SouthernRegionSteam

I might be wrong, but I think it may depend if the user actively enables 'immediately' instead of leaving it as the default edit option, which is the original date that the blog entry was published: Presumably, people see 'immediately' and think 'Oh, I must have to press that for it to update'? Again though, I'm not 100% sure on whether that's how it works. Any ideas @AY Mod? I don't want to try it unnecessarily! Blogs naturally appear in VNC when new comments are posted, which is entirely fair as that is the same of course for layout topics. For me, I view blog entries as "one and done" curated posts - in that you spend hours/days writing them up, and then you publish them as a finished piece, rather than coming back to add updates. Though again, I suspect that not everyone deals with them that way and it is entirely down to user preference!

I'll admit, I've been a bit stunned by the animosity shown here towards blogs and had to step away and come back to it today through fear of saying something I regret! I do respect though that it's 'horses for courses' for most people. Blogs have always been the lesser-known part, but I am surprised that people haven't found the blog section at all; especially now that it turns up in VNC etc. Though, to be fair, I haven't started to use RMweb on mobile until the past week, so perhaps it's a little awkward if that's your main access point. What puzzles me most is that some people find it harder to locate things in a blog than in a topic! I suppose it depends if use has been made of the sidebar, and to what degree it has been organised and labelled. If you use the sidebar to categorise entries and try to give them meaningful names, I can't see how it would be harder to find something than in a topic. In fact, I feel the opposite way in that I'm frequently struggling to find content in layout topics because there's so much guff inbetween, and no chance of an index (when I had a layout topic many years ago, I built up an index on the first post of the topic, but it was a nightmare to keep up, and not convenient in the slightest - hence why I moved to blogs!). I'm not saying I don't like a bit of banter (I actually do!), but for layout topics where you just want to see the content, it can become a bit of a chore to keep scrolling and clicking until you find the next bit. I've said it elsewhere (though I think it was in the Gold area), that Blogs hit the spot for me because it allows you to decide exactly how you want to display your content, you can add header images, create a sidebar index, categorise content, and it keeps the comments separate (yet still part of) each entry. With the latter, it also means that because the comments have their own pagination, you can click to view previous/later comments and still have the main content of the entry above to refer back to. Like I said, 'horses for courses'!

I think Simon's option is probably what I'd prefer, and it's good to know that Phil's experience tallys up. In my eyes, a key part of exhibiting a layout is to provide entertainment and information. Putting information boards in front is also, of course, a great solution to those wandering fingers! Additionally, it gives something for visitors to look at should there be a lull in operations, and means that those who don't feel comfortable asking questions can perhaps have them answered; so long as they are 'typical' questions. I'd argue that, where possible, these simple 2 preventative measures are just as important before you finish planning/building the layout: Having a scenic, but low-detailed 'buffer zone' at the front (could be a hardstanding, road, grass verge, meadow etc.) to lessen the chances of damage being done. Similarly, and this is something that would also benefit people like me who photograph layouts, is to ensure trackwork is at least a few inches away from the board edge. I appreciate that it's not possible/desirable for some, but I think it's worth considering from the outset. I think I've said this a few times now, but on Sandy Shores, I have stuff right at the foreground that is not only very delicate, but is not glued down - such as 2 lightweight footbridge spans that rest on top of a (wobbly!) support. Not once has it been poked at exhibition. I actually think one of the main reasons why is that my lighting pelmet sticks out quite a way on front of the layout, complete with dangling sign that people commonly bounce their head off! It's not something that hurts, but it just encourages people to stay away from the front edge a bit in a natural manner. None of those 'Please don't touch' signs that really don't set the right tone (at least for me!). I've never been to an exhibition that had barriers until recently, and I've certainly never exhibited at one with barriers. My experience of the shows with barriers is that it encourages you to lean on them. I suppose that's a good thing, but equally I found it irritating because I couldn't get close enough to layouts to admire them in the way they should/could be admired. Not to mention the storage required, cost, and set-up time/energy involved for the club/people putting on the event. It seems insane to me, but that's probably just me! Anyway, I shall be giving the information board idea some more thought when I get back to designing the boards for my new layout... I suppose the key is to either make them look flimsy enough to discourage people leaning on them, or, you overengineer them to a degree to ensure you won't be liable for someone injuring themselves or demolishing your layout! Those doorstop spring things seem like a bad idea to me - it only takes on overenthusiastic kid to take down your entire layout...at least it would with mine! As I said, I prefer the more subtle approach to people herding. I think it goes a long way to improve public relations and image, personally. Every exhibition, I expect something to get broken, but so far I'm the only one that's broken anything!

Oh, yes, apologies - should've mentioned it being Killybegs! That would've saved on some research on your part... glad it's cleared the question up, anyway!

I was fortunate enough to photograph this lovely Irish narrow gauge layout a while back - based on the County Donegal Railway. It also featured such a turntable, and I remember the owner saying it was indeed an old frame from an engine or tender (sorry, I have a terrible memory and can't remember which it was, nor what gauge the loco was that the frame was taken from). Perhaps the turntable you bought is thus something like this: Edit: I may be wrong, but I believe it was installed after the railcars were introduced as they were too long for the original turntables (which fed the platform and loop). Presumably the re-use of the frames was a cost-cutting measure. Note also that the turntable track extends over the 'basin' - it's a tight squeeze!

Ah, OK - I think I understand now - I was looking at the wrong siding(s)! So, essentially, after having shunted the train ready for the outbound freight, you're coupling that up to the brake van from the SR train that's just arrived; so that you can 'steal' the brake van and put that now-completed outbound train back by the loco shed. Then the Ruston is parked somewhere out of the way, allowing the SR train to run around the train it had just hauled in, reversing back to the train that the Ruston had just assembled, and then taking that back to the fiddle yard ready for the Ruston to shunt the train already in the loop? Is that about right? Gosh it gets confusing; I should've given the sidings each a number for people to reference if they needed to, as it becomes hard to explain what you mean without it becoming a long paragraph of descriptors! Interesting thought about the propelling move, too. That's another thing I hadn't considered. I suppose it depends on how much shunting I feel like doing at the time! Many thanks for all the help so far, Nick!

