Jump to content
 

Flying Pig

RMweb Premium
  • Posts

    3,863
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Flying Pig's Achievements

6.6k

Reputation

  1. Well, Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel (operating as...) would clearly have the reader continue to believe that they are technically entitled, even if Natural Justice would conclude that they didn't deserve.
  2. Looks like there's a business opportunity here. Slightly miffed that your model railway been copied without your permission? ItsMyTrainsetClaims will get you the compensation you don't deserve but feel entitled to...
  3. Or Victoria to Seagoon (a thinly disguised Bexhill-on-Sea).
  4. As most layouts don't go to exhibitions, don't get published in the press and don't even have social media accounts, what the owner calls them is the owner's business. And if they want to copy another layout, then fine - designing a layout isn't everyone's favourite part of the hobby.
  5. Parkside underframes were never their strong point and some of them really aren't very good. Rtr now comfortably outclasses them, which is a complete reversal of the situation when I was a lad building Ratio and Slaters wagons. I think this is a pity, as plastic wagons are a simple route into model building and easy to detail and modify.
  6. Not a Swiss railways expert but have watched a lot of cab videos. When there is a group signal doesn't it show a diferent aspect for each road? There is a sign by each line with the number of the aspect that applies to it.
  7. I'm a bit less keen on this one. The problem is you don't really have space for double junctions, so the hidden sidings are isolated from the inner circuit. This means that trains departing the terminus on the correct line can't ever reach them which rather negates the advantage of having double track. Perhaps single the loop somewhere on the right and hide that part of it? Not sure about the station. The through platforms will hold longer trains, but on the other hand, the bays look very short and there's no runround for any of the platforms.
  8. Honestly, I'd leave the bridge out as it really dominates the scene and looks excessive for access to such a small patch of land. The near end is clearly intended to sit against and embankment and looks quite wrong in its current location. There doesn't seem to be room between the ramp and the adjacent fence to operate a vehicle anyway. If you want to leave the land around the railway as modelled, access via adjacent fields is fine - just make sure there are gates in any fence or hedge to allow it. You could model a farm track, or if the fields are also pasture the animals could just be herded across them. Ground around gateways would be as described by @34theletterbetweenB&D.
  9. This plan doesn't seem to have gone down well with the team here. However, if I am interpreting @penguin_sam correctly, it seems to be cunningly designed for maximum flexibilty of running. A train can leave the terminus and run directly to the hidden sidings, or return to the station via the right hand return loop. On returning to the station it can terminate or use the left hand return loop to reach the hidden sidings or follow the return loop all the way to the station throat and effectively start its journey again. There is also scope for continuous running either in a figure of eight or round the circuit formed by the hidden sidings. I don't agree that it is completely unrailwaylike, though it would look better if the right hand loop could be double track in both directions. But as there really isn't space for that, single line running will have to be accepted. If using it in its current form, I would tweak it in a few places. I would rearrange the central junction as indicated below with a single slip above the yellow spot and the double slip changed for a single. I'd probably also dump the short siding indicated by the red spot and extend the platform onto a rearranged curve for the left hand loop (echoes of Hotel Curve). The main platforms would benefit from a removable extension (assuming they don't butt up against a wall) as they are quite tight for length. And there's obviously scope for goods inside the left hand loop.
  10. Designed at Derby in the late 1940s, so probably very close to the twins.
  11. I was going to agree with you, but I had a think about it and actually, if you are building for the very small spaces that are available to many British modellers, then "offstage" really does increase operational potential considerably. Otherwise you are really limited to shunting. If you have more space, as here, then you have more options.
  12. Is there going to be more at the far end? As it is, the sand siding (in which I guess much of the play value resides) is disappointingly short and the long kickback has so litle headshunt it doesn't seem usable.
  13. This post a couple of pages back links photos showing examples condemned in 1965 after departmental use. So, possibly?
×
×
  • Create New...