SouthernRegionSteam

All I can say is I don't know how I'm going to photograph all the layouts in the short time available. What a stunning line-up! 😍

Apologies David - I hadn't spotted this until now! Really pleased that you love the photos - it's a truly exceptional layout, and the fact that you were so proactive during the shoot was incredibly helpful, and made my job easier! Props to the BRM team too for a well put-together article. Being my first photoshoot of an N gauge layout, I was a little nervous, but the quality of modelling and your active involvement in lining up stock for me meant I needn't have worried! All the best, Jamie

Sandy Shores - It must be a hot summer day at the spithead, as the three resident locomotives are all on duty. The railways' NS2F 0-4-0 cautiously pulls a van across the slipway to shunt the harbour siding, which is surrounded by all types of fishing paraphenalia. In the background, the O&K is taking on water at the ramshackle water tower, whilst the Bagnall sits on shed - ready to take over from the O&K for the return journey back down the spit. Meanwhile, Timmy seems to have run into a spot of bother trying to pull his little boat up the steep slipway. Perhaps he was startled by a quick blast of the horn by the NS2F driver!

What a lovely shot of a lovely little layout! Love all the details, especially the old sleepers/wood forming the steeper part of the footpath on the right. You've really thought well about composition not just in terms of the buildings and photo, but also the scenery. There was another shot looking between the hedges and towards the railway which I also thought was rather nice. Plenty of variation to the vegetation, and everything seems to fit so harmoniously together. A detail I've not seen modelled before that was visible in an earlier photo is the makeshift crossing 'gate' - I.e. a bit or rope/wire and a red bit of cloth! Nicely done, and I can't wait to see more! All the best, Jamie

That's very kind of you to say. As you can tell, I am very passionate about sharing, highlighting, and extolling the virtues of the hobby - as it is such a broad church; not only in terms of subjects to recreate, but also in terms of skills you need to learn, practice, and maybe master (though you will always be able to learn more from others, no matter what your 'stage'). I think the key thing to take away is that there will always be railway modellers. There will be highs, there will be lows, but the love for the hobby will never die... ...and that's why I feel its everyone's duty to share and promote the hobby as the positive, constructive, joyful escape it is. Be that to kids, grandkids, friends, colleagues or some random stranger who visits the average exhibition. Which is at least 75% of the reasons why I exhibit my layout. Yes there are challenges and setbacks, but name a hobby that doesn't have them! Anyway, I think that'll do from me before I ramble on any longer and bore people to death 😂

I have to say, I really don't buy into the premise and depressing, (dare I say) alarmist and well-trodden leap of thought that is: "The hobby is dying." To the point where I personally feel it's a ridiculous statement that quite honestly pees me off (unless 'bad publicity is good publicity')! I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flak for that (and what follows), but hey ho... If I received a quid for every time I heard that phrase, I'd be able to afford a new locomotive (and yes 'even at today's prices'). If it were true, and the hobby is dying, why are there more manufacturers, cottage industries, appearances in the media and popular culture, and a greater variety of products available (including quirky locos that would never have seen RTR models of even 10 years ago) now than ever before? Part of the answer, as has always been the case for everything in life (fundamental or niche) that keeps on going, is adaptation and innovation. I feel like the media (and I'll include social media as well to a degree) is often too quick to scrawl clickbaity extremist headlines. I get it. That's what sells... but... ... back in the real world, and as far as I see it: Major players will come and go. Major exhibitions rise and may fall. Interests will likely wax and wane. Mojo will most certainly appear and disappear(!) Hobbies increase and decrease in popularity. Railway modelling is either perceived as 'That's cool!' or 'Err...you like trains?!'. Punters either appreciate the modelling dedication shown at exhibitions, or are 'enthusiasts' *(I couldn't think of another, more fitting term, so this'll do for now) looking for one particular type of layout and yours isn't it(!) I'm sure I could come up with another dozen of these, but you get the point - it's both a cyclical hobby, and one that is either understood, or not understood! And of the latter, that's on us to be the educators. In any case, at every exhibition I have ever attended, it's the young (who if you believed some people, supposedly aren't interested) whos' eyes light up, become animated, and seem completely enthralled. Locomotives have, and will always be fascinating to a degree to some people. Sure, not everyone 'gets it', but then I will never, for example, understand the fascination with football either! When I'm exhibiting, those who ask genuine questions are the kids. Sure, some will wonder off after a grand total of 1.5 seconds looking at the layout, but you'll get more than a few during the course of an exhibition who will stand there and admire, ask questions, and bother their parent or guardian to buy something from the traders nearby. Quite often returning multiple times. As a kid, whilst my Dad did have an interest in all things steam, I was interested in Matchbox cars, and pretty much nothing else all the way up to the end of primary school. Yet I still got bitten by the bug, and genuinely have never stopped modelling since (not even to chase a relationship or go to uni!). Money will be a barrier to entry, but there are always ways around it unless you want an 100% accurate model of Clapham Junction (or whatever lofty goals you think you must have when you dream big - we've all been there!). As a slight aside, what simply MUST be taught at schools is budgeting, and generally more emphasis spent on practical subjects instead of basing everything on the 'core' subjects. 'Practical' maths would be far more useful than bloody algebra for a start, but anyway, I digress... I saw first-hand the shrinking of practical subjects (budgetary and curriculum-wise) both at my school, and at my mums' (who was a food tech teacher for many years until her early retirement - that's another story entirely!). Whilst we're here, for the love of all that's holy can we stop blaming computers/computer games for the inability to attract teens and those in their twenties? You CAN love both (as I do). It's about time we looked beyond the easy blame game and looked at the fundamental issues of encouraging practical hobbies where a passing interest is shown, and allowing kids to watch, ask questions, and perhaps join in with your modelling. Don't just lock it away behind a door because you're worried things might get broken. TEACH them how to respect and enjoy the hobby, and explain why you enjoy it. Sit them down to build a simple house that they can take home, or put pride of place on your layout so that they can say with glee 'I made that!'... As to the OP, @BoD, in short, no, there's no need to worry about the hobby dying. But yes, there is room for improvement; but not by ramming the hobby on the youth, but instead by encouraging kids should they show an interest in it. If they don't, fair enough - they'll find what they enjoy, and you can encourage them down that route instead. Just because one grandchild may not take up model railways, it doesn't mean the end is nigh! Sorry for that rant/ramble... though it is 3am as of writing it...!

What a beautiful medley of rolling stock - though B4s are naturally my weak point, and I really would love to get a 2nd one (think I'd better wait till I have a layout to run them on, first, though!). As you say, the track plan, and small size thereof, looks to make a very capable and enjoyable shunting puzzle - perfect as a distraction tool in this modern world. P.S. I must thank you for earlier tutorials of the use of weathering powders. Whilst I haven't really been quite so judicial with my use of them, early experiments have proven it to be an incredibly quick, low-risk, and simple way to transform models!

Hi Martyn, Many thanks! Considering a few months ago I wouldn't have had the courage to repaint a RTR model, I'm really pleased I had a go - and I think the results have been much better than I expected! You're not the first person to say that Mikkel, and that makes me a very happy chappy; as @Neil's layouts have always been a huge source of inspiration - especially Little Point. If memory serves me right - that layout was the reason I decided to build the trestle for the headshunt, which is one of the stand-out features on the layout, in my opinion.