That is very true - exchange sidings would be the likely norm - as at Marchwood Military Port; but as you say, it doesn't make for particularly exciting operations! Exchange sidings are also typically quite large, from what I've seen, at least. I'll be honest, I'm still a little unsure as to the logistics in terms of who would own/run the boatyard railway. Local boatyards were mainly requisitioned for the war effort, but I'm not entirely sure who by, and who then ran them. In reality, I suspect that the site itself would either be run by the Admiralty or War Office (equivalent to Royal Navy or MoD today, respectively) - most likely the War Office. As the layout is also set along the Fawley Branch somewhere, it's not beyond the realms of possibilty that W.O./W.D. locos could've been used. However, I have always intended to run mainly SR stock on the layout; which obviously complicates matters! Happily, the Ruston I bought is in War Department green, so at least it fits in the general narrative. In an ideal scenario, I'd like to imagine that the boatyard was requisitioned, expanded, newly rail-served, and that the stock using it would be SR tank locos; most likely from Southampton Dock. Though I'm not sure if there is a precedent for that. Eastleigh Works, as it was presumably always railway-owned, used SR stock despite building boats and other bits for the war at the time - but that is a slightly different scenario. I might just say that; The boatyard was requisitioned by the War Office, and then expanded during the run-up to war, in around 1942. A short rail spur (including a swing bridge over the navigable river) was built from the Fawley Branch to improve access, along with some upgrading of the local roads and the construction of a new hard ('Q3'). The once quiet boatyard became a hive of activity; building various craft and components, whilst also servicing small vessels. Rather than having to bring in larger locos from nearby Marchwood over SR rails, a 48DS Ruston was acquired via the War Department. Despite its dimunitive size, it was usually perfectly adequate in dealing with the required shunting maneouvres and workload. That said, rather unusually, SR tank locos were permitted to work the spur, subject to restrictions (i.e. no SR locos were to access any track including, and further beyond, the traverser). This unusual arrangement is likely due to the restricted nature of the site, and the short length of the spur; no suitable land was available to build exchange sidings. In effect, the run-around loop in the boatyard WAS the sum total of the exchange sidings! The outcome of this was that the driver of any SR loco to access the spur had to be accompanied by suitably trained War Office personnel from the ground frame at the junction with the Fawley Branch. To my untrained eyes, it seems a fairly plausible situation? Probably not exactly the 'done' thing, but still... in lieu of better suggestions that'll be my take on it! I must admit, you've lost me a bit here? I can only assume you're referring to the bottom, longer line of the run-around loop when you refer to 'the long siding'? Otherwise I can't see how that works as the Ruston would be hemmed in if it was in a siding. For what it's worth, as mentioned above, the spur would be short, so I'd probably assume there to be a suitable place nearby along the Fawley Branch for the SR engine to take refuge. Although now that I think about it, I don't think there was an engine shed or coal stage on the line... just a water tower at Hythe?!

Thank you! Your previous comments about there being nowhere to launch ships certainly made me think; and as I didn't like the sight line that the rebuilt concrete roadway created up to the gates, along with the temporary hard itself making no sense in its previous position, I could see an opportunity to improve several aspects in one go. I'm much happier with the plan now. The imposing boatsheds/workshops also provide the impression of a much larger yard than is shown, which I think helps to justify the building of the bridge and railway itself. Now what would be cool is if I could motorise the large gantry crane, though let's see if I can make a working swingbridge, first! Yes, it's bothering me, too - and I did try to add a point where you suggested before I resorted to the 3-way point, however it didn't fit due to the slight curvature of the loop. If I made handbuilt points it would be less of an issue, but as I said, I don't think I'm ready for that just yet! However, your last sentence might just've solved the problem for me, thank you - I didn't think about that. It makes sense to do so, too, as the resident Ruston (which'll sit in the shed) will be the one to do most of the shunting. All except one other locomotive will be steam, so there's no need to access the shed - thus it being blocked by a parked brake van would be a non-issue. Incidentally, I imagined that the loco shed road/traverser road would not be used by SR locos at all, with a sign to that effect just before the flat crossing by the Beetle that's under construction.* For variation, there are a couple of ways I would imagine operating the layout (albeit knowing little about rules and regs/general operating procedures!): An SR loco arrives into the bottom part of the loop, decouples, goes to the headshunt/loco release, runs light engine back into the fiddle yard via the second loop road. The Ruston then does all the shunting (parking the brake van in the loco road first). It can then form an outgoing train. Once finished, either it can reverse the entire train into the shed road to pick up the brake van, or it can park the brake van in the loco release/headshunt so that the SR engine can back into the wagons, and push them all the way back into the brake van. That last option seems a little overcomplicated, though! An SR loco arrives into the bottom part of the loop. The resident Ruston departs from the loco shed road, attaches to the brake van at the back of the first train, pulls it off and takes it back to the loco road, where it waits. The SR loco then shunts the front and kickback sidings as necessary, then heads off scene as a light engine. The Ruston can then do any remaining moves (such as shunting into/out of the workshop/traverser). One of the two brake van options discussed above can then be done. *The only modification to this would be if the SR hauled train has wagons destined for the workshop. These would obviously have to be shunted by the Ruston due to the limited length available on the traverser. However, if it's just one wagon, I suppose the sign could instead be placed just before the traverser, and read "No SR locomotives are to use the traverser", and the wagon could be shunted by the SR loco onto the traverser, ready for the Ruston to take over once it leaves.

