Pacific231G

small radius (nominally 24inch) and medium radius (nominally 36 inch) . They are much gentler than Hornby or Peco Setrack and they'll be fine.

Having a small and simple layout set up somewhere where you can shunt a few wagons whenever the mood takes you can be very therapeutic. Before my study became my office, I used to keep my H0 BLT (without its fiddle yard but cunningly designed to enable all shunting of a train to be done on the scenic section) on the back of my desk. When I was stuck on some task ten or fifteen minutes of wagon bashing was a great stress relief. The one thing I'd advise against for a shunting layout is using Setrack points to "get more in", a friend of mine did that and had endless trouble with short wheelbase locos stalling and derailments. On my own layout, which is 63 inches long (+fiddle yard) I mostly used Peco "medium" points (3 foot radius) but did use a couple of the short (2 foot radius) type and I've always regretted not sticking with the mediums throughout. .

If you're just starting out it might make sense to go with DCC as that can give sound, lights etc. For DC however, a simple layout like this,doesn't require a lot of isolating to be done as you can use point switching for most of it. If the points are set against a dead end siding then it's electrically dead. Unless you want to have more than one loco in each of the fuelling sidings then you need just two feeds (points are alway fed from the switch end and never from the crossing end) and three isolations (achieved quite simply with insulating track joiners). I've marked these on your plan as red dashes. The feeds are shown conventionally as red and black triangles and the section breaks (i.e. insulating track joiners) as red dashes- it doesn't matter which rail you put the break in. Because you have in any case to insulate both rails between the two points facing each other, this is also the minimum set up in DCC . Assuming that you want a loco to bring in a train of wagons that is then shunted I'd sugest a switched break at a loco length from the end of the longer siding to enable the incoming loco to be isolated so that another can draw the wagons back to shunt them. If incoming trains are propelled in and drawn out then you don't even need that. If you want the fuelling depot to accomodate more than two locos (I assume the shunting locos are short) then you need a switched section break in one of both of its sidings as indicated by red dashes (it doesn't actually matter which rail you break) and then bridge with an on-off section switch.

I can reassure you that the largish terminus as a branch off a main line isn't at all improbable. Birkenhead Woodside (five platforms) was a case in point as was Plymouth Millbay (four platforms and also a reversing terminus which operationally gives a lot of bang for one's buck). and I'm sure there were others in Britan. A bit further afield is Tours and Orleans (and there was Biarritz before it closed) where the original main line was built to a city terminus but was then extended to skirt the city centre so leaving the old terminus as a branch. Boulogne used to be a terminus too - more or less where the car ferry terminal was built with the main line to Calais avoiding it to the East then burrowing under the old town. Had history been a bit different there might have been the same situation in Oxford (and, for a few months there was) where the original station was a terminus (at Grandpont (near Folly Bridge if you know Oxford) but the new line to Birmingham left it at Millstream Junction (where Hinksey yards were built in 1940) 3/4 mile to the south of the terminus and, until the new GW station on the Botley Road was opened in 1852 , trains on the Birmingham line had to reverse in or out of Grandpont. https://southoxfordhistory.org.uk/interesting-aspects-of-grandpont-and-south-oxford-s-history/the-coming-of-the-railway-to-oxford.

Given the low forces involved,I'm surprised that the end thrust in a small motor, expecially one designed for use in model locos, would be a significant problem. They are after all used in the gearboxes of vehicle windscreen wipers where they must be subject to constant reversals of thrust. Non worm gear drives for 4mm scale have though been around for a very long time I remember as a small child - probably in the late 1950s- that my father acquired a pannier tank (a Gaiety perhaps?) with spur or bevel gears rather than the usual worm. It was two-rail so couldn't be run on my HD third rail layout but I remember it because I got into trouble with him for pushing it around the layout as he said that would break the gears. One advantage of not using a worm is that it makes wheel cleaning a whole lot easier.

Yes. According to the GWR/WR SBDs I've been looking at, the OP's position for that is fine as the down main starts were all just before the points that split the route to the different platforms. However, it would almost certainly have a calling-on arm but not a distant. What you probably wouldn't have is the single track only splitting at the platform throat (though that was the case for the three platform single track terminus at Fort William) For a model- assuming this is a terminus to immediate fiddle yard scheme- you could extend the headshunt to end just off-stage and visually it would appear to be part of a loop (as at Porthcawl) I think also that the isolated down distant signal would probably also have a home arm as that would be needed to protect shunting moves. My other comment- looking at places like Penzance- is that you probably wouldn't have a separate Motorail siding but more likely end loading at the end of platform 4 leaving that siding to be a down carriage siding.

