Flying Pig

16 minutes ago, Johan DC said:

Seems to me only the lenses are too big. A little bit of black paint might help, or maybe change these. 

I'll be interested to see what people receive.  I think we're still looking at the sample photos of 5200 and the lenses seem to have a lot of moulding flash around them.  That may be improved on the delivered models.

And doesn't the front headcode on 5200 indicate "through freight", which seems perfectly appropriate for a Black Five?

33 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Somehow still not quite happy with the general track layout, feels very linear to the baseboard edge and it's grating on me a bit!

Go and look at @Harlequin's plan and how it flows and see if you can replicate that - I think it uses curved points.  I posted a version reduced to a single siding at the front as per your recent iterations.

As to the shed, this is always a point of discussion when BLTs come up.  As I understand it from previous threads, the purpose of a shed was usually to house the passenger engine overnight so that it could work the first train as an Up service in the morning.  That avoided having to run an empty service down the branch first thing. Only in exceptional cases would a shunter be outstationed at a BLT as usually the goods engine would do the major shunting and your station is a pretty simple one.

If you look at the disused stations page on Newport Pagnell linked above, it was a station at the end of a short branch with a loco shed that closed in 1955 (apparently while the branch was still being worked by steam - see the 1959 picture of an LMS driving trailer).  So the site of a demolished shed is an option for your period too. 

It gets a better view on the outside of the curve and also means you can see the front of the model.

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

On this latest layout, the lorry access to the goods shed from the crossing is presumably via the operating well 🙂

Yes - noted above.  When you only have 12" of width something has to give.

Really better off without it imo.

Also, you don't need a tunnel or bridge to close the scene - some buildings or even trees would do fine - so the level crossing shouldn't be a problem.

I note you have chosen to support engineering solutions to carbon reduction.  Would you please also consider supporting projects that promote restoration and regeneration of landscapes and ecosystems?  Healthy living environments sink carbon and also protect wildlife and people's livelihoods, vital in areas like the Sahel.

Phil has achieved an attractive flow, which is a good foundation before we start debating the number of sidings. Here's the single siding version I mentioned above, in the variant with loading bank and keeping the  private siding.  This is a cramped site and the model is inevitably going to be more CJF than Pendon in style if operation is to be interesting, but I'm guessing that matches the approach of the rest of the layout. 

You could employ the crossed sidings pattern, though it does involve a diamond and you may want to avoid that.  I was thinking of putting the shed behind the platform and the private siding in the corner, but of course it could be done the other way round.  Taking the siding off the platform road is perhaps not ideal, but the original layout used a Barry slip on the loop and a second diamond and was simplified by the LMS in an economy drive.

@Harlequin's plan is a lot closer to what I was  If the extra two inches aren't available, it could be done with a single siding at the front and make the back siding the goods shed as I suggested.  Or put a loading bank next to the spur at the end of the loop with a lock-up shed.

I'm really not keen on the loco shed arrangement though as the engines will need to go right into the private siding to access it, which apart from anything else will be impossible with any wagons present.  The simplest solution is just to do without the shed: it isn't really needed on a short branch like this, close to civilisation, where it isn't that much of an issue to run the first train of the day as down empty stock. 

17 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

@Flying Pig Is this more what you were thinking of?

 

Yes I am loathe to use slips, if you couldn't tell! I have 2 double and 1 single on the main part of the layout and they are the usual cause for any sticking problems so eager to avoid them if at all possible

Yes, that's it.  Can you avoid the bend in the loop at the siding point though?  It doesn't look too good and I can see it turning into a kink at the rail joint when you lay the track.  Perhaps you can curve the platform?

13 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Some more tweaking thanks to @Flying Pig I have replaced the shed's location with the coal staithes and having swung the plan to even more of an angle I have got room to get the goods shed and general goods siding in. There is also room for a level crossing to allow yard access. The shed has managed to survive by being flipped to the other direction. The station building has also survived low-relief-ing (is that a word?!)

 

Thoughts? Is it starting to get too busy again?

In my opinion, yes.  That's not what I was thinking of at all, but unfortunately I don't have access to design software, so if you'll bear with a rough sketch, this is what I had in mind.  Note that fewer longer sidings are probably better than a lot of twigs and you don't need a dedicated siding for coal unless the coal traffic is very heavy (probably not at a small site like this).  

0

51 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Had a chance to fiddle around planning for the past hour and have something I am starting to like. The bottom left is a car park and I think the bay would be goods only although is just the one siding enough or is a second one justified? I would like to have a coal siding but struggling to fit it in and keep the simplicity and the operation prototypical. The biggest issue I have is the bottom right corner is very empty although I guess this leaves room for scenery? The scenic break on the right will be a short tunnel to keep this station separate from the halt which is only 6 or so feet down the line from this tunnel mouth! Thoughts? Are there any defining/glaring characteristics from the LNWR that have missed off as I'm aware this is quite a generic looking plan?

