guess it depends on how you feel about doing scenery ;-)

11 minutes ago, bazjones1711 said:

I think most of the Railmatch paints for the railfreight colours were of a satin finish , apart from the obvious that are marked as matt or gloss ! I have jars which are ancient and are still usable . I usually warm up any paint by putting the tin or jar on the radiator for a while and mix of thoroughly , over mixing does no harm ! If drying in a cold room , it  may affect the drying time and finish of the paint also . A coat of satin varnish may make it  look better , but varnishes do not like the cold and can dry to a white , ruining your model , so beware ... My advice a warm room or wait for the spring or summer !

Ok, thanks. I can carry on now I know what to expect! I'll look at varnish later, I'd like to experiment with my chalks first to see if a little weathering will take the shine off a bit. Every day's a school day :-)

This might seem a bit odd, but what finish should I expect from Railamtch 322  early freight grey? Both coats have come out somewhat glossy, I was expecting a matt finish. The pot is about 6/7 years old, but unopened till now, and has been thoroughly stirred. It does get cold in my unheated loft, so I just want to make sure my expectation isn't wrong before engaging cunning plans. 

6 minutes ago, maico said:

The Dutch shop will fall in line if they want to be a significant player in the UK market. If not not, fine there are lots of smaller UK vendors after business.

They've quite clearly stated they are no longer interested in the UK market, because it's simply not worth it, as have BeerOnWeb (Belgium), Shatner's business and the three cycle shops mentioned in a previous post. That will be the UK's loss, since presumably people order from the EU to get things they cannot get here, or significantly cheaper enough to warrant shipping cost.

Just now, AlyP said:

 

Australia and Norway already had similar systems. I suspect larger firms have stopped selling to private customers in the UK for the moment because their software needs to be amended to cope - this is not something that can be done with the flick of a switch, and the details of the new rules have only just been announced.

It's nothing to do with software - it's being charged to register to collect taxes for another government, and potentially being punished if you get it wrong when you really have no reason to take the extra work on. As Shatner posted, his accountants added up the cost of setting this up and running it and concluded that makes trading with the UK unviable. I used to sell vehicle parts globally, including Australia. If any country had told me I had to collect their taxes I would told them where to go. The now famous Dutch cycle shop sells to 159 countries, non of whom makes them collect third country taxes - I kind of think they know what they are on about. Australia tries this, but in limited circumstances, the GST rule only applies to items under AU$1,000 - above that you have to appoint an Australian resident tax agent. They did this to bodge to plug a tax hole they had created. I can't see how they can enforce it, since if you don't pay to register they have no idea who you are.

22 minutes ago, Joeh260 said:

I can see what you mean with the fiddle yard being entered numerous times during operation any ideas on a way to overcome this problem?

I think this might work, it's a bit hard to do the geometry in my head... How about moving the right-hand most points on to the heel of the three-way. This would I think give a sharp curve into the fiddle yard which would I think be a shame with the rest looking so nice, but perhaps moving the three-way left may ease that - it would mean sacrificing some siding length? 

I was going to say its a pity Anyrail cannot export a 3d view like Templot, but having checked it appears it can and it's built-in. This is a really good way  of 'standing on the track and looking down the iine' to see how it looks. Unfortunately Wine crashes when trying it Linux - ho hum!

I'd go for the upper one myself, it 'flows' better to my eye. Plus extending the right-hand run round extension to either a stabling point, small shed or perhaps a 'specialist' goods siding, such as a grain elevator. Each unto their own though :-)

9 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

How does this fit in with the published concept of no tariffs and what about a private seller (eg Me in EU) selling surplus models, which were originally purchased from the UK and UK VAT paid at the time of original purchases?

A good question. This https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-vat-treatment-of-overseas-goods-sold-to-customers-from-1-january-2021/changes-to-vat-treatment-of-overseas-goods-sold-to-customers-from-1-january-2021 as far as I can tell does not take that into account.

It's worse than that : a business selling to the UK now has to pay to register with the UK to supply to the to the UK, and that business is expected to collect taxes on behalf of the UK government. This is unique in the world. William Shatner (yes, that one) and a Dutch cycle parts supplier are two examples of businesses who have decided to simply not to sell to the UK as a result. I don't suppose they will be the only ones.

Just to point out that railway fencing almost unique to the UK. There's plenty of cab ride videos from just about anywhere on Youtube to demonstrate the point, barely a fence in sight.

On 01/01/2021 at 18:03, Joeh260 said:

Still undecided on where the goods yard should be positioned yet but I do think the station being curved is an improvement.

Just seen the second one. FWIW I think that is very more 'railway' if you see what I mean, a nice country station.

On 01/01/2021 at 15:10, Joeh260 said:

Had a go trying AnyRail earlier, only got up to this point. 3.pdf not sure if this new plan would look any better so any feedback would be appreciated. I find that the points leading into the goods yard front the centre of the station area may look strange if actually used.