It's been a while since I've posted. To be fair, I mainly post my narrow gauge projects on my external blog (https://jamsmodelrailways.blogspot.com/) and on NGRM-online. However, I thought that this particular update would be worthy of a blog entry; as it describes the full process from start to finish, using 33 photos along the way... so let's begin! Before the madness of the festive season drew to a close, there was something I wanted to finish off whilst I still had some time to do projects for myself! I recently bought a secondhand Minitrains NS2F to finally boost the number of decent locomotives on Sandy Shores from two to three! (OK, so technically I also have the Bachmann Dorothea, but I'm not overly enamoured by it's running qualities I must say). This NS2F was bought from the 009 Society's Secondhand Shop (well worth becoming a member by the way, if you haven't already!). Here's how it arrived: Above: Clearly, the orange has to go - it, and the red underframe, are incredibly vibrant! You may remember from previous posts that I did want the blue version, but truth be told it wouldn't have made a slight bit of difference as it would still likely need to be repainted. In any case, the chassis also needs more work, but more on that later. First things first, we need to try to remove the body.. but how? A quick note before I continue - you'll have to excuse the differences in colour temperature of the orange of the loco body. I forgot to remove the custom white balance after having photographed the layout on Christmas Day for a future article! Some of the following photos make it look more yellow, which is incorrect. Anyway, back to the practical... Above: ...well, fortunately, I found one photo online that showed the body removed. It was clear from the visible paint damage to the underside of the body and the top of the chassis in that photo that it is simply glued in place, with locating pips front and back. It was also obvious that the solebar is connected to the body as one piece. Something to bear in mind here is that trying to do anything to a locomotive terrifies me (hence my never-fixed Lilliput shunter that broke years ago)! Yet still, I hesistantly took a knife above the buffer plate, and started to twist and rock it to try and get the glue to part. Thankfully, with only minor dents from the blade, it came off cleanly after a nerve-racking 'crack' of the dried glue separating! Pulling the body off, we can see that the bonnet is entirely filled with a metal weight, with two tiny wires leading to a micro LED at the front. Above: One long screw at the front of the loco looked like it held the weight in place, so this was unscrewed. However, the weight still held tight. I therefore removed the plastic spacer by undoing the two screws, which revealed a fourth screw. After removing that, the weight did jiggle quite a bit, but I wasn't sure if it was attached in some other way. I guessed that the two longer screws probably had held the weight to the body without need for additional fastenings, and that the resistance was probably down to the weight scraping against the bodysides; so I grabbed my fine-nosed pliers and gently pulled the metal weight out - phew - it slid out easily! Note how, in the bottom right image, the area of the bonnet around the front headlight has been painted black on the inside - I'm guessing to minimise light leakage/the possibility of the bonnet glowing! I've got to say, it's a well constructed model, especially with the channels in the weight to hold the LED circuit board and the tiny wires. All very tidy, and everything slots together easily, much to my relief. Above: I noticed in various photos online that there was quite often an obvious gap under just the cab section. Pulling on it, I could wiggle it a little, so it must indeed be able to be removed - which would be handy, as I'd love to fit some 'glass' to the windows, and it would also make painting it easier! One side unclipped easily, but the other wouldn't. As it slides on two parts of the other half of the body, I realised I could wedge a flat jeweller's screwdriver through the window, and slightly pry the cabside out a bit. That had just enough 'give' to be able to release the clips, and it slid right off. The second photo shows that there was some sort of 'works' plate on the back. I know nothing about transfers (assuming that's what it even was!), but I could feel it was slightly raised, so opted to gently remove it with a fine needle file. In hindsight, and after having read more online, I probably should've used some IPA on a cotton bud, but too late now! Above: I figured, knowing nothing about repainting, that it's probably wise to give the factory finished paint a new coat of primer before anything else. But I needed to find a way to support the two body parts whilst spraying them. Looks like I've suddenly found a use for old sprues - though I don't think I'll ever use many from the box that is full of them! Anyway, note the weird effect on the roof - stupidly, in order to spray from the underside, I rested it on a foam block, which of course reacted with the spray paint... whoops! I guess I should've Blu-tac'ed the support to the roof first, sprayed the interior from the bottom, and then sprayed the rest - with the support in the position visible in the photo. At least, that way, any missing paint from the ceiling won't be too visible if it peels off when removing the Blu-tac. Above: Here we see the set-up for the third spray layer. You can actually see the channel on the right hand larger body piece that the cab slides into - just to the right of the furthest louvred door. The little stick on the far right is the exhaust - which appears to have been possibly just a friction fit into the corresponding hole on the bonnet. And now I have to fess up! The roof debacle wasn't my only mistake. I made another amateur error... instead of the cardboard I usually use for spray painting on, I first, mistakenly, used the large one that has static grass over it (from making trees and applying grass to small dioramas). The result was that the spray cause a few static fibres to attach themselves to the body... whoops! Whilst I removed what I could with my fingernail, I didn't want to risk using abrasives all over the body. The end result is that the bonnet has quite a few bits of static grass over it, but I'm hoping I can disguise it with weathering - perhaps I can get it look like peeling paint somehow... anyway, let's move on... to some more mistakes(!) Above: I mentioned at the start about wanting to do more work to the underframe. Having looked at prototype photos of the NS2F, aside from the overly thick metalwork, which would realistically require an entirely new frame and body, the other big thing that stands out to me as being 'wrong' are the chunky cab steps. On the prototype, these have really thin metal vertical supports, much like those on my brake van build. However, as shown in the photo, the step and supports on the model are incredibly thick, and fully moulded as part of the chassis frame. At this point, I wasn't going to even attempt to remove the steps as, although it was easy to slide the chassis out of the frame as there are slots for the axles to slip through, the metal weight would not fit through the frame. As it was connected by the thinnest wires I've ever seen, (that take power from the pickups to the LED headlight) I didn't want to unsolder them as I feared I'd never be able to resolder them later. However, when my usual lack of confidence reared its head, fate had other plans; as I accidentally fumbled the weight, which hit the cutting mat, and in turn, pulled one of the wires from the chassis. ! Well, I guess it was meant to be... so I thought I might as well give it a go: Above: Though, as you might just be able to see in the photo bottom middle, I didn't yet dare to unsolder the second wire (I'm not sure why looking back, as I would've had to resolder one wire on anyway, and it would've made this next bit easier!). Anyway, a quick trial of cutting away the steps with a knife proved that it would be a slow process - as the plastic is thick and fairly hard. Therefore, I opted to use a conical sanding attachment on my Dremel. A potentially risky choice, especially as it could easily wander and damage either the buffer beam, or suspension/axle box detailing. However, being cautious paid off, and no damage was caused. The brown paper top right is covering the chassis to prevent any fine bits of plastic getting lodged in the mechanism. Anyway, after the Dremel, the rest was taken off with careful filing with a flat needle file. Just like the conical sanding disk, it was crucial to go slow, and check the progress regularly to ensure I wouldn't end up going too far. Above: Don't laugh (OK, you can!) but after the steps had been successfully removed, I opted to finally unsolder the second cable. Whilst doing that, I happened to notice that one of the cables from the pick-up on one side to the motor was barely hanging on! Perhaps this was part of the reason for the locos apparent random stalling? (The inset photo, top, shows this dodgy connection). As can be seen by the bottom inset photo, I did attempt to resolder, though looking at it again, I don't think I really achieved much, as I still see frayed wires. It was difficult trying to get a soldering iron in there (especially the god-awful ruined tip of my one!), which is evident by the melted plastic pip that holds the pick-up in place, along with the melted insulation on the wire. Quite how you remove insulation on wire this tiny that's already in place, without causing damage to everything, I've no idea! Above: Another, more minor feature that differed on the model from the prototype was that there were holes on the front and middle of the chassis. No idea, other than possibly lifting points, as to what these are, but I felt I could perhaps attempt to model them now that the chassis frame was separated. Thhis montage shows the steps taken; first, two holes are drilled, which are then connected with a knife, and then filed to shape. Above: Before we move back to the body (we'll sort the steps out later, as they would need to be fitted to the bottom of the soleplate, and would be too prone to damage until everything is put back together properly), a further look at prototype photos showed there to be an additional mechanism on one side of the chassis frame. I worked out that this is likely to be the brake mechanism, as there appears to be a handwheel visible in that corner of the cab on the prototype. Wondering how I would model it, I suddenly remembered the first version of the handbrake handle that I built for my guards van. It's an astonishingly close match! All that needed to be done was to trim off the shorter section to the right of the 'ball', and to flatten the top of the 'ball' a bit with a file. Once glued to the chassis (note the outline of the step which would've otherwise been in the way), a small rod was glued to represent the brake spindle. Above: There were quite a few moulded handrails on the body, which would naturally look more realistic if they were replaced by bits of fine wire. However, those on the louvre doors on the sides would, I figured, be too prone to being damaged when handling the model. The access hatch on top could be a safer option - as it will be amongst other raised detailing later on. Therefore, a piece of incredibly thin microstrip was bent around the end of my fine-nosed pliers to form a U shape. The handrail moulding could then be careful cut away with a knife, and then the new handrail glued into place. A relatively quick modification, but one that makes a big difference. This isn't shown, but later on, the circular object on the bonnet also had a handle fitted - as per the prototype. What this is, I've no idea - my only guess is that it might be the fuel filling point? Above: A few other additions were made using the same tiny microstrip. First, door