Last blog entry, I showed a few of my latest designs - all drawn to scale; including one (BB12) which looked set to be, more or less, the final design. Throughout the comments on that post on RMweb, useful changes were suggested, and some implemented to form BB13. However, I'm going to skip straight to the later version (BB14), posting sketches and 3D designs, explaining what's good and what's bad, and explore ideas for further improvements, which will result in plans BB15 and BB15b Edit: And BB15c! Let's start by comparing BB12 to BB14. If you're already seen the comments from the aforementioned RMweb link, then you can skip this section. Here are the main differences: Road/level crossing - the road on the left has mostly been removed; with only a gravel track for the brickworks remaining. As a result, the level crossing has also now disappeared, as has the bus shelter. Bridge - you'll note that it now has a second, and smaller span - this time, a fixed one. Again, I'm currently undecided what form this will take; either metal beams, or a brick arch. The reason for this change is two-fold; firstly, to allow the riverbank to be wider and more to-scale, and secondly, to allow the bridge to be more of a focal point - enabling better views not just of the trains, but also the brickworks behind. I do like level crossings (and haven't modelled one before), but I feel this is the more sensible choice for the location. As a result, I could now slightly move the signal further from the scenic exit, and in the process, further draw viewers eyes away from the 'hole in the sky'! That's my thinking, anyway. Pillbox - the bus shelter has been replaced by a Type 26 pillbox (probably brick to match the brickworks rather than the often-modelled concrete examples). No Wills pillbox here! I want it to be quite well camouflaged, if possible; just as they should be. WWII defences - to provide further visual interest, and also to yet again firmly cement the layout as set during WWII, a line of anti-tank blocks have been added; right past the riverbank and into the tidal river. A brick arch will also allow me to add recesses into them to suggest holes that would be laced with explosives - mentioned in a past blog entry as a way of blowing up strategic crossing points should an invasion occur. Whilst this was something shown on Redbridge Wharf, it's also something uncovered during my research into defence structures such as the pillbox and anti-tank blocks. 'Beetles' - moving further right, behind the signal box, a new concrete apron has appeared, and is complete with building materials to be used for the construction of the Beetles. I've also popped a loading gauge nearby, and moved the half-built Beetle beside the derrick crane where it makes more sense, and can be handled easier. The crane itself has been rotated slightly to better suit the location, and to allow it to reach more of the hardstanding. Platform/halt - towards the front of the layout, the old wooden platform has been removed from the centre of loop, and my preferred halt design, the SR cast concrete 'trestle' has been built. This change enables a slightly longer platform with ramps on both ends, and, more importantly, the inclusion of the platform shelter. The only big downside is that passenger trains would now block the rest of the yard, and the carriage would need to be pushed a little to the right in order to run-around it. It also means only the back of the halt would be visible, which is a shame. However, removing the platform from the centre opens up the view a bit to the rest of the Beetle construction area and crane; so that is a positive aspect. Adding another siding - further forward, the last obvious change is the inclusion of another point and siding. This turns the original wooden jetty siding into a tiny stub long enough only for the brake van. I was struggling to find somewhere sensible to park the brake van, and this seemed to be the best option; whilst also fixing the other issues I had with the jetty. For example, I was never truly happy with having an old wooden jetty right next to the 'new' concrete hard - it didn't really make any sense. Therefore, this original jetty* is now concrete, and a new wooden jetty (well, old, but newly positioned!) is where the additional line is; fed from another 'Y' point. Admittedly, this is another potentially contentious option; it'll be a balance between increasing operating potential, and keeping the scene balanced/fairly open. I do like though that this stub could be used by the travelling steam crane, should a brake van not be on the layout at any point. *A minor note; many drawn lines in the plan have now been fixed; the (now concrete) jetty no longer looks like it would obstruct the Hard - that was purely down to a wonky line on the latter. Loco shed and refuelling point - both have now been moved! They are now, perhaps surprisingly, fed from the traverser. I realise this may seem rather odd, but it would remove the kinked track, and I figured that making the boat workshop narrower by one track would lead the way for a small area at the back where a tiny lean-to shed (really just a corrugated iron shelter with three walls) and an equally small refuelling point can now reside. That siding would be very short anyway, so it makes more sense to use it for a tiny 0-4-0 than it does a bogie bolster or similarly long-wheelbase wagon! Concrete approach road - this has been simplified; after having rexamined photos of one built in Southampton. There are now larger slabs, and fewer curves. No more crazy paving! Nissen hut - as it's a drawing office, and having seen photos of what these looked like, I've added 4 more dormers for more natural light. Steam crane shed - this has been added behind the new jetty for two reasons; firstly, it is an unusual thing to model, and secondly, it creates a tall viewblocker. This separates the layout into two parts - the river area, and the boatyard. Next steps Having left this design for a couple of weeks, I came back to it a few days ago (27th Jan) to draw the '3D' sketch and check that the composition works. Whilst I'm very happy with some aspects, I have to admit, I'm not totally convinced by others! However, let's start with the good! The good The bridge - despite originally 'eyeing-up' a skeletal metal structure for the additional span, I actually think the brick option was a wise choice, despite it being more unlikely given my intention to suggest that the railway was built for the war effort; the most likely construction material would instead have been precast concrete (as was used for practically everything on the Fawley Branch). I'm hoping that, whilst the adjacent brickworks would have ceased operations about 10 years prior, there would be enough bricks stashed nearby to warrant this construction method (as with the pillbox). The brickworks - just behind the bridge, I'm also very happy with how the brickworks scene looks itself. I've recently found photos and drawings from a planning application, too; which will come in handy. The area by the derrick crane - this is a particularly attractive scene; with the nissen hut set amongst the trees, the derrick crane obscuring sight lines nicely (as well as providing much needed use of height in the scene), and the 'Beetles' awaiting the tide to float them, with the third under construction. The winch shed - another interesting scene that, whilst a bit cramped, has plenty of scope for detailing; and makes for a not-often modelled subject. Above: If you can excuse the dodgy, variable scaling of my sketching (note that, aside from other mistakes, the wooden jetty is the wrong shape/length!), this '3D' sketch of BB14 shows interesting scenes that work well on their own, but together, not all of them 'gel' to the degree I would like: Above: Good and bad parts of plan BB14. I'll explain the bad parts below: The bad The new platform - this just looks 'wrong' to me, and I still don't like seeing just the back of the platform; particularly the shelter. The added annoyance of having to push the coach back into the run-around loop is a further reason to rethink this option. The steam crane shed - Whether it's the close proximity to the platform, or its location in general, for some reason I'm not keen on it. I do like that it forms a viewblocker, but I think the bit of wasteland between it and the wooden jetty in front that makes it look like it's in the wrong place? Hard to say why, exactly. Either way, I need to be careful not to fully obstruct the bridge cabin/signal box; which this shed is in danger of doing. The concrete roadway - I don't like two things; firstly, the brick store/office needs more screening to separate it from the nissen hut, and secondly, the way that this approach road leads the eye to the gated entrance is, to be honest, very underwhelming! Ideally, this sight line should end in an interesting scene or building; not a couple of normal wooden gates with the backscene a few centimetres behind. Which also leads us onto.. The hard - I like this scene, but it doesn't make sense to me that a hard like this temporary one would be built in an established boatyard for the war effort - it should already have a slipway (and no, the winch slipway doesn't quite count; as it is cramped and doesn't lead to a boatshed). It also occurred to me that using the hard would cause a lot of disruption to both the railway and the boatyard itself! This is annoying because the hard is one of the main features that I really feel needs to be included to tell the story of D-Day. Extra jetty - I think I've tried to squeeze in too much? Less is more, after all! The loco shed - It's an interesting idea, but having it accessed only via the traverser seems dodgy, as originally noted. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes! The boatshed - It is far too cramped for my liking - it may just be the way I've sketched it, but it looks underimposing, far too condensed, and like it has been shoved into the corner. Possible solutions Platform - First, I think the platform should probably be removed completely. Right from the start, I mentioned that I felt it would be unlikely for passenger trains to run into a boatyard. All but one of the platforms on the Marchwood Military Port are away from the jetty/port area itself; presumably for similar reasons. Whilst I did buy a carriage specifically for this layout, I can't seem to work in a suitable arrangement to use it. Bear in mind that it is also a non-corridor coach; so would require a platform at least one carriage in length. Perhaps one day I'll add another module to extend the run (or that 'Leape' layout) which can feature a station! Steam crane shed - Like the platform, it might be worth removing this entirely. It would also free up a bit of space to swap things around. Jetty - The wooden one should probably, again, be removed entirely; along with its track, of course! Hard & approach road - One possible thing to trial is moving the hard to the brickworks; thus converting some of the gravel track to concrete. This will likely, however, require more space than is currently available? The bridge will also make it harder to see the hard. The loco shed - Perhaps the crane shed should be abandoned in favour of this smaller structure? Plan BB15 The next morning (after having had the heater on in the studio for 3 hours to actually make it habitable!), I opened XtrkCAD. Plan BB14 was duplicated simply by saving it immediately as a new file named BB15. The various 'scenes' were then moved off the 'baseboard' so that I can reuse them, and all the trackwork (except the bridge) deleted. This left me with a short bit of straight track and the baseboard shape; with a bunch of buildings, trees, scenery and such around the outside ready to be rearranged. I've learnt through this process that sometimes it can help to start afresh rather than try to shuffle things around with all the scenery in the way. Quite often, a blank page helps to make more drastic changes, and thus allows you to approach it from a different angle, quite literally in this case... The first thing that needed to be trialled was to move the hard to somewhere near the brickworks corner. OK. As expected, that doesn't fit. Clearly, something has to move. As I only had the swing bridge track on the board, I decided to move it to the right, and rotate it by a few degrees to give more space on the left hand end. I suddenly realised that the hard can now fit at the front of the layout on this end, at an angle; chosen as it's both aesthetically pleasing, and also to allow a sight line to the brickworks cottage beyond. With the bridge track set in place, the structure itself can then be moved into place, along with the cabin/box and the pillbox. The brickworks can also be squeezed back into the top left, with the brick kiln moved a tiny bit to lessen the curvature of the river. Now the important bit; the rest of the track! I'd be lying if I said this wasn't tricky. The problem mainly stems from having moved the bridge further right. This means that it's too tight to fit in two points before the baseboard join. Together with the more acute angle of the track, the result is a 3-way point with some fairly sharp curvature (about 2nd radius, I think?) on the lower part of the run-around loop. I decided to keep the loco shed at the top right of the plan, but is no longer accessed via the traverser. This means it is now at an angle compared to the boatshed; providing further visual interest. By keeping all the buildings and scenes as separate drawings around the outside, I can now bring them in one by one, rotate them, modify them (where necessary), and form a pleasing arrangement. This wider left-hand end now means I can add my much loved level crossing back in; needed now that its approach road must cross the railway to pass in front of the hard. Across the river, the relocated winch shed scene sits on the area where the wooden jetty and crane shed used to be. As a result, the signal box is no longer obscured. Elsewhere, on the far right front, a new, long slipway has appeared where the winch shed once stood; which now features a gabled boatshed similar to one that used to be at Husband's Shipyard, Cracknore Hard (adjacent to Marchwood Military Port). This also presented an opportunity to add travelling gantries across the headshunt between the two boatsheds for transferring small boats between road and rail. Ideally, they'd be wider for obvious reasons, but I have seen a photo of a similar arrangement; so that is good enough for me! Plan BB15b Whilst quite enamoured with BB15, I felt that the 3-way point created some quite sharp curvature. Of course, as there will no longer be a platform, and boatyards/shipyards would have featured tank engines shunting on sharp radius curves; it shouldn't really matter. Still, I thought I'd try to use more 'standard' track components: Above: The result is a better flow, although features more straight track than I would've liked. By moving the bridge very slightly back to the left and rotating it a touch, I could just about squeeze in two medium points before the baseboard join. It also: Adds a bit of space between the level crossing and the brickworks cottage. Allows a second access route onto the traverser (which I was originally envisioning would be a place to park the brake van). Allows the track below the hoists to be a bit straighter. Allows extra space for a cute little office near the winch shed (I have a prototype in mind). The quayside by the rescue launch has been brought forward a bit to accomodate the gentler radius of the loop; which itself is unfortunately a bit shorter than BB15. Oh, and I forgot to mention; the new backscene shape does have a reasoning behind it - but that is for another day. So which do I prefer - BB15 or BB15b? The truth is, I'm not sure! I like some aspects of both; the flat crossing and longer loop in the first, but the less severe curves (that will likely cause fewer issues with uncoupling), and the added spot near the winch shed for a small office on the second. Perhaps there's a way to have the best of both worlds - back to XtrkCAD! Plan BB15c I was actually intending that to be the signing off point of this entry, but I decided to have another go at rearranging the track! All but the bridge section and larger boatshed lines were removed, and I played around until coming up with the following: As I've added under the layout name, we now have the re-appearance of the 3-way point, but in a totally different place, once again. I tried to avoid using a Y point on the loop so that larger locomotives didn't have to traverse them, but as you can see, one was required to provide a smooth, gentle curve up to the traverser, whilst also forming the required angle for the rest of the loop. As mentioned, tank locos would be the order of the day anyway, so perhaps it's time to sell my older, larger tender locos! I should, by the way, note that XtrkCAD, has some annoying quirks. Surprisingly, one is the auto-save. Usually a useful feature, but if you make a change and don't like it, an autosave will ruin everything - as you can only undo a tiny number of steps! My advice is to work with layers, or save it as a new file before working on modifications. As line drawings are quite hard to see on a screen, here's a coloured-in sketch version: Above: The resulting trackwork, I feel, flows very nicely. The wooden quay siding at the bottom has been lessened in curvature slightly, and we also have the flat crossing back. It may seem daft, but I just couldn't be without it - it somehow adds so much character; and I've certainly enjoyed operating Sandy Shores primarily because of its crossing. It also adds to the 'dockside aesthetic'; since such areas featured these in abundance! Another bonus of the crossing is that you can have a longer headshunt; instead of being restricted by the length available on the route to the loco shed. Elsewhere, the 3-way point is probably overkill considering one leg just leads to a stub to hold the brake van, but it is, I feel, a very useful (if not, crucial) addition when it comes to operating the layout. Anyway, the development of this plan continued slightly whilst drawing the '3D' sketch. I'll be honest, the sketch is not at a particularly flattering angle (being so high up), and the perspective is a bit(!) off, but after probably 10+ hours of work, I ended up with this: Above: The main difference is the swapping of the small travelling hoists for a large gantry crane. I've shown it with both a short and long gantry; so that the small area between the boatsheds can be utilised, but it does seem quite odd! I would imagine it would make more sense to have an internal gantry that spans both buildings; with at least one part of the exterior walls missing to accommodate it; but that would mean modelling all of the interior of both buildings. Nethertheless, I really like that the boatsheds/workshops have a much bigger presence now, and that the gantry crane provides plenty of viewblocking and unique sight lines. Hard to notice perhaps, but I've cut away part of the far wall of the closest boatshed to add further sightlines. It'll also force me to model the boatshed interior as it will be well-lit. A subtle change is the addition of wooden posts to the brick quay at the back (by the ;Beetles'). The final change is the removal of one of the derrick cranes. There were originally two because I wasn't sure which placement would be best. I think it makes more sense as drawn in the '3D' sketch; as the crane can now reach the railway siding as well. In my eyes, the overall layout looks far more balanced than BB14, and in general I feel a lot more confident with every plan that gets drawn. Let me know what you think. That'll do it for this blog entry - it's somehow become much longer than anticipated, again! I was expecting BB14 to be the sole plan in this post, but as is the norm, felt there was plenty of room for improvement. As I'm sure there will be for BB15c, too... ...as such, I'm always happy and grateful for suggestions and feedback - those which have contributed so far have been incredibly helpful; so thank you. All the best, Jamie N.B. I am writing up a post about layout design...slowly... but whether I feel it is good enough to finish/release it; well, we'll see!