Swing this back so that the station building is in low relief and put a low relief goods shed over the 'bay'.  Replace the shed point with a single slip and you can just about get a siding for coal and mileage traffic at the top of the plan, though you will need to imagine that cartage and coal stacking happens somewhere in the operator's midriff.

Could you bear to lose the shed and use the kickback as a private siding (more play value imo)?

56 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Anyone remember the "Great British Locomotives"  partwork from ten years ago?

Not since the doctor adjusted my prescription, no.

For some reason, superelevation seems to mitigate the toylike appearance of trains on tight curves, particularly where bogie vehicles are involved..  Someone on here built a modern British N layout with Kato Unitrack and the effect was very noticeable in the photos they posted.  

A couple of real LNWR branch termini (of which I don't think there were many):

Delph: https://maps.nls.uk/view/126521855#zoom=6&lat=8133&lon=13473&layers=BT

and Uppingham: https://www.gwra.co.uk/product-detail-slideshow.html&item=107970

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Signal box diagram for Henstridge shows it without a loop

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srx/R578.htm

 

Stalbridge did have such a loop, but as it has a level crossing it couldn't be left unmanned overnight as somebody would need to work the gates and they wouldn't have been able to close it to do long section working

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/srx/R366.htm

 

Highley Station (Severn Valley) has a loop but only one platform. so all trains use the main line.

https://www.svrwiki.com/Highley_signal_box#/media/File:HYDiagram.jpg

It is possible for a passenger train to cross a goods train here, but the goods train has to be shunted into the loop.  It is not permitted to cross passenger train in this way.

Shillingstone station S&DJR in 1960.  Note that there are no facing point locks for the siding points that would become facing if trains ran wrong line through the station, which strongly suggests it wasn't a regular occurrence.  

http://trainweb.org/railwest/images/sb-diag/shilling-60.jpg

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

TPWS does not suspend the laws of physics!

For goodness' sake calm down. I asked whether there was TPWS at the signal, not whether TPWS renders the trap unnecessary.

Is there a TPWS train stop at the signal, or does the trap replace that?

There appears to be a trap point on the end of the loop in satellite views of the area, so presumably the loco ran through that and derailed?

42 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That's why you should never swallow bubble gum. (Especially after eating baked beans.) 

Ah, the word that begins in 'n' and ends in 'n' and means constipation.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Hornby ANNOUNCE TT120 Development team 3D prints

 

Claim it's been in their plans since before Simon Kohler was born and anyone else doing one is a dirty copycat stealing their ideas.

Isn't that the Accura-rule-one and-trainset-brigade?

Passing comment about an AS loco on a Hornby thread.  Shadow across the moon, flutter of capes and in swoops the AS inquisitor with a handy suggestion.  Hello, Len.

You can sort of understand why we don't have long angsty threads like this one in the Accurascale forum.

20 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

In space, no one can hear you scream.

In space, no one can hear you say "Actually..."

But according to the calculations of Professor von Proton, that 16 light hours achieved in 47 years is 2300 times less than the distance to Alpha Centauri (if either probe were even heading in that direction).  Space is big.

12 hours ago, Railpassion said:

Hornby seem determined to miss opportunities and deny themselves sales. The range needs to be coherent. 

 

Flying Scotsman is all very well but nothing steam for GWR or Southern is crazy. A Pannier tank would sell like hot cakes.

 

And then this text describing a home signal on today's announcements 

"The red arms are often seen before signals with yellow arms, which signify 'distant' or 'caution'. A semaphore signal is used as per early GWR and LMS operating days"

 

Are they paying these people?

 

Now if they had said "The red arms are often seen in advance of signals with yellow arms, which signify 'distant' or 'caution'" all would have been well.  As it is, the yellow arms signify 'far away' and nobody has any idea what's going on.

On 28/03/2024 at 17:55, Anthony said:

As far as Cetti's Warblers are concerned, the Common has had a new lake for the last few months, which may explain it!

 

I find the whole thing such a delight when all of these are heard from my back garden.

 

Oh yes, and a Chiffchaff.

Depending on when your app identified it, Redstart is quite possible, since they are much more widespread during migration (April-May and August-October) and may pitch down in any suitable habitat.  Scrub or hedgerow or even an isolated bush with rough grass adjacent they can feed on seems to be favourite, but you can even find migrating males singing from taller trees in spring.