handles, and secondly, rain strips. The latter have been done in the 'traditional' style with a curved piece on the edge of the roof that directs rainwater to the edges of the cab. However, on the prototype, it seems that a thin metal sheet was used over the whole roof, with the two ends above the doors curled up. I realised this too late, and besides, the roof is already well-over thickness without adding another layer on top! Above: Having not followed the prototype as far as the roof strip was concerned, I took yet another look at the prototype photo to see what else might differ. I suddenly realised that all of the images I could find had the exhaust on the front right of the bonnet, not the rear left (closest edge to the cab). A suitably sized hole was therefore drilled in the correct position, and the old hole filled in with Humbrol Model Filler (applied with a jeweller's screwdriver), and then filed once hardened. Above: I didn't like how boring the current exhaust pipe was, either. I considered adding one of those 'flaps' on top, but felt it wouldn't look realistic fixed in the closed (or open) position when in motion. Inspired by a couple of prototypes, I took to bending the last few millimetres. However, the original plastic one was too brittle, so it was remade in the same diameter plastic rod. Note that the end has been very slightly drilled (though I stopped once it started splitting!) to give the impression of a hollow pipe, and that the end has been cut at an angle. Above: When I first started in 009, I planned to make a classic Knightwing Diesel Shunter kitbash. Whilst this did get put together to some degree, in the end I took it all apart with the intention to rebuild it into a new configuration. This clearly never happened, and it has been languishing in many pieces in my spares drawer! I really wanted to add something else onto the bonnet or cab to further detail it, and I realised the old horn from the Knightwing kit would be perfect. Looking at photos online, either it would likely be mounted on the roof, on the front of the cab, or on the bonnet. I chose the latter as it would be less prone to damage, and there was more space. A simple bracket was therefore made from 20 thou (I think) plasticard - two 'gable' shapes for the main bracket, with a triangular support for strengthening the back. Once assembled, it was simply glued in the centre of the bonnet, at the back, where it would be out of the way. Above: Other than the repaint, there's one more thing that I'd like to add, again, inspired by a couple of prototype photos. As mentioned, all metalwork, especially the cab, is far too thick. I noticed that some locomotives gained new windows in frames mounted to the outside of the cab. This, I felt, would not only create a more interesting and unique model, but it would hopefully mitigate the effect of the super thick plastic walls to some degree. Here's the basic materials for the start of both window frames; 20 thou x 40 thou strips, with four long pieces for the top and bottom frame members, and 8 vertical members. As you can see, these are glued together, with help from a needle file to delicately align them correctly. The paper underneath prevents the plastic cement stick everything to the cutting mat. Above: I knew that I wouldn't be able to accurately cut out 'glass' (i.e. clear plastic packaging) to fit within each aperture perfectly, so I came up with the idea of using thinner microstrip pieces to make a raised frame, which slightly overlaps the inside of the aperture of each window. Thus this acts similarly to beading that's used to secure glass into real wooden window frames - allowing the 'glass' to be dropped in behind, and glued in place. Whilst this was a little bit fiddly, with care, it was actually surprisingly easy to make! Above: As I needed to fit the 'glass' before glueing the frames onto the cab, I opted to first paint the frames. For this, Vallejo Model Color 'Azure' was used - the colour I intend to paint the locomotive later on. After two coats, the 'glass' was cut, trimmed, and placed against the beading from behind. A little bit of Deluxe Materials 'Plastic Magic' was used to glue them in place. Above: And now for the bit I wasn't looking to doing - the painting! First, another coat of primer for the body, now that additional detailing had been added. Note that I'm using old bits of rail, which the parts are Blu Tac'd onto - these A-shaped rail structures were going to be pipeline supports for my Fawley Oil Refinery layout! Anyway, as the chassis frame steps have been removed, the chassis was now ready to be primed, too. Above: The chassis frame was tackled first - painting it a slightly(!) less vibrant red than before. Even if the steps hadn't have been removed, the fact that the repaint is almost an identical colour doesn't mean it would not be worth doing anyway; the weathering powders that I will be using later will require a matt finish to be effective, so I might as well paint over the shiny factory finish. I accidentally mixed too much paint, so that's partly why the two bolster wagon kits that I'm building also got painted with it. Above: Everything gained 3 or 4 layers of acrylic paint - each was very slightly watered down, and painted in alternate directions to try to minimise brush strokes from being apparent. With my painting skills, it will never be as good as spray painting, but I'm not investing in an airbrush any time soon just for occasional projects. And to be quite honest, I'm happy with the final results that I've achieved. Anyway, here's the body being painted, the leftmost photo showing the first coat being applied, and the rightmost showing the second going on top. The difference between 1st and 2nd coat is quite surprising! Above: After the blue was done, I started painting all the other bits. To be fair, not many colours are needed - just greys for the roof, handles, grille, and lower interior of the cab, white for the upper interior of the cab, and finally brown for the inside edges of the door/window frames. I've definitely got better at painting carefully and precisely, but there were still a couple of spots of blue that needed touching up. Above: With all the painting done, it was time to add the windows. Now, I could've, and should've, filed away the slight raised frames of the original. However, as I'd already painted, and I felt it might be hard keeping the file consistent across the whole width, I opted instead simply to glue directly on top of the raised frame detail. To be fair, whilst there is a slight gap, it could easily be covered by either adding more plastic cement, more paint, or filler. Oh, and the photo on the right is to do a dry-run, and check that the paint wasn't stopping the parts fitting together. And I guess also because I wanted to see how it was looking overall! Above: Originally, when it came to weathering, I was going to paint 'rust' everywhere, however, I was reaching the point where I just wanted to get the loco finished as I'd spent a LOT of time on it! Thus I took the simplistic approach of using weathering powders to create a more 'generic' grubby look. I say generic because although I've tried to copy the prototype as far as grim is concerned, I'm not applying it with a critical eye and going into great detail. As the photos try to show, all I've done is add dark grey for generic grime and oily areas, a dark brown to represent brake dust around the bottom of the frame, and light brown for rusty patches. The latter is incredibly simplistic, but particularly on the buffer beams I think it actually works better than I thought it would! Above: Here's another look at a different part of the loco being weathered - the front end. First the generic grime around the bottom and edges (and grille), then muddy grime along the bottom, and finally rust applied to the bolt heads and down around the front light casing/grille. Above: Here's a before and after. Sorry for the lack of depth of field in the second shot! I think the transformation is pretty clear to see though. Suddenly it's changed from a toy, to a model. At least, I think so anyway! Eventually I'll probably spray matt varnish on it to protect it from handling, but for now it's too cold for that. P.S. Note the rust streak that runs from the exhaust stack, then down the side of the bonnet - same for the various handles. Above: We're nearly at the end, but there's a couple more items to add - first, the curtains to hide the very obvious motor in the cab (something I should really do to the two other Minitrains locos as well)! Once again, I found that some prototypes were retrofitted with curtains, so I knew roughly what I should be aiming for. To keep things simple, rather than model partially opened curtains which would require folding, I just created flatish ones from tissue paper, and modelled them fully closed. Above: And finally, the cab steps! Now, I have to be upfront here as I've made them mude wider and thicker than the prototypes'. However, judging by the wonky state of many of them, I feel like it wouldn't be beyond the realms of probability for them to be replaced at some point. Besides, the width of the prototype ones was ridiculously narrow, in my view! In any case, they were made, as you can see, using two sizes of styrene lengths, in 4 pieces. Two uprights of 0.020", one step plate of 0.010", and a further 0.020" bottom. I won't bother to explain the assembly as I think it's clear enough in the photos! I must admit, I haven't yet soldered the wires to the LED light back on. Purely because I wanted to get some new photos of the layout for the 009 Society article with the diesel in - so I was in a rush to get it 'completed'. That also means that the loco, currently, does not have the weight in it - so it's pretty back-heavy! Hopefully the resoldering will be relatively straightforward, but if it's not, I'll come back and add more to this post... ...in the meantime, to summarise, this certainly was not a quick project! However, being my first successful loco project, it has given me some much needed confidence. Perhaps enough now to tackle the replacement motor in my Liliput shunter that died many, many years ago - that will require part of the weight to be removed to fit the new, slightly bigger motor in, as well as working out a way to secure the motor in place. Anyway... that's definitely a project for a future post! To finish, let's look at some photos of the finish model, starting with a comparison between the original form, and the final form: Above: It's amazing what a difference a repaint, some detailing, and a tiny bit of weathering can do! Though to be fair it's taken a week of work, so it has been something of a labour of love. I suppose the only things that stand out now as wrong are the unpainted counterweights and coupling rods. But I'd prefer to leave mechanical bits as they are, where possible! Above: A view showing the rear of the NS2F, as it slowly rolls backwards to couple up to the tank wagon (though I've just realised the wagon is facing the wrong direction and there is no coupling hoop on the far side!). Above: The loco patiently waits on the loco shed headshunt. Either the driver has gone for a walk to the kiosk by the harbour, or he is napping in the cab somewhere! Above: A final look of the completed engine as it waits for its driver to change the point that leads to the sidings so that it can resume shunting. In tow, the commemoratively liveried goods van, with the 009 Society's 50th Anniversary logo on the side, clearly needs a good clean. Judging by the similar state of the loco, I don't think that will be a top priority for the crew! Personally, I think the loco is a perfect fit for this tatty sunbleached seaside railway. But what do you think? I hope that you've found this blog post informative or perhaps even inspirational! I'd love to hear your thoughts and suggestions on anything featured here. Many thanks, and happy modelling, Jamie