Seeing Allhallows in the fog - it certainly seems to make sense why it never developed in the holiday-friendly way that the Southern envisioned! Cracking set of photos, as ever. Thank you for posting! I've been quietly following this thread, and have been enjoying it immensely.

All I can say is that I really wish my next layout was bigger so that I could justify buying a set - they look absolutely splendid! So much character in these old LSWR sets. I'm very jealous!

Obviously I can't speak for Huw, nor be in his brain, but I don't think he was talking about the SWAG event itself, but comparing the vagueness of my reply to the H:AMW release debacle. Like Brian above, I believe his comment was predominantly tongue-in-cheek (as was a lot of my post - hence the wooly comments etc.), and I think the following quote helps to suggest that Huw was indeed wishing he could attend: Still, I'm sure Huw will be able to say one way or the other if it was you or I that misinterpreted his post! Anyway... moving forth! It is, and I mean this most sincerely, my absolute pleasure to be able to attend SWAG. At a layout photoshoot on Tuesday, the three of us ended up talking about the Members Day. One of them had never been, and the other and myself were trying to convince him to come. We both agreed that it was simply the best event on the calendar. Nothing else quite compares when it comes to having; top-notch layouts, humourous banter, interesting conversations, laid-back atmosphere, and delicious food. Everyone I've spoken to about the event has not one bad word to say about it. In practical terms, I'll thus wait until you give me the all clear to post about what I'll be demo-ing. I haven't written anything up yet anyway, so it'll give me time to make a proper effort of my post. All the best, Jamie

Stop it, ewe. You're giving me bad ideas when I've only just come up with a layout plan that I like for the new layout 😄 Seriously though, I already like where your ideas are heading...

It's like some people don't even read previous comments in the thread - not least the first two posts; which made it very clear what to expect! In my eyes, it achieved pretty much what is to be expected from such a programme that is aimed at a general audience. Yes, it's under the 'documentary' category according to UKTV, but it also shares elements with other categories; it had to be informational, entertaining, interesting, have a dash of over-dramatising, yet also concise. The result is something of a 'dumbing down' of the intracies of what probably really goes on, but I watched it to the very end which must mean I enjoyed it. Simon's optimism and excitement is a little infectious, and even though it would be impossible for the film crew to be at the original meetings, I was actually drawn into the narrative more than I expected. The passion shared by all during the show felt fairly genuine, for the most part. It was especially nice to see various team members discussing and reminiscing about the various models (part 2/11), as well as more famous faces like Carol Flavin and Pete Waterman. In part 1, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Kathy Millatt building Port Dinorwic, too. Amazing the effort that went into such a well-modelled and inspiring scene built in such a short timeframe. Just like the guy repairing Rocket in ep 1, these parts were nicely down-to-earth. I'm sure we can all relate to the 'Oh bloody hell, I've only gone and wired it up wrong*'... moment! If you can approach the episodes as a light entertainment programme aimed mainly at non-modellers. I think you'll enjoy it a lot more. And if you can't, or still disagree, then fair enough - it's probably not for everyone! *not the actual quote, hence the punctuation used

Honestly, after my i10, I would be happy with even a mild improvement; but seeing as most Berlingos are 1.6+l engines (and also based on positive reviews), I'm very confident they would be a lot more fun to drive! To say your foot touches the floor and nothing really happens in my i10 is not far off the truth; and also quite scary when you realise you've understimated just how much power there is available whilst overtaking even relatively slow moving vehicles. So yeah... anything with just a little more power would be so nice! Whilst I'll always go with a manual car, one thing I wondered about is petrol vs diesel. I've always had a petrol car, but diesel seems to win in terms of reviews for Berlingos, so I'm guessing that's a safe bet? I'd just have to really stop and think when filling up in case... well... I need not explain!