I don't know of any GWR termini with four platforms coming off a single track and, even when the line was singled Penzance still had quite a lot of double track before getting to the platform throat. So, Newquay, or Porthcawl, both with three platforms, might be closer . There are signal diagrams for both Penzance and Newquay in An Historical Survey of Grest Western Stations (R.H. Clark OPC) vol 2 and for Porthcawl in vol 2 and I'll PM them to you. In borth cases, numbers referred to platform numbers and other lines by descriptions At Penzance there were three mechanical routing indicators. The first was at the facing crossover (actually a scissors crossover) that accessed platform 1& 2 and that had three indicators for No. 1, No. 2 and down main. The next, on the down main, was before the points that accessed platform 3, 4 and the sidings with indications No. 3, no.4 and sidings. There was also a four-way route indicator between the other two but for the two down (carriage) sidings with four indications for No. 1, No. 2, Down Main and Siding. I don't know if Newquay had a mechanical route indicator before it was doubled but the SBD for it at its fullest extent (with seven carriage sidings) shows the final inbound home and calling on signal with a single five way route indicator with indications for No.1 platform, no. 2 Platform, Spur (the loco spur between the tracks for platforms 2 & 3) no. 3 platform and sidings. Porthcawl was always single track and there was a three manual route indicator on the home and calling on signal for No. 1 platform, No. 2 platform and No. 3 platform.

Both very useful advice. Trying to lay track dead straight is not easy (I'm not sure I've ever managed it) and the human eye can detect even the smallest deviation. What is can't detect so easily (or at all) are slight variations in a curve so it might be worth considering making your straight tracks very slightly curved (maybe 12 or 20 foot radius) even if the total displacement is only a couple of inches along the whole length between your end curves. It will also make looking at an approaching train far more interesting ( this applies to the big railway as well) Though the prototype does have sections of dead straight track, very gentle curves are far more common. Getting a consistent separation between tracks is also important and it's probably worth making up a template to aid that What I do find is that track planning software (and pencil and ruler track planning to be fair) does tend to lead me into planning with straight lines and fairly tight curves but introducing very gentle curves will look a whole lot better. I also agree with the suggestion of modelling a two track rather than a four track section. It will certainly look longer and I rather envy our American counterparts who can authentically model single track main lines and still run the longest and heavier trains on them.

Taking a photograph of a copyrighted work is slightly complicated. This is what the UK gov, says (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet) "If someone takes a photo, copyright can exist in that photo. If someone takes a photo of a work protected by copyright, and the work forms an essential part of the image, using that photo on the web is likely to be an infringement of copyright." However "You do not need permission to photograph buildings, sculptures and similar works on public display in public spaces. The photographs you take are afforded full copyright protection. This means you, as the photographer, are able to commercially use your work." I assume that a model railway would be a "similar work" but, not being a lawyer, have no idea whether a model railway exhibition would count as a public space. As far as possible, I try to ask the owner (or operator) of an exhibition layout if they're happy for me to photograph it and I've never been asked not to. In reality, I'd assume that, like me, anyone exhibiting a layout would expect it to be photographed and for photos to be shared. I wouldn't be happy if they were commercially exploited unless as reportage, or if they were used in a detrimental way such as a caption saying "this is the sort of rubbish layout that appears in too many exhibitions these days." As Andy says, there are two sets of IP, that of the layout builder in their artistic work and that of the photographer in their image of it. So for example, I couldn't use a photograph that someone had taken of my layout without their permission.

I saw Borchester Market in operation three times; at St. Albans, Ally Pally and I think at Leytonstone (but possibly Warley) and it was always fascinating to see it in operation. There probably was the odd glitch but never enough to spoil my enjoyment of it. The problem with trying to model a prototypical location is that if they have enough interesting operation they'd be vast as a model. One only has to look at aerial photos to see just how large even a fairly compact station of any importance and its yards really are. There have been several main line termini layouts that seem to really capture the atmosphere of the real thing, despite being very simplified from how such a location would really be, and Borchester is definitely one of them.