You think you have problems... 😅 Truth be told, and despite being somewhat of a perfectionist, it somehow doesn't bother me! What does bother me is the hole in the backscene (which I do have a plan for at last). To make things worse, the front edge of the layout curves to nothing on the left-hand end, so there are plenty of awful viewing angles in terms of backscene angle. Yet still, I'm happy with it. If there is a vertical or horizontal element to your backscene, unless you only look side-on, it will never look 'perfect'. Yet it can still give a good sense of depth to the scene, and most of the time, it will add more to a layout than it takes away. Simple backscenes always seem to work 'best', which might be why I can get away with it on my layout a little bit - if it had a load of boats, busy clouds, and other detail, it would probably look much worse! I would agree with everyone else saying that it will likely only be an 'issue' to yourself. It's up to you whether you feel you can live with it, or whether it will bother you to no end. In truth, it would take no more than a few minutes, if you knew how, to erase the sea in Photoshop or similar. For what it's worth, I think it looks fine! All the best, Jamie

And... just to play Devil's advocate... none of this upper/lowercase thinking really matters when it comes to typing in the URL, as it is all lowercase! 😅

Interesting question (I'd be amazed if it hasn't been asked before at some point though!). Obviously I can only guess on why, but, a few thoughts popped into my head... 'RM' is written as initials, whereas 'web' is shorthand (so I guess you could even argue it should be RM'web (!)) 'RMweb' is much easier to read and decipher than RMWeb in my humble opinion - particularly as everyone knows that web is shorthand/slang for the world wide web/internet. Should you read it as RMW-eb, or RM-Web... see what I mean? It seems 'modern' (I use that term loosely!) not to capitalise some parts of titles, especially if the non-capitalised part is a descriptor. 'RMWeb' looks ugly to me! It'll be interesting to see the real reason though! P.S. Thanks for the explanation of camel case - I always wondered why it was called that.

Disaster averted! The holiday is during the first two weeks of April. Looks like it'll be Sandy Shores at NG South on the Saturday if they still want me, followed by a trip to SWAG on the Sunday as a visitor - fantastic! I don't suppose I can reclaim my 'title' as chief photographer again this year, @NHY 581?

