Flying Pig

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

I'm wondering if the sidings at the station might be refined a bit.

I'd suggest a kick back siding; at present they all come directly off the running rail. 

 

And you might consider a bay platform (departure platform) on the RHS of the station. Branch trains would arrive on the main platform and then shunt into the departure platform ahead of their return journey. Lots more play value for one extra point.

 

 

Actually, it appears to be a goods loop as posted in the OP, but the 25" OS sheet from 1915 shows no facing connection, just a very long headshunt/siding (with some sort of industry at the western end).  Note that it is connected to the eastbound running line within the double track section, thus avoiding a facing point.  Was it later converted to a loop?  Even if so I would be inclined to leave out the left hand crossover and extend it offscene so it doesn't look so cramped.

There is already a loading bank behind the eastbound platform (visible on the photo and included in the plan), so I would be strongly against the addition of a bay.  Trains can terminate and run round here if you want (maybe some peak trains ran beyond Guildford to Cranleigh?).  If they returned as service trains they would probably need to cross to the other platform before departing, but that just adds to the fun.

I would be very tempted to indulge in my favourite planning trick and concentrate on the west end of the station, ending the scene at or even before the platform ends at the other end of the station (obviously the points would need to be included but not necessarily on scene.  This would allow more space for the goods yard, which really looks rather constrained as is, even though at the cost of some scenic modelling.

On 19/03/2024 at 00:49, Ventnor said:

 

 

Even better than lined black? A candidate for another Accurascale exclusive........

 

 

 

 

 

Brings back memories of Wallsea (January 1977 Railway Modeller).

15 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

cake

The scenery's a bit meh, but the track and trains are fantastic.  A pity to eat them, but presumably needs must.

I fortunately don't have pictures of the nice blue grey Triang RMB I repainted into LMS livery using almost but not quite entirely the wrong shade of Humbrol gloss.

1 hour ago, Captain Slough said:

ideally a paid of Cl.58 bogies as well as they are fairly close in frame design to the LMS 10000 design that was reused by both NBL for the Cl.41 Warship and Metro-Vickers for the Cl.77/EM2

A Triang EM2 bogie would be even closer :)

2 hours ago, Captain Slough said:

I imagine an actual RTR one would have all the grills in the right places and nose-end detail but at speed this wasnt as obvious, and standards were a bit lower in the 1980s...

An actual rtr one in the 1980s would probably have had the grills in the right place (Lima were quite good at grills) but whether the overall shape would have been as convincing is another matter (I know yours isn't quite right either).  There were some very approximate rtr diesels in those days, and long after.

I do think your model needs its nostrils though.

10 minutes ago, TheQ said:

First you need to decide what you are wanting to model,

Very much this and it goes for deciding how long your trains should be as well.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Signalling diagram, Take 2:

 

 

I’m confident that this is the correct way to trap it, and that the two switches at the LH end of the slip, plus the other switch nearby, can be manual, they don’t need to be interlocked, and it makes shunting simpler if they aren’t.

 

Now, this could still be:

 

- a block post, with all the points controlled from one lever frame, either in a signal box or in a “pen” on the platform; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) both released by a key on a train staff; or,

 

- not a block post, with the points controlled from one or two ground frame(s) released by a key on on an electric token, and with provision to “lock in” a goods train, thereby allowing a passenger train to be run, by providing a lock-in thingy (what are they called!?) for the token, which releases the ability to issue a token at Berwick; or,

 

- Mol_PMB’s option, which makes this a block post, but uses a ground frame released by a key on an electric token to operate the points, so means that one train has to be “locked in” before the token can be put in the machine, allowing one to the withdrawn from the machine at Berwick and a train despatched from there.

 

I think that either the third or fourth would suffice, but favour the third because it ought be marginally cheaper to create, and I think the fourth might have a safety loopholes.

 

But, I’m only a Barrack Room Signalling Engineer; is there a real one available to comment?
 