That's fascinating Bécasse. I'll PM you as it's a bit OT for Borchester.

The Madder Valley Railway was originally displayed, in 1963, in its U form with glass panels so that viewers were essentially seeing it from the wrong side. It was converted to its present L form in 1972-1973 with more work on integrating the scenery until about 1978. It was always said that the conversion to an L was with Gladys Ahern's permission and that converson was undoubtedly agreed with her but contemporary notes from 1962-1963 show that it was how she'd always wanted it to be displayed at Pendon. The Madder Valley was very much a home layout, designed artistically to be seen from within the room, so not well suited to being viewed from the outside. Borchester Market, by contrast, seems to have been designed to be exhibited as well as filling a room in Frank Dyer's home and, being essentally all railway, works from both sides. I certainly spent a long time watching it at several exhibtions when the Newhaven group were showing it and its operation was fascinating.

Interesting.I didn't know that oil fuel had been much used for steam locos in Britain and certainly not that early.

Hi Bill I've come across earlier Jouef and Playcraft "models" fitted with Simplex, tension lock and hinged loop couplers. I think the type they fitted was more about the market than when they were produced with an attempt- under Jouef's Playcraft brand- to enter the UK market. What you describe as the Roco style hinged loop is the NEM standard coupler for H0 and still the default that most European rolling stock comes with - fortunately nowadays with an NEM coupler box so they can easily be replaced. I loathe them and reckon they were designed (originally by Märklin I think) to make tension locks look good! If you're not specifically modelling the Ouest/Etat it's worth noting that, though the Jouef Impériale is based on the Etat coach preserved at Mulhouse, near identical coaches were used on Paris suburban services by the Est, Nord and Ceinture. In its earliest years the Est's Ligne de Vincennes out of Bastille, did use locos with tenders but they soon went for tank locos on these suburban services so I'm not sure about a Bourbonnaise (I also don't think that the PLM used impériales on its suburban services). The Ouest Bicyclette is entirely suitable for the Ouest/Etat as is the Jouef "Boer" 030T (0-6-0T) if you can find one. For the Est, the Hornby-Acho 030TB (0-6-0T) was specifically designed for the Vincennes line in the early 1920s and was used with the open impériales alongside the slightly later (and much safer) Vidard enclosed imperiale type for some years. For comparison, here is a photo of my example of the Jouef Ouest/Etat 2nd/3rd impériale and the only actual drawing I've been able to find- though note that the drawing is for an all third Cf type with a brakeman's perch or guérite (C for third class f for screw brake) Note that the drawing was published in 1869 and shows solid unspoked wheels. To be pedantic, the Jouef single-deck four wheel coach, though attractive, is really the chassis and body of the impériale (which IS dimensionally accurate) with the upper deck replaced with a new roof. For the actual impériale the lower deck was lower than for a normal coach so for a model of a single deck coach the compartments are really too low. You can see the difference in compartment height in this postcard of St. Germain from about 1900. I think the closest impériale is the type preserved at Mulhouse while the next two have a brakeman's position at the near ends as in the drawing though, with four lower deck compartments, these are 2nd/3rds If you want a real challenge, these are drawings from about 1858 of the enclosed Systéme Vidard double-deckers adopted by the Est and Ceinture and later by the Nord and Ouest. Note the ingenious system of "swan neck" longerons (solebars) that the engineer Vidard came up with to lower the lower deck sufficiently to enable the upper deck to be an enclosed saloon- albeit a rather cramped one. While researching an article on impériales I looked through a number of contemporary newspaper accounts of accidents to passengers using the open impériales which typically involved serious injuries from falls from the roof in stations or fatalities from standing up while the train was in motion and being hit by bridges, tunnels or other structures. Commuting by train in nineteenth and early twentieth century Paris looks to have been as dangerous as doing so in Mumbai nowadays.

That's probably true but the same applies to TT v N and, for many people, 00/H0 v TT or N. For me TT is the minimum sensible scale. Reading pre-war MRNs it is clear that for many modellers the same applied to 00/H0 v 0 scale but, when my father died, my mother gave me his small collection of N gauge stock. It was intended for a layout he never built and was suitable for a GW branch line so I did think of building one. I certainly could have done - I'd succesfully built a couple of H0e layouts- but I simply found the size just too small to feel any real connection with it. I'd had TT-3 as a youngster and never felt that was too small. At the Globalrail exhibtion last year there were layouts in 0, H0, TT and N and I definitely found TT big enough but N too small and clearly this is a very personal thing. Something that surprised me about Z was that, using Märklin's products, a trackplan would likely take as much space as in N gauge as the points were no shorter.