All I can say is thank goodness I haven't been asked to show Bramble's Boatyard even in embryonic form - as I haven't even started it yet I've been so busy this year! Mind you, I guess that is technically embryonic?! More importantly, every year I wonder how on earth the standard of modelling on show, especially for a free event, can be sustained. Yet every year I am blown away by the exhibits; and that's before I've even got there. Top line up, quality modelling, an 'exhibition' (read: convivial modellers' paradise) not to be missed! I am however very worried because I've just remembered that our family has booked a holiday in Wales, and I have a horrible feeling it's somewhen around this time... hopefully it's not! 🤞

It was a very enjoyable day! As per usual, I spent far too long enjoying good company and taking thousands of photographs, but it was great to see you and your dad again, as well as your colleague. Lots of chatting, lots of tea, and a layout featuring first-rate modelling and incredibly complex signalling - no surprise there then from you, Simon! It was also great to see @Graham_Muz's lovely station buildings up close. Thanks so much for a wonderful day. Here are some behind-the-scenes photos. It will take me a fair while to work through the photos and stack them all, but I look forward to seeing the finished photos in print. The videos should also be very interesting! All the best, Jamie

Ever since I bought the lovely Bachmann 'Dorothea' to compliment my existing loco 'fleet' of 2 on Sandy Shores, I've realised that I need a way to run-in locomotives. (I moreso need one in OO now that I've been buying multiple locos for Bramble's Boatyard, but that's another matter entirely!). Still, a simple roundy-roundy would be nice; but y'know what would really be nice? Having a scenic one! More specifically, using this opportunity to try and catch up on some of my BRM projects that I'm months behind on. On the cards in that respect is a pond and a windmill, so clearly I'll need a little bit of space for these, but they will certainly be perfect subjects for a 'pizza layout' like this. Above: The design calls for nothing more than a simple circuit of track, a couple of tunnels, a halt, a road with an ungated level crossing, a windmill, and finally... a pond with a culvert running under the railway. Before I had time to even finish the above sketch, my Dad had already found an offcut of ply! Happily, it could perfectly fit a 2ft/600mm diameter circle on it: However, this is 12mm ply, so I'll be wise to reduce the weight a little. Time, once I had cut the circle itself out, to mark out where I can cut out some space-saving holes... Above: With a 100mm wide circle around the outside, and an 80mm wide cross in the middle, I should be able to cut out four holes of decent size, whilst still allowing enough room for a solid base for the track, and avoiding losing too much structural integrity. Above: The key to doing this as simply and neatly as possible is a router and a cutting guide. The latter, in this case, is a bit of OSB which is screwed loosely to the centre of the board. The router is then screwed tightly onto the OSB; aligning with the pivot point at a set distance to get the right radius of cut. The router and OSB can then turn on the pivot to get a perfect arc. Of course, don't forget to clamp it down, and don't cut through your work surface! Above: After a while, the four holes were cut, and sanded to remove any splinters. All the straight lines used that spirit level in the background as a guide; it was clamped at a set distance comparable to the distance between the straight edge of the router base, and the widest part of the router blade itself. With the simple base cut, it was time to determine what I wanted on the layout - usually I would've already planned this, but this was a rare spontaneous bit of baseboard making! My original intention was just to use a circle of first radius track (albeit actually using the old flexitrack I had from Old AGWI Rd.). However, conversing with Carol Flavin, and also thinking about what would happen if I ever took the layout to shows, got me thinking that perhaps I should add more. Also, let's not forget that I have a ton of used points from the old layout to make use of! Above: To begin the design, I thought the best way was to cut some templates from paper to work out what radii might work given the space available. The tightest, 10cm radius, was the minimum recommended by others online. I then chose, pretty randomly, 12.5cm and 16.4cm. The latter was chosen because that was the maximum my compass went to! I then got the big builders compass out and marked out what Peco consider to be 1st radius in 009 - 22.8cm. Quite a lot bigger than the rest, which surprised me. (Note that radius is marked as the centreline of the track.) Above: Clearly, the 10cm and 12.5cm radius are far too tight for this layout; even to use after the points. I say that, because for whatever unfathomable reason, there aren't curved 009 points available - so unless you're making your own curved points, you will need some tight curves before and after each point to compensate for fact that the points aren't curved themselves. Above: Adding the points into the mix (some I need to unsolder as they're attached to other bits of track from Old AGWI Rd. - hence the use of some templates), we can see one potential idea. However, let's draw on this photo to give us a better idea of what my intention was... Above: ... with a bit of imagination, I'm hoping you can see that the siding on its own on the left would be hidden under a hill that the windmill will sit on top of. The bridge in the foreground would be raised up for the road to cross the railway, with a second bridge to its right where the railway will cross a pond, before entering the platform loop. On the far side, there is a level crossing, and a tunnel shortly after. Here's what a very rushed 3D CAD model looks like: Above: A simple 3D model gives a good idea of how such a layout might look. I haven't got the scaling quite right I don't think, but it does show that it would look much better if there was a way to disguise the tunnel on the right a bit more. I also realised that the pond (which isn't as big as I would like) isn't fed by any body of water. It suddenly occured to me that one solution to 'fix' both problems (and one that was very rarely modelled) was an aqueduct - perhaps something as seen in this photo in Wales... Above: ...which... sort of fixed both problems. Except, it really doesn't look right to me. I should've copied the scenery across so that the tunnel is in the same place as the first 3D model, but for some reason I curved the road around. This results in less room for the windmill, and also exagerates the fact that the train just goes in a circle! Another problem is that the nice view across the level crossing can no longer be accessed as the backscene is in the way. The aqueduct, I feel, is also too dominating, though I suppose it could've been made shorter if I extended the pond all the way to the trackbed. At this point, I was about ready to call it a day, but I thought I'd try one more thing, albeit unrelated to the previous problems. Despite the fact that I planned one siding to be hidden, another aspect I wasn't particularly keen on is that both sidings faced the same direction; which makes them boring to shunt. Now, the difficulty is that getting two standard points close to each other requires quite tight curves on a board this size and shape; which is what would be needed to get this siding facing the other way whilst not entering the scenic section. Then I thought 'Do I really want it hidden?'. Well, I guess it doesn't need to be... I then considered that it might be the chance to have a purpose for the siding. Rather ironically (although this might change), I instantly thought of having a loco shed rather than an industrial use; so no shunting! In any case, that means the road needs flipping so that the bridge is on the far side of the layout. This also means rather than a train exiting a tunnel and going straight over a level crossing (which seems off to me), it goes past a loco shed first. Let's take a look at a mock-up: Above: The new mock-up shows the loco shed middle left, behind the level crossing. Note that there's also now room for a water tower; which I imagined would be fed from the pond (although I've no clue if that's likely). The whole composition seems MUCH better to me; I really like how the train would exit from underneath the road bridge on the right and coast into the station; where having the platform shelter set into the embankment reduces the sudden transition from the high bridge to the low platform. The water tower now takes the place of the original platform shelter, creating a really nice focal point mid-layout. Elsewhere, we have our view from the level crossing up to the road bridge back again. Moving around, the loco shed will only be a very small one, and the tunnel entrance will be completely covered by tree canopies and other overgrowth to disguise it a bit. The tunnel on the other side of the hill will be incredibly hard to spot, as I will block it with a tree by the road bridge. Let's take a look at this in sketch form: Above: I really like this a lot! There's a lot going on, and although the track is a little closer to the edge than I would like, on the whole it's a very pleasing scene. One thing I haven't mentioned is the nice sight line from the platform, up the path, across the road, and up the second path to the windmill. That should work really well. Elsewhere, note that I've splayed the walls of the stream/weir/sluice so that they open out towards the viewer; this makes the viewing angle of the bridge wider - a must for photography especially. A culvert at the back of the pond now helps to explain where the water comes from! However, one thing I'm not sure that quite works is the use of level crossing gates. I think the space is too narrow and there's no gap in front of the gate from which to take satisfactory photos without the board edge being in shot. These will probably be removed in favour of an open crossing with simple warning signs. As I mentioned earlier, I'm hoping the loco shed will work in the space. Although it may very well be easier to disguise the scenic exit with a tall industrial building, along with a pipeline or conveyor (or something similar), and it will provide more interesting shunting, I think a loco shed is more fitting to the general scene. But I'm happy to take suggestions! Oh, and I was going to mention the name quickly. This was a last minute decision as I suddenly realised I hadn't got a project title! My first idea was, rather ridiculously, 'Mill Hill Mill' (which was actually the name of a real windmill, apparently). My humourous side also leapt in with 'Making a mountain out of a mill hill'.. but let's not go there! Anyway, I then decided to find something else, and was originally going to go for an equally funny 'Windy Miller Halt'. I realised I knew that first part from somewhere else - it hit me that it was the name given to a character in a stop motion children's TV programme! So hence why I've gone with Windy Mill Lane. A nod to that, but not a copy of! As an aside, I also mistakenly saved a file as 'Windy Hill Lane' which, to be fair, is also quite a nice and semi-humourous name. Well, that'll do for this blog entry - watch this space for more (and yes, I will get back to Bramble's Boatyard in due course - I'm still working on the leg/lighting rig design). Do let me know if you have any bright ideas, or simply just want to leave some feedback or a general comment!