Yes, the removable seats was something I picked up on and with a big sigh of relief. There's nothing worse than trying to put a layout into a car where the seats don't sit flat and can't be removed; the friction against the fabric on the back, even on a small layout like Sandy Shores, makes it 10x more difficult than it needs to be. You then end up having to stack the layout on boxes and whatever else you can until you've formed a tower that the makers of Jenga would be proud of! Anyway, I looked up the stats dimension-wise and I think even the medium size (compared to the only other size, the XL 🤷‍♂️ ) Berlingo is bigger than the Transit Courier I was looking at. Pretty impressive! Now you're talking! Though knowing me; I'd probably end up designing my own - I do love designing stuff like that. In fact, I was already thinking of what unit(s) I would make to go on one side of the Courier should I have bought one! Oh, and I've just noticed what looks to be a slide-out chopping board under the gas stove in your image? Amazing! Another interesting addition I saw in one listing was for what I can only describe as internal roof bars - supposedly for things like snowboards and oars (as you do). Personally, I can imagine, depending on weight capacity, it being useful for long, light lengths of PSE softwood etc... Good point also about the boot being used as a rain shield whilst unloading (or camping, I suppose!) Good advice, thanks for that heads-up! Ah found it, yes, the Tourneo Connect. I think I looked at it a few months back, but yes, this is definitely a contender. I'll do some more digging! Reviews also picked up on the fact that newer ones (Berlingos and Couriers) were better to drive. I'm quite surprised by how positive people feel about some versions of the Berlingo in terms of drivability, too. I assumed they would be a bit 'lumpy' but it doesn't seem to be the case for many people/models . I worked out that with the Courier I could just about get all the boards stacked atop one another against one wall, leaving a 400mm wide space that is full-height and full-length on the opposite side for all the extra bits and bobs. I think the height is very useful; particularly in terms of getting stuff in/out, though thank you for your offer. Also, as Phil says, it would be easy to find other uses for the spacious insides of the Berlingo and its ilk! Much to ponder over...

I've been looking for a new car for a while now (OK, well a second-hand car because it seems like the more sensible/cost effective choice!), so I have been watching this thread for quite a while. However, a few things have prompted a more recent in-depth look at possible replacements to my woefully underpowered Hyundai i10: Naturally, one of them is the development of my new layout; which will be made of four 4ft/1220mm long boards (two are 1' 4"/400mm wide, the other two are 3' 3"/1000mm wide). My current layout is 4ft long and just squeezes into the back of the i10, but the rear seats don't lie flat and can't be removed so it's a bit of a hassle/jigsaw puzzle! There's certainly no way I could fit the new layout in there! I'm doing far more travelling than I used to, and for further distances. The (2011 version) i10 is a basic car (at least my version is!). Things like not having an inbuilt satnav and a slightly uncomfortable ride quality are additional inconveniences; the i10 just isn't built for long motorway journeys. It's not a bad car, but I think it's time to find something slightly more capable, and with a bit more 'oomph'! Trying to overtake in a 1.2l i10 is just like watching two large lorries trying to do the same! Meanwhile, whilst borrowing my mum's car (Crossland), I can appreciate all the things in there that my car lacks... My job now involves lugging around a lot more gear - it would be so nice to be able to fit it all safely in the boot rather than having it roll around on (and off!) the seats. I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about vehicles, though unknowingly, @Phil Parker seems to have conditioned me to actually enjoy the practical aspects of cars like the Citroen Berlingo rather than seeing it for the box on wheels that it's clearly inspired by! Joking aside, it seems like the perfect car; plenty of width, height, and length, and crucially, there's no bloody lip, but instead a nice level floor and side walls. Until today I was instead swayed by the Ford Transit Courier. That is until my mum seemed annoyed that, being a tiny panel van, it only has two seats. I think that's a ploy to ensure that, should I need to, I can do the school run for my niece/nephew etc. Still, she is right, as there are three of us in the household, ideally a 3-seat car at minimum would be better in case we use it for holidays or tip runs etc. Interestingly, looking at the local used car market for Berlingo's brings up a company selling WAV (wheelchair-accessible) modified versions. All with a ramp and sloping floor, and many with a winch. Suddenly, the thought of being able to crate up a layout and winch it up a ramp sounds very appealing! The only catch would be how much room does the winch and ramp eat into - something to check on a visit! Most versions come with 3 seats (2 in the front, 1 at the back; with the ramp slightly angled towards the right). However, other versions have the ramp squarely in the middle, and feature two of the three possible backseats. Depending on what the width and length of that ramp is, it may *just* fit the new layouts neatly within. Of course, it also feels like a ramp and winch is totally OTT for what is, in reality, 4 fairly normal layout board sizes! Anyway, enough waffling; time to do some more research!

Well I've given it further thought and I can now officially confirm that I know at least the main part of what I'll be bringing. 😉 It may or may not have something to do with what I was seen to be doing last time, just more... demo-y. That sounds really odd out of context... I promise it's nothing untoward! It also might mean I can show off a few other things that I've worked on, or have been working on recently. It's funny... the more you post on SWAG event threads, the less explicit your descriptions become. Perhaps this is a sheep-led rouse to get people on the edge of their seats? I'll explain a little more soon; if our wooly friend has no plans to say what I'm plotting, of course.

That's remarkable, and hilarious! It is quite interesting the difference between UK backwater lines and other countries approach to railway development and construction. I've seen plenty of comments in videos expressing surprise at the lack of double track lines in the UK compared to other countries. That said, I find it remarkable how some Japanese railways are still going (although many are closing or have recently closed) - many are handled by single or double car DMUs, and it seems the most common customer are the trainspotters! On the flipside, I find American railways absolutely crazy. It must've been quite the culture shock for Americans over here in the UK during WWII! Thanks for that information and image - that's exactly the sort of thing I have planned. I did see some Airfix 1:72 kits which I have bookmarked for the time being; including the D-Day assault pack containing, amongst other things, 2x LCVPs. They also do a 1:76 scale LCM3, which is handy! I shall have to see what else I can find on the internet, though I know the motor launch/rescue launch will be hard to find as they are discontinued. Though Airfix apparently are bringing back some old kits (with an announcement due within the next few days, I believe), so we'll wait and see...

