Flying Pig

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.

On 29/02/2024 at 17:04, Nearholmer said:

The track-plan will look something like this (ignore the Terrier, imagine that the top left siding goes into the premises of EST&T, and that the passenger platform is on the right, where that hut is standing):

 

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.

10 hours ago, meatloaf said:

Daft question, would these have been diesel hauled at any point?

This post a couple of pages back links photos showing examples condemned in 1965 after departmental use.  So, possibly?

23 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The Replica and Bachmann versions had the benefit of separately fitted roof vents and gangway connections athough the latter tend to go brittle or out of shape with age, 

Although those are of the suspended type and shouldn't Period 1 stock have the scissors type?  And aren't the moulded gangways on the original Mainline bodies the fixed part of a scissors gangway?

55 minutes ago, mow said:

Have had a Siberian Lesser Whitethroat, feeding in the garden from late October til early February. It was trapped, ringed, and recorded in January and DNA testing pointed to a blythi rather than halimodendri subspecies. 

 

 

 

What a fantastic garden visitor.

On 26/02/2024 at 12:23, Will Crompton said:

Yes, according to the discussion under the picture on Flickr -  "Level X-ing at junction of Old Middlesbrough Road with Harcourt Road viewed from Middlesbrough Road over bridge." It seems to tally with former lines visible on Rail Map.

 

https://railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php

 

Also the houses visible in the left background seem to be those visible on Google Maps abutting Leven Street and Alan Street.

About in the middle of this 1938 6-inch survey.  The scrapyard doesn't appear on any of the large scale maps available at NLS and seems to occupy the site of the brick and tile works.

The line is the branch to Eston, which appears from the relevant 1-inch sheets on the NLS site to have been closed beyond this point by the time of the photo.  It looks like a classic rationalised situation with the former down branch still in existence beyond the level crossing, the up branch forming the middle road in the photo and the rightmost line part of the entry to the extensive sidings shown on the 1947 map which would be behind the photographer if they still existed.  Points from the down branch under the full wagons converted to hand operation at some time (possibly quite early as passenger services ceased in 1929).

14 hours ago, Les1952 said:

I'll dismantle the bogie tomorrow and see if I can remove the guards at the front.  Hopefully that should work.  It would be nice to operate it on Bregstadt occasionally- it isn't as inappropriate as some of the European "preserved" stuff that might appear, and looks quite good on a rake of 6-wheel Umbauwagen.

 

It is a bit of a showcase queen at the moment- only really bought because 60004 was the only A4 I photographed in BR service.  I also saw it TWICE working tender first on goods trains!

 

I'll post how I get on.  At least mentioning it has bumped the thread more into the collective consciousness.....

 

Les

 

Have you seen the following post and subsequent ones (apologies if you have but there seems to be a cats cradle of threads and links on this topic)?

https://community.hornbyhobbies.com/topic/35136-bogie-modification/?do=findComment&comment=373875

Before cutting bits off your precious loco, make sure the bogie pivot is moving freely in the slot in the bracket.

4 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

haven't we already had HTO/HTV 21t hoppers????

 

Not from Accurascale (they have done the 24.5t hoppers).  Hornby released a new tool model of the original unfitted LNER design, but haven't reissued it recently afaik.  BR fitted and unfitted wagons with welded bodies have never been available rtr and neither have the rebodies from the 1970s.  Plenty of variation to have a go at.

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Yes I do. It's Geoff Ashdown's own drawing rather so I think it's OK to post it. 

Can you remember anything of his explanation? I still suspect the sheer bu**eration of building a reliable double slip was the real reason as also for the interlaced points in the goods yard.  

Thanks - that's probably the one I saw on the layout.

Unfortunately, I can't really remember anything of what Geoff said.

1 hour ago, CaptainBiggles said:

That said (and this is what I love about this thread - the debate!), my query stands: Minories has 2 roads at the RH, 3 at the LH. The bottom half of Tower Pier (as drawn) has 2 RH / 4 LH. Reversing it would tessalate it much more neatly, no?

Yes, it would fit more neatly into the rectangular space, but is that what is wanted?  Perhaps implying that the layout fans out beyond what we can see is better?    As I've already said, one of the strong points about this layout is the way it implies its context beyond the rather small box in which it is built.

1 hour ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Noting that the top half is essentially a straight Minories, if it were to retain the natural kink of CJF's original

It isn't quite, as platform 2 is departure only.  The layout of the station is a bit quirky with the main arrival platform (with loco release) 'wrong side' and we would probably have torn it to bits if it had been posted on here.  But Geoff had created a lot of lore concerning the history and operation of the station that made sense of it - he explained it to me at an exhibition and only I wish that I could remember the details of what he said.

@Pacific231G do you have a picture of the diagram of routes connecting to Tower Pier that you could post here, please?   

13 minutes ago, teletougos said:

Beyond a certain point, it all comes down to faith

On the small number of occasions I saw Tower Pier, I was as impressed by Geoff's interactions with the public as by the excellence of his layout.  The personal qualities recalled in his obituary were certainly on display. 

It's very pleasing to hear the layout is in safe hands, since it is in my view one of the greats.

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

If anyone's interested I'll happily post a few more of my images of Tower Pier

Please do.  I agree it is a very fine layout and I do hope it won't be lost.  It's a layout that benefits from being well integrated into its railway surroundings, which gives even almost vestigial trackwork like the goods roads much more presence and interest.  A great use of limited space and always well presented when I saw it.

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Where is it cached by Google ?

I googled "Geoff Ashdown tower pier" and got a lot of images linked to various RMweb threads, so it hasn't been reposted elsewhere afaik.

A perhaps useful repost, originally posted by @Pacific231G on this thread, now lost from the forum but still for some reason cached by Google.  The signal diagram for Tower Pier:

On 19/02/2024 at 19:41, Nearholmer said:

Terminus-circuit-terminus is the ultimate model railway configuration IMO, it’s very satisfying to operate, and if it isn’t heresy in this thread I’d say that the best use Minories could be put to would be as the city terminus on such a layout.

You might like this ;)

1 hour ago, aac said:

Because minories plans are not generally based on large stations, constricted as we are by space limitations, a simple rule in creating your design could be described as "Tracks IN to all platforms, and  platforms OUT to all tracks." Hope that helps.

 

aac

You don't have to.  For one person operation and a less intense operating regime, separating the arrival and departure platforms and having to shunt before departure may be seen as increasing the play value.  That requires just a single trailing crossover with the conventional double track approach, but the OP has complicated things by imagining two separate single lines.

You could start with the layout as posted, remove one of the crossovers (duplication achieves nothing here) and run the approach as double track with the junction imagined off scene (perhaps some splitting distants on the starters to suggest it).

3 minutes ago, Caledonian said:

Looks splendid, pity about the B Set hanging on the back. Look forward to something more appropriate 😁

I was more concerned by the South Western coos at the start.

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I know it doesn’t address the topic, but if people already have engines, or camping stoves, it’s not difficult to replace the tablets (which frankly aren’t much good anyway) with wadding and meths, and its not hard to make, if you can’t buy, a wick burner. Messing about with liquid meths and matches isn’t the sort of activity you’d really want to entrust to an unsupervised 14yo though, which is where the tablets do come in useful - they are about the safest way imaginable of burning something to rehearse heat.

Yeah, 14 year olds get funny ideas.  Good thing I was 12 when my Mamod arrived.