All I can say is that is absolutely superb, and will be extremely helpful when I get around to building the swing bridge - a wealth of detail there! I ordered a sheet of rivets in preparation; but I think, on further inspection, I might need more than one... Thank you very much, I really appreciate the photos! Jamie

That's fantastic, Dave! And perhaps unsurprisingly, it's another prototype I looked at: Any additional photos would be very gratefully received; thank you very much for that offer! There don't seem to be too many photos of swing bridges; but I guess that's because they were probably in areas where the general public wouldn't be allowed. Port Dundas is a particularly good example as it's so small, and obviously still exists! Thanks again! Jamie

Ahh!! It all becomes clear. I'll admit I forgot that post-focus was a thing in some cameras! I've just looked at the manual, and I completely understand why it is such a laborious process; one wonders why it doesn't just save all the focus points as separate JPEGs automatically... You may already know, but it appears that you can save individual focus point images in-camera as JPEGs (see here), but whether it allows you to save more than one, or if there's a limit... your guess is as good as mine. Either way it still looks to be a laborious process... There may however be a website or piece of software that allows you to convert an mp4 file to an image sequence. Maybe something like this (again, never tried the website, so I can't vouch for it in any way - you do have to be careful what buttons/links you press on some of these sites!). Failing that, the earlier site that I linked to in my first reply should help you to save stills in VLC player.

I'm really glad it was useful, thank you, Mikkel! Whilst I'm not an expert on baseboard design and carpentry, my dad used to be a carpenter before he retired; so I have access to both knowledge and tools which have proven incredibly useful for building model railways - as you might imagine. I don't think there's a wrong and right way to approach baseboard design, but knowing the characteristics of materials is incredibly important; especially their weight (I'll never ever use MDF for anything that's meant to be portable again...)! The main thing is to do whatever works for you. By all means, learn new skills and techniques, and try out old materials... but if your old approach works for you and you can't 'get on' with a new approach; then it's absolutely fine to stick by what you know. Anyway, yes, the shot of the Q1 was also the point for me at which I could see it would all come together nicely. As for the last part, I couldn't possibly comment!! 😅😁

I don't believe there's a way to import an mp4 file and retrieve stills in Affinity Photo. I'm sure you'd be able to save frames in VLC, but I don't use it anymore (and I don't use Mac) so I can't directly advise; other than to direct you here which seems to have the answer? I'm really sorry to be 'that guy', but, playing Devil's advocate; I can't help but wonder why you are photo stacking with a video? Seems a bit... overly complicated! I'm also guessing that you probably won't get high-res shots as you would if you were taking actual photos and stacking them? Just (admittedly, too) curious, and a little confused! P.S. For everyone else, I switched to the Affinity suite last year, and absolutely love it. For those that don't know, it's a far cheaper, subscription-less model that is essentially comparable to the Adobe suite of software. All my photos in BRM on layout shoots that I've done have been stacked with Affinity Photo; so it is certainly capable software.

Thanks for this! I had actually found the photo of Rolles Quay - and as I don't know the area at all well, I assumed this was the Pottington one. However, looking at the Pottington photos I linked before proves it was actually a completely different bridge. Obvious now, but not at the time! Had I not seen Pottington, I would've probably gone down a similar route to the Rolles one. Hayle is the main one I originally thought of when wanting to add a swing bridge. It's a good one to show how most swing bridges with their pivot on one end have much of their span over land to avoid using too many counterweights. I don't want to say who (that's up to them to say), but someone has amazingly provided me with 3 photos of the Pottington bridge (plus one of the signal box) which has been incredibly useful as it shows it was indeed a small swing bridge in terms of having very low girder sides; which is exactly what I want. It's also got a wealth of other things that I now want to include on the plan. Additionally, I'm now tempted to do away with the brick arch so that I can have a more spindly iron structure with better views beyond the bridge. Lots to consider!