Yes, drinking and walking (particularly in a straight line) isn't particularly a recommended combination. What's worse is when you decide to stand up soon after drinking and try and run (don't ask how I know!). 😆 I'll comment on the second point first as it's easier; definitely tiny boats! No bigger than motor launches/rescue launches, I would imagine. More likely to be SLUGs - Surf Landing Under Girders (tiny craft used during D-Day to slide under the floating bridges and attach anchors to them) and small 25ft craft and the small landing craft types as shown in the Eastleigh Works video. For the first point, one of the inspirations for the swing bridge ideas was the low level swing bridge at Sharpness - that too is used by road and rail traffic as a means of crossing to the other side of the basin. So there is certainly a precedent for it - and come to think of it, I know there are quite a few other combined road/rail swing bridges - either as one lane, or with separate lanes for each. In terms of river width - Beaulieu River is pretty wide compared to that of Bramble's Boatyard. I've now done some very rough calculations to compare - first measurements are the total widths between the two banks: Beaulieu River: 70m by Beaulieu (causeway/mill) (13m deep water channel) 135m by Bailey's Hard (58m channel) 320m by Clobb Copse (112m channel) 450m just before the estuary (140m channel) Eling (Bartley Water): 140m by Eling tide mill (two 18m channels) 48m by Eling wharf (20m channel) 30m channel only on the east side of Eling Wharf (where ships docked) (the channel is bordered immediately on one side by the wharf, and a sandbar on the opposite side (distance is only 300m from causeway to entrance, then a further 450m until it properly joins the River Test) 70-150m along Eling channel until it reaches River Test (30-41m channel) And if my maths is correct: Bramble's Boatyard (I really need to think of a name for this creek; not least so I have something to name the halt - I was tempted to use the existing 'Cadland Creek' near Fawley, but it depends if I can justify setting the layout there or not!) 18.2m at the top of the layout (upstream) - (10m channel) 22m by the bridge (7.6m channel) 26.6m at the bottom of the layout (downstream) - (12.1m channel)* *(Doesn't include the area at the front centre/right with the hard/jetties etc.) Elsewhere: Hayle swing bridge (Cornwall): Bridge navigable span - 10m at narrowest point Bridge length - 28.5m Bridge width (1 road + 1 rail - separate lanes) = 9.5m Port Dundas (Glasgow): Bridge navigable span - 6m (I think) Bridge length - 26m Bridge width (1 rail) = 4.5m (Bridge was at a substantial skew) Sharpness lower: Bridge navigable span - 16.5m Bridge length - 28m Bridge width (1 road/rail combined) = 6m Edit: Forgot to add Bramble's Boatyard's bridge: Bridge navigable span - 11.4m Bridge length (swing span) - 18.7m Bridge length (entire) - 27.3m Bridge width - 5.3m (was drawn a random width, so will copy Port Dundas @ 4.5m) As the stats above show, yes, compression is a necessity for most layouts - certainly Bramble's Boatyard! I could only hope to convey at least the atmosphere and the basics of a small part of such a complex industry/location. It's funny you should ask as I did have plans to do something similar for one of the World of Railways Virtual Exhibitions; and indeed, it is something I keep thinking about. However, I'm not sure I'm even close to being in the same league as others like James Hilton, Iain Rice etc. As has been seen, whilst I do have good intentions, I often get side-tracked and bumble about with planning layouts. Some things I do take pride in - especially when to comes to curved boards and backscenes, lines of sight, presentation, and designing/constructing useful components like trolleys or storage solutions. However, I certainly wouldn't be adept at describing or suggesting prototypical practices, and as can be seen, I only know the basics of trackplan design! So... maybe, but also... ehhh... not sure I'm qualified for that! We'll see...

That's what I was thinking. I do like the idea of spindly metal legs for the bridges' central pier so that you can see through them, but as you say, brick makes far more sense. That said, the real brickworks (Bailey's Hard) that mine is a copy of, was closed in 1935. The kiln, built between 1910 and 1920 could apparently hold 40 000 bricks at a time, so I would be reliant on there being some spares leftover either in the kiln or stacked nearby when it closed. Interestingly, I have a choice of bricks; either the Exbury buff bricks, or the more traditional red. As I'm fairly certain the buff was used for grander status buildings/estate buildings, I think the red is more suitable. As an example; the brickworks cottage is buff, the brickworks itself is red brick. Anyway, I digress... That's what I was hoping - I imagine that it would be unlikely that goods and passenger services would be allowed to operate on this short branch simultaneously. A one-engine-in-steam principle would probably be adhered to for the most past. One thing that I think may be a bit of a sticking point is that I'll be using SR locos as well as the Ruston. I'm hopeful that the War Department (presumably not MoD due to the date involved) would have special arrangements with the SR for such an eventuality, although I know that, for Marchwood Military Port, exchange sidings were used as the limit for SR stock, and all work was undertaken on site by WD's own locos - like the Austerity tanks. The shelter is merely something I like the look of, but you're right in that it's probably unecessary. The only 'trestle' halt on the Fawley Branch (Hardley Halt - built for workers of a nearby factory) had no shelter at all. My original intention was that one travelling steam crane (or perhaps two for larger landing craft) would be able to be used to transfer vessels from the wagon to slip/water. However, seeing the video I linked of Eastleigh Works, because of its close proximity to Southampton Docks, trains would head offsite to the docks so that large cranes could directly deposit the craft into the water, or onto trucks if they were to be sent elsewhere. So that does suggest at least some craft was within the loading gauge. Thinking about it, that could be exactly what happens at Bramble's Boatyard - the wagons come onto the layout empty, go into the boat workshop, and come out with small vessels on - a nice interactive feature. A further thought on the history of the line: One reason my 'history of the line' blogpost has been delayed for many, many months is that I haven't quite decided which fictional timeline to go with. My current, preferred line of thinking is that the boatyard branch line was built solely for the war effort (similar to Marchwood Military Port/Cracknore Hard). For the potential coastal layout, that would mean I wouldn't have to use the ghastly 'public convenience-esque' pebbledash-rendered block-built station buildings! For Bramble's Boatyard, it would help to explain why such a tiny boatyard would become rail-served. OK, so Marchwood is a much bigger site, but that doesn't necessarily preclude smaller boatyards from being useful. Any way to improve access to what is/was quite a difficult and remote area to get to would be beneficial - arguably better than the narrow country roads which were quite often in a poor state of repair and had to have bridges rebuilt/strengthened and lay-bys added/one-way routes implemented during the war.