 

Perhaps if the main running line that connects up to the fiddle yard would be lowered down to about half way down the right hand side then there may be room to put the goods yard above the station at the rear of the board instead of at the front like on current plans. if the station was still curved then the should be a decent enough space to do that. 

 For me, that would be a plan. It would all perhaps a small stabling point where the yard currently is?

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If you want to check all possibilities, get hold of an Industrial Railway Society handbook in the EL (=existing locomotives) series, the equivalent of the Ian Allan books. I’ve got rid of mine, but I think it was 14EL or 15EL around 1980.

That's a bit OTT really, I'm just after the flavour of the thing - state of the track, buildings and such. I got the idea after seeing European 'Feldbahns' on Youtube, I guess I wanted to check if UK practice was for any reason different.

11 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Not mentioned there are military systems at ammunition depots such as Trecwn in Pembrokeshire, Chilmark in Wiltshire, Ernsettle in Devon and Eastriggs in southwest Scotland (of which I have a rather dull picture). All of thse had interchange sidings with Network Rail.

 

 I'm after industrial lines, so thanks for the pointer but not really what I was looking for.

44 minutes ago, russ p said:

Have they all closed now?

Sadly all listed have. The site on the link gives the closing dates. Some lasted a lot longer that I would have supposed.

23 minutes ago, Claude_Dreyfus said:

Yes, quite a few. There are some interesting details on this site:

 

http://www.ingr.co.uk/intro_rlys.html 

Thank you! I'm liking Star Lane Brickworks, plus it provides a good for the somewhat dubious NG/SG interchange that isn't stone;-)

Did any industrial narrow gauge narrow gauge (Feldbahn type of thing, not temporary construction lines) survive until the early 1980s in the UK? It's for a cunning plan on my O gauge layout, it would be nice to reference something rather be purely fictional.

2 minutes ago, Joeh260 said:

I have considered the use of curved points and will more than likely have to use one or two, however I find most ready available curved points seem to look like they are quite a sharp radius'.

I forget the numbers for Peco, but they aren't that tight (in O they min 6ft radius). I appologise if granny, eggs, but have you had a go with AnyRail, the free software I used for my plan. It has all the Peco etc templates in it - you just join the dots with flexitrack. You can add buildings and so on. Just a thought.

Have you considered using curved points? I may be just me, but I find they can add a nice 'flow' to the layout. With yours switching from top to bottom this may work? The down side is you may have to angle the platforms, or have curved ones. Below is my track plan which uses only curved points (one home made) and a Y. The space is not wildly dissimilar to yours.

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Actually - for the record - their functions have been very different.  They changed during the privatisation process, had changed when HMRI was moved from the DoT to the HSE, and were changed again when the RAIB was introduced along with the concept of Notified Bodies and various revisions to safety assessment processes.   Thus I could - when I was covered by suitable insurance -  act as a 'Qualified Person' under the meaning of 21st century legislation which enabled me to do various things which in the early 1990s would have required to be proposed to,  agreed by,  and signed off by an HMRI in order for them to have proper legal force.  I could in fact still act as 'Qualified Person' today in respect of various things (e.g. preparation of  Rules and Regulations).

 

Are you from Norway by some chance?  It's about time you stopped spouting invented nonsense especially when I have actually date checked information and you say it's inaccurate.  Here's bit more of that sort of nonsense from you I'm sorry to say -

I've  got the 1983 reissued pages immediately to hand as well as all the Supplements to the 1972 GA.  As they were different from each other throughout the life of the 1972 GA including the final 1978 Supplement No.3 to that GA and were, again, different from each other in the 1983 reissued pages of the 1981 General Appendix.  there's no evidence at all to suggest they were the same as each other at any time during the period you mention.

 

Quite why you go on about the Rule Book in respect of something which was in the General Appendix I'm not at all sure?

Temper temper. Did you ever actually undergo guards training? I think you are confusing yourself with a paper trail. For once and all - there was no difference between a brake test for air or vacuum in the period 79 to 84 - I'm pretty certain of that because explaining how to do a brake test was about the only guaranteed question in the guards exam, or more accurately viva-voce, and I passed. The GA was/is and expansion of the rule book. i.e how to apply the rules, an annex of it.

36 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

 

Here's the accident report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=808

Well that was certainly unlucky. In theory the reservoir pipe should have been on it's dummy though, but that was a universally ignored rule, I don't think anyone would have suspected that could happen! But nothing to do with brake test efficacy though.

1 minute ago, Wheatley said:

Time to put you back on ignore I think.

Please do, it doesn't change the facts though. I would rather read posts from people who actually know stuff, there have been a few replies here form people who clearly do actually know, than speculation based on hearsay.