As many of you know, my modelmaking comes in fits and starts. On personal projects, that usually means 1 or 2 months of modelling a year, and that's it. On BRM projects, it is usually more consistent year-round, however, this year I've fallen behind by about 4+ months due to a myriad of reasons; S.A.D being a big part of it, but also struggling with a build that I initially thought would be straight-forward that turned out to be anything but! Instead of moving onto another project and coming back to it, I ended up in a weird non-productive mojo-less limbo; frustrated by the kit in question, whilst also struggling to rein in my expectations and perfectionism. Thank goodness the folk at BRM are so understanding, and that I had plenty of layout photography work to do for them instead! So anyway, why a sudden update now? Well, mostly it's thanks to the lovely Carol Flavin, who, despite having surgery and other challenging circumstances, has made great progress on her new 009 layout; the 'Harland Light Railway'. I'm very fortunate in that we have regular communication via Twitter, and she always sends me photos, updates, and videos of her modelling and such. Her surprisingly quick construction of the HLR so far, as well as her encouragement, made me realise that what I really needed was a small break, and to start on a new project for myself to get me out of my creative rut. Combined with the lovely sunshine recently, and finding a huge roll of paper which I was free to use, I felt it was time to turn my latest version of Bramble's Boatyard into a more tangible form! Above: OK, so it's not the most visually stimulating photo... however, this image does show physical progress for the first time in ages! My studio is pretty tiny, (all that's out of shot is my desk and chair), so space is tight. Still, to my surprise I could fit all 2.6m of the scenic portion of the layout into my studio. Good to know! Above: Annoyingly, the paper is something like 445mm wide, not 500mm; so three sheets were needed to get the full 1m width of the layout at its' widest point. Time to head to the lounge where there's more space. Here, I'm using Dad's big builders compass (there may be a more technical term, but this'll do!) to mark the curved ends out. It's not exactly a precision tool, but it does the job... more or less! Above: Before we go any further, let's remind ourselves of what the last version of Bramble's Boatyard looked like. I've just realised that the above plan is actually out-of-date as the three-way point has been removed and replaced with a medium left-hand point, and the curving siding leading from the bottom route of the three-way has thus now gone. Still, that's about the only change, so it'll do until I can update it. I should probably note at this point that my original design for the front of the layout was to be a smooth curve that, more or less, got exponentially tighter towards the ends (as you can see in the plan). With no clue how to really tackle that in a simple manner, I opted for a simpler approach when marking it onto the paper mock-up. The sharp curved ends are approximately 817mm radius (the radii and its centre points worked out from the XtrkCAD file), and the last 600mm towards the centre of the layout (at it's widest point of 1m) is now simply connected with a straight line; thus there is a very slight 'point' to the centre of the layout. Above: The layout looks huge in this tiny room, but I bet it won't when I eventually take it to an exhibition hall! In any case, with the shape marked out, it was time to find the points and random bits of track I had bought many, many years ago for a failed layout, and see if the XtrkCAD plan fits... Above: ...and it certainly does! I've taken these photos because it nicely shows off the lovely flowing trackwork. You'll be hard-pressed to find any parallels here; especially against the baseboard edge. Do note though that the track by the brick bridge should curve towards the front edge slightly (i.e. in the right photo, the track nearest the camera should be bent slightly to the right as it comes towards me). Now, forgive me, but at this point I need to go on a slight diversion - we'll get back to the mock-up in a bit...(It'll make sense why soon enough!) Many months ago, I started designing the baseboards for the layout. I don't think I ever posted them (as they were never finished), but they looked like this: Above: Yes. It is a little on the overengineered side! The craziest part about it though is probably the criss-cross diagonal struts (dark/navy blue). These fit into the weight-saving holes of the strengtheners (yellow). Now, although these are half-lapped so that they just slot together to form the X shape, they would still be a pig to install as they would need to be slotted through all the strengtheners before ANY assembly/gluing can take place. I imagine that even an octopus would have trouble holding that many parts together! I did make sure the holes were large enough to fit two of the cross strut pieces atop one another so that you can actually get them in, but the rest of the practicalities were clearly lost on me at the time... Above: Continuing the same design, we now have the lighting rig, backscene, and fascia installed. As the image says, this is the exact same design I used for Sandy Shores, albeit with multiple hinged arms this time due to the size of the layout. The pelmet, by the way, is in two separate halves, and I suspect the backscene would be, too. Just for completion sake, the colours relate to the following: ORANGE = 3mm ply (if it'll bend that tight, if not, it'll be 5mm 'bendy' plywood) CYAN = 3mm plywood (same as orange, but I chose a different colour so you could see them!) ALSO ORANGE = 21mm x 21mm quadrant mouldings (to ensure the yellow cross struts are perpendicular) YELLOW = 9mm plywood, with 65mm diameter holes to save weight GREEN = 12mm plywood (used on the straight perimeters of all boards) RED = 18mm plywood PINK/PURPLE = 18mm x 44mm PSE softwood NAVY BLUE = 18mm x 28mm PSE softwood WHITE = 34mm x 34mm PSE softwood DARK GREY = 6mm plywood Now that I'm back after many months, and with a fresh set of eyes, clearly there are too many materials, it's too complex, and probably over-engineered! But there's also another issue I thankfully spotted... Above: Whilst I did spend a long time moving cross-braces (yellow) and board joins to ensure they would not get in the way of points and their motors, for some reason I had overlooked the bridge and the traverser. Both of these would span baseboard joins (marked with the red dotted line). Whilst the swing portion of the bridge is fine, the fixed span certainly wouldn't be. Thus, a perfect opportunity to use the mock-up to approach things from a different angle... Above: ...and I soon realised that I could, instead of splitting the layout into 4 boards, split it into 3 (note the cyan lines); thus bypassing the problem of the bridge (on the left) and traverser (marked in pink) being on a board join. (P.S. note that I forgot to add the top right sidings in the earlier photo, but have included them in this one.) The only downsides I see are that the board sizes are slightly bigger, and that we have one pair of stackable boards and a larger central board; instead of 2 sets of matching boards that can be stacked. Still, fewer board joins is always a big bonus, and more importantly, the bridge and traverser mechanisms won't have to be more complicated than they need to be; nor removable! The large central board can be transported with a plywood lid, so the fact it can't be stacked is of little consequence, I feel. So, let's see what we can do for a new baseboard design. The first area I started with was the middle board as that is the easiest one. But that's when I realised something that would make it even easier... ...are slight curves/angles worth the hassle? Earlier, I mentioned that instead of having one continous and exponentially curving fascia on the front of the layout, I would instead have a fixed radius curve on the two outer boards, whilst the central board would feature a very slight point in its centre. Creating this in Sketchup wasn't particularly difficult, but there were a few approaches I could take: Above: Three methods that I considered when trying to work out how to produce either an angled or curved fascia. (Click to open larger version). OK, so they're easy to make in Sketchup, but what about the real world? Well, for those wondering how on earth you'd cut angles so minimal, and also make rebates that are angled, the answer lies in this: Above: This nifty bit of kit is a cross-cut mitre saw (you can just see the metal saw blade under the main blue body/motor casing). Not only can you create easy angled cuts, but you can also mitre/bevel them by tilting the blade left and right and using the scale at the back (see inset). Essentially, you can create any angle with ease, and you can even use it to create trenches/rebates (and angled ones at that!). The perks of having a carpenter dad with useful tools! Above: Dad thus showed me the ease at which you can create an angled rebate; which would be needed to join the yellow cross-struts to the angled green front edge. Imagine the softwood (going vertically in the photo above) is the 12mm ply baseboard edge from my 3D design, and the horizontal (ish) bit of wood is a 9mm (yellow) cross-strut. Using a set-square, we can see that even a tiny angle like 1.5 degrees (or even smaller) is easily done with the cross-cut mitre saw. The saw, by the way, also has a depth stop; so you can be sure the cut is always at the same depth; perfect for trenching/rebate work like this. However, one thing then dawned on me. As nice as it is to be able to do all this, is it really necessary? Well, no! I decided that the (admittedly satisfying) visual flow gained from creating a baseboard that is pointed or curved to create 30mm of extra width in the middle, doesn't really justify the added complexities and time taken to produce it; even if you have the tool(s) to do it fairly easily! Even though this is a personal layout project, with my BRM