I may have a car, but happily, I don't particularly care much for alcohol. I had my first drink for the first time in about 3 years on New Years Eve. Can't really say I enjoy drinking. The only benefit is the temporary and slight reduction of my naturally introverted nature. At least, I think that's a benefit?! 😆 Many thanks, Dave! Then there is a use for tea other than finding the largest mug in the house and drinking it. Having seen the results of the seaweed on Redbridge Wharf, I'll have to give that a try. It certainly looks perfect for what I'd call the 'lumpy' bits, whereas the 'Plant Hues' I use, as mentioned, is good for the 'stringy' bits of seaweed. An update on Bramble's Boatyard: I was planning to spend today not wholly on the layout planning, but quite predictably; I became too absorbed! I spent some of last night looking through the hundreds of categorised images that I've pinched from the web as inspiration for Bramble's Boatyard, with the view to going through them with a fine-toothed comb to look for any stand-out features that I feel should be modelled, or any obvious things that I've missed. I think that's the problem with spending most of the time sketching and not actually looking in too much detail at the prototypes - you tend to hone your focus in on the 'big stuff'. As such, I've had a slight rethink and jiggled things around on XtrkCAD. Some fairly major changes, others minor: Above: Straight away, BB14 shows some obvious changes (apologies - I forgot to label the version number on the plan itself): Road/level crossing - the road on the left has mostly been removed; replaced entirely by a gravel track for the brickworks. As a result, the level crossing has also now disappeared, as has the bus shelter. Pillbox - the bus shelter has been replaced by a Type 26 pillbox (I'm yet to determine of what material - I may go for brick to match the brickworks rather than the often-modelled concrete examples). No Wills pillbox here! I want it to be quite well camouflaged, if possible; just as they should be. WWII defences - to provide further visual interest, and also to yet again firmly cement the layout as set during WWII, a line of anti-tank blocks have been added; right past the riverbank and into the tidal river. If I model a brick or concrete bridge pier (rather than a metal skeleton type structure), I'm also going to be adding recesses into them to suggest holes that would be laced with explosives - mentioned in a past blog entry as a way of blowing up strategic crossing points should an invasion occur. Whilst this was something shown on Redbridge Wharf, it's also something I was further researching today after I had the idea of adding the pillbox and anti-tank blocks. Bridge - you'll note that it now has a second, and smaller span - this time, a fixed one. Again, I'm currently undecided what form this will take; either metal beams, or a brick arch. The reason for this change is two-fold; firstly, to allow the riverbank to be wider and more to-scale, and secondly, to allow the bridge to be more of a focal point - enabling better views not just of the trains, but also the brickworks behind. I do like level crossings (and haven't modelled one before), but I feel this is the more sensible choice for the location. As a result, I could now slightly move the signal further from the scenic exit, and in the process, further draw viewers eyes away from the 'hole in the sky'! That's my thinking, anyway. 'Beetles' - moving further right, behind the signal box, a new concrete apron has appeared, and is complete with building materials to be used for the construction of the Beetles. I've also popped a loading gauge nearby, and yet again moved the half-built Beetle - this time beside the derrick crane where it makes more sense, and can be handled easier. Platform/halt - towards the front of the layout, the old wooden platform has been removed from the centre of loop, and my preferred halt design, the SR cast concrete 'trestle' has been built. This change enables a slightly longer platform with ramps on both ends, and, more importantly, the inclusion of the platform shelter. The only big downside is that passenger trains would now block the rest of the yard, and the carriage would need to be pushed a little to the right in order to run-around it. It also means only the back of the halt would be visible, which is a shame. However, removing the platform from the centre opens up the view a bit to the rest of the Beetle construction area and crane; so that is a positive aspect. Ultimately, it will be the sketch (and later mock-up) that determines which platform style and placement I go for, I suspect. Adding another siding - further forward, the last obvious change is the inclusion of another point and siding. This turns the original wooden jetty siding into a tiny stub long enough only for the brake van. I was struggling to find somewhere sensible to park the brake van, and this seemed to be the best option; whilst also fixing the other issues I had with the jetty. For example, I was never truly happy with having an old wooden jetty right next to the 'new' concrete hard - it didn't really make any sense. Therefore, this original jetty* is now concrete, and a new wooden jetty (well, old, but newly positioned!) is where the additional line is; fed from another 'Y' point. Admittedly, this is another potentially contentious option; it'll be a balance between increasing operating potential, and keeping the scene balanced/fairly open. I do like though that this stub could be used by the travelling steam crane, should a brake van not be on the layout at any point. *A minor note; many drawn lines in the plan have now been fixed; the (now concrete) jetty no longer looks like it would obstruct the Hard - that was purely down to a wonky line on the latter. Loco shed and refuelling point - both have now actually been moved again! The loco shed drawn in BB13 is now the aforementioned shed for a travelling steam crane. The loco shed for the Ruston 48DS is now, perhaps surprisingly, fed from the traverser. I realise this may seem rather odd, but I really didn't want a big shed for such a tiny loco. I figured that making the boat workshop narrower by one track would lead the way for a small area at the back where a tiny lean-to shed (really just a corrugated iron shelter with three walls) and an equally small refuelling point can now reside. That siding would be very short anyway, so it makes more sense to use it for a tiny 0-4-0 than it does a bogie bolster or similarly long-wheelbase wagon! Concrete approach road - this has been simplified; after having rexamined photos of one built in Southampton. There are now larger slabs, and fewer curves. No more crazy paving! Nissen hut - as it's a drawing office, and having seen photos of what these looked like, I've added 4 more dormers for added natural light. Boat workshop - aside from the loco shed reducing the workshops' size by 1/3rd, the furthest lean-to now has a pitched roof; since it isn't a lean-to anymore. I've also added the diesel tank to its roof. Not sure how prototypical that is - I may have to cut away a portion of the building instead... I think those are the big changes. Again, none of these are set in stone yet - I'll draw a sketch and see how it sits on the page first. It may be that I decide I don't like some or all of the proposed alterations at all! As always, I'm happy to hear any feedback, good or bad. Many thanks for reading and posting your thoughts!

See two threads down... Andy is aware.

I can't believe I was actually almost considering it for a second! But yes, you're quite right. Less brown and more grey would be required. Tea leaves may indeed be useful for seaweed. The stuff I've found good for the 'stringy' bits is Woodland Scenics 'Plant Hues' - mix them into watery green paint and 'Hey presto!'. As it happens, the next issue of BRM will feature my Beach diorama - where I do just that. *shameless plug!*