 

 

Do you really need to have the goods and passenger share the station?  Surely there's time to run the goods between passenger services on a tiny wee branch like this? 

4 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

GWR Large Prairie 

Hasn't this one been done twice in recent years?

8 hours ago, Tumut said:

 

Hello All, hmmm, flammable oil tanker next to a passenger coach without a barrier wagon ! And empty Petrol wagons are far more dangerous than full ones due to flammable gas remnant in the tank, or is this part of a shunting move ? regards, Tumut.

If you search the forum for mixed highland oil, you'll find some references to these trains, which were a feature of the West Highland Line. They apparently conveyed diesel which is presumably why there are two colours of tank wagon in that photo.  A further search will uncover info on Class A and Class B tanks, liveries and the carriage of diesel.

39 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

The Great Bear, suspended between two cranes, somewhere at Swindon Works. But why?

 

 

A still from the unboxing video.

30 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

...you're not entitled to but feel you deserve?

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.

17 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Who will you be paying them to?  😄

 

These two just popped up on my feed:

 

 

And this one a couple of days back

 

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...

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

PS: actually, I think I would have to rebadge it as Waterloo to Seagood Central, and have different trains, because I never could understood the GWR.

Or Victoria to Seagoon (a thinly disguised Bexhill-on-Sea).

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.

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Most of can't build a kit to the standard of a RTR model, but, without seeing it I can guarantee the Bachmann underframe will be suspect in a few places.

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.

46 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

I’m almost certain it’s been mentioned , and it seems a popular idea 

Once or twice 😁 

15 hours ago, chb2488 said:

That one might show Im1 for the two outermost roads and Im2 for the two others, so three lights.

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 hours ago, penguin_sam said:

Thinking that station and engine shed would be something like this. With the station buuilding on an upper level with option to hide some tight turns with high level road/bridge etc.

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.

On 04/03/2024 at 09:21, steve1 said:

This flock of Pochards have been around since before Xmas

Not Pochards (diving ducks) but Wigeons, which spend a lot of time ashore eating grass, but will relocate to the water if disturbed.  They have a characteristic "wheeoo" call which is very evocative of a grazing marsh in winter.

I had my usual New Year trip to the Lower Derwent Valley in January after visiting family, but the water was so high everywhere that the birds had moved well downstream below Bubwith bridge and were mostly out of sight.  A pity as the view from the hides at North Duffield is often quite spectacular.

3 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

😁

 

It's the unfortunate consequence of me not originally realising that I needed a bridge there. I have considered extending the ramp in a spiral to reduce the incline but that seems like a lot of engineering work just for a farmer's access.

 

 

My options seem to be:

• Have sheep and horses in the fields but no way for the farmer to get to them.
• Have at grade crossings (crazy on what are two main lines and anyway the paths down to the rails would be treachorous.
• A bridge.
• Completely redo the landscaping.

 

I find the bridge the least offensive solution and..you know..rule one 😉

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.

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.

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

 

can't use the phone!!!

 

In person or online only

I'm really bewildered by this.  You said a few posts back that you had a mobile phone account at one time.  Do you still have it?  Even an old dumb phone will receive texts so you can get your one time passcodes.

Are you under the impression that the OTP has to be received on the same device you are using to log in?  This is not so.  You can get the code on your phone and type it into the computer to log in.

2 hours ago, dave75 said:

You say that but how similar is the windscreen arrangement to the 23/37/40 or is that just me?

Designed at Derby in the late 1940s, so probably very close to the twins.

20 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I agree with this. The traditional "British Exhibition layout mindset" has hidden sidings as being a 'must have', but is hidden staging really needed for a home layout...? After all, at home who are you trying to kid that a train has arrived from far away, when in reality it's come just a few feet, regardless of if that area is 'hidden' (again, from whom, exactly?) or scenicked.

 

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.

33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

and I’m even toying with the idea of providing EST&T with their own SG shunting loco, possibly an RH 48DS

That sounds like an excellent idea.