practical how-to hat on, I also thought about "How would other people create this with minimal tools at their disposal?". The answer would be... "good luck!". OK, so I guess you could use a handsaw at an angle, but that's a PITA, and much harder to achieve accurate, consisent results! So, long story short, I did away with it entirely, and now the baseboard will be two standard curves joined by one, standard, square, straight board. Simple! Sure, it would be nice to have a lovely flowing baseboard all the way along, but for once, I'm letting the practical part of me take precedent instead of the design/creative side. It must be a full moon! With that in mind, let's carry on with the new baseboard design: Above: Much simpler! Though, to be fair, I haven't yet included the lighting rig supports, but unlike the old version, these will not be in the way of the diagonal strengtheners. Note the white cylinders embedded in the cross struts in the new version - these were later used to 'punch out' the weight-saving holes in the 3D model. Anyway, we are still using 12mm (green) plywood around the outside and 9mm (yellow) cross-struts complete with softwood quadrants to create a rigid board. However, all the various types of diagonal members have been replaced by a much simpler arrangement of 9mm plywood crosses underneath; one for each board. Another thing to note is that I've reduced the depth of the board from 150mm to 120mm; which is why the new baseboard looks longer. In any case, let's look at the design a little closer: Above: This screenshot shows one of the cross-struts being put into position. Note that in reality the quadrants would be glued in place afterwards, but you get the idea. I've moved two of them out of the way so that you can see the half-lap in the two cross-struts that allow them to interlock; the slots of which are easy to produce with a router. Note also the rebate in the green side on the left between the two quadrants. Above: A close-up, exploded diagram showing the construction detail of the area around one of the two front baseboard joints. Hopefully it's fairly self-explanatory! Above: The 9mm plywood crosses underneath are also rebated like the ones in my old design were, however, by using a thinner material, we can actually put these on after we've finished the main frame instead of trying to thread them through the cross-struts whilst also holding 20 components at once! However, to achieve a flush finish, a slight design adjustment would be needed: Above: Instead of simply nailing the crosses to the bottom, ensuring that they would be flush with the bottom of the frame requires 9mm to be 'cut off' from the bottom of all the cross-struts and quadrants. The kind of thing that's much easier to do on a 3D model than it would be to do retrospectively in real life! This is why I find CAD work so invaluable. As a slight aside, whilst I could now make things neater by not rebating the bottom 9mm of the green sides (now that the yellow cross-struts no longer reach the bottom), I decided that it's not worth the effort; it's much easier just to router the rebate/trench in one smooth motion right the way down the width of each piece, than have to stop 9mm from the end each time. Above: Sometimes you forget about the basics; especially after a long break! Here, I've split the layout into two 700mm wide boards and a 1000mm wide board; however note that the first red circle denotes that the bridge mistakenly spans two boards. I've also equidistantly spaced all the cross-struts; however, that's not always the optimum position for them as point motors will get in the way, as evidenced with the second circle! This calls for a partial rethink... ...I say partial because I'm not going to change the width of the boards; it would cause more problems than it would solve - having two identically shaped boards is more important here, and no other width would really work for other reasons. The solution is simple. Shorten the bridge, and adjust the cross-strut spacing. Let's start with the latter: Above: To avoid the curved point tiebar on the far right of the plan, the spacing of the cross-struts has been adjusted; so that they are no longer spaced evenly. Additionally, another row of them has been added. The reason for this is twofold: Firstly, the new spacing would otherwise create a large gap between the fascia and next row of cross-struts; thus being a potential weak point - especially with the curved fascia potentially trying to push the ends apart. Rather than align the new horizontal row with the first vertical cross-strut. What I've done is line it up more-or-less half-way between that and the end of the board. My reasoning is that it will provide more support points to hold the fascia in place. Secondly, one of the original rows previously supported the far anchor point of the curved fascia of both outer baseboards - whilst I could have kept a short section there, it's easier just to add a quadrant moulding there, which should still give enough support. It's not something I'm too worried about because we've also got the yellow X underneath that anchors that corner nicely at the bottom. In any case, if it looks like it will create a weak point, I can always 'beef it up' during assembly. Something to note is that I've carried this new spacing across to all of the boards. That will make cutting out each half-lap in the cross-struts easier as I won't have to keep measuring different spacings (and don't worry, I checked that it won't impact other point motor positions etc.!). Above: The bridge shortening is slightly harder to see, so I've annotated a couple of photos I took during the process; which are taken from roughly the same position (more luck than judgement!). Using the green dotted line to represent the baseboard join, we can see that the original bridge length would've sat directly on this join. As that is the pivot end of the swing bridge, that isn't going to work. The lower photo shows the new design; the span has been shortened, as has the arch; which I've actually based on one I built for The Old Road (remember that project?!) - hence why it's suddenly become much wider as well. It does look a bit odd, so I'm not sure if I'll keep it (and besides it's a very old scratchbuild, so it needs a bit of work to bring it up to par!). This bridge took me a while to get right with regards to the swing span - I realised that my original design had the pivot as close to the end as possible. However, looking at what few examples I could find online, the pivot is clearly brought in towards the centre a bit so that you can have enough space for counterweights. Makes sense! I suppose I should really move it even closer towards the centre, but that would narrow the navigational width even further than I already have. The only other thing I'm not 100% happy with is that the river now has quite a pronounced curve again on the far side due to the alterations made. I'm hoping it's not too tight for small boats to negotiate! I may be able to move the brickwork's kiln slightly to the left to ease the curve of the river, but it's already a fairly compact scene... we'll see. Above: The full plan crudely drawn onto the paper; don't study it too closely! Ideally, I'd just print off the XtrackCAD file, but that would require a lot of printed A4 sheets, and a lot of time spent taping them together! Above: Taking a closer look at the right-hand end of the layout, testing shows that we can just about fit in a class 03, two vans, and a brake van. My new plan is to use the headshunt to store the brake van during shunting maneouvres, rather than the loco shed road. The traverser behind the loco can indeed fit the well wagon and 03. Just! Though this is only going to be used by the Ruston 44DS as it's much lighter (and smaller). P.S. I know the 03 is about 13 years out of period, but I now have 2 of them (a second one I got at the RMweb Member's Day). Besides, it's my layout, and I like them! Above: A final shot for now. This shows a Q1 on the swing bridge. The actual swing span will be slightly shorter (just take off the two smaller end panels, and that's about the right length). This is a view that I think will work really well on the model, and will be a favourite photo spot, I'm sure! I'm also excited to see how this view will look with the span open and the river banks and kiln behind it visible. It should work really well with the curving river; so long as I get the backscene join convincingly subtle... Well, that's about it for one blog entry as I've reached a point where I need more time to do work on the baseboard leg design. Besides, this entry is long enough and I've been working on it for about a week on and off! I also need to clear space again in the studio so I can return to actually doing work related modelmaking... I hope you've found this entry interesting/informative! Do leave any comments, suggestions, or questions below! P.S. If anyone has a photo of the swing bridge that once stood near Barnstaple Town station (I've found two on the internet - this one, and this one, but none showing what it looked like from a similar angle to my last photo above), I would be interested to see it. I'd quite like shorter girder sides, and the views linked above of Pottington swing bridge make it look like it's perhaps a little smaller...?

And I was lucky enough to get to photograph two of them, as well as meet their builders! I was going to wait for the official thread, but I thought this was a good moment to share a fantastic anecdote between Chris Gardner (@ChrisG) and @Godfrey Glyn. This bit of video didn't make it to my final cut of the video, but it was too good not to share. Enjoy!

It's looking like I might finally be getting my layout off the ground soon, which prompted me to think about Modulus again! I realised that I hadn't heard anything more about it; so just wondering if there were any updates that I'd missed since the pre-order/expressions of interest phase? In any case, I hope that development and testing is going smoothly, and that there may be more news in the not-too-distant future... 🤞 All the best, Jamie