I think it became a kitbuilder's scale with items produced by Kemtron etc. but the original offer by Hal Joyce (who invented TT) certainly included a range of RTR products. However, I got into North American H0 for a while in the 1970s and everything I had was kit-built- mostly "shake-the -box" kits it is true. I don't remember seeing any RTR N. American products in Victors (there may been diesels but they didn't interest me) though I know Rivarossi was producing it. I think there were tax reasons in the USA that made kits preferable to RTR though many of them could be assembled in about ten minutes (If you took your time!)

Hi Johnster I'm probably in the same demographic category as you having been a teenager when steam in my part of the country (Oxford) went from an everyday norm to something that was only to be found in the North. (The last time I heard a BR steam loco was from a ship I was on in Bootle) However, I model the steam era in France which I never knew and I think that a lot of the attraction of steam is that a steam loco just looks good. Miles Kington once described the steam locomotive (In a programme about the railways of Peru) as a ham actor. It made a great show of doing what a diesel did with far less fuss but in a far less entertaining way. I note that the steam locos currently being produced as mass market products for the French market* are almost all from classes that are in preservation, thus making them prototypical to run alongside TGVs etc. Britain is a slightly unusual case in that the end of steam largely coincided with the end of many other things that are interesting to model such as local goods trains shunting in local yards, through coaches, branch lines that were more than "basic railway" and so on. According to Loco-Revue, the most popular epoch for modellers in France is Ep IV when steam had been replaced by diesels and electrics but the other aspects of interesting operation were still going strong (with many lines that lost their passengers in 1938-39 still handling regular goods trains) and most trains still loco-hauled. Although It represented my strongest memories of steam, I don't think I'd actually want to model the 1960s as it was a time when the railways seemed to be in a very depressing terminal decline with low staff morale (that only seemed to pick up when the HSTs brought new hope) , endless closures, and a general sense of dereliction. The other thing I'd note is that sailing ship are still very popular amongst ship modellers even though very few of them can have ever seen a commercial sailing ship. (though one of my best recent memories was of going up the Thames on a Dutch sailing ship during a tall ships festival) Sailing ships are simply very beautiful things and we like modelling beautiful and intricate things, something for which steam locomotives certainly qualify. Ironically, at least in summer, it's now easier for me to see a steam loco in action now than it was in the late 1960s. *There are also a number of models of ex German steam types that went to France as post WW1 or WW2 reparations but they're easy for manufacturers to adapt (or simply repaint) from models made for the much larger German outline market.

It's curious that the land of TT's birth is the place where, after an encouraging start, it almost died out (though you could probably say the same about H0, developed in London and once almost as popular as 00 but pretty rare for British outline ) I've never really understood why. The usual assumption was that it was killed by the arrival of N scale but, if that was the reason, why hasn't Z done the same to N?

Well spotted Annie, that's interesting. I'd assumed that balance weights would be required for any wheels driven by coupling rods but perhaps, at 10 MPH with 30 inch dameter wheels turning at about 120RPM and with fairly light rods, the out of balance forces were tolerable (but perhaps uncomfortable for the crew) . However, Wilkinson's book seemed to imply that converting from 2-2-0 to 0-4-0 was done almost on a trip basis but they'd surely have had to lift the undriven wheels to be able to turn them to align the journal pins before fitting the coupling rods . Accordign to Wilkinson, WantageTramway no 6 was always a 2-2-0. Imitation is.. will be with you shortly!

If you want a better copy of "imitation is..." I can PM it to you.

According to Reg Wilkinson's no 4 was built by Henry Hughes & Co. in Loughborough as an 0-4-0 "but usually ran as a 2-2-0 except in severe weather conditions or when working heavy goods trains" There are balance weights on only one set of wheels so we can assume inside cylinders acting on the right hand axle (in the photo) with some way of coupling to the other axle when needed- presumably a belt or chain as there is no balance weight at all on the left hand wheel (and other photos show the same) which any kind of coupling rod (which could not in any case be switched in and out) would require. The wheels were 2ft 6inch diameter. From this photo, that the drawings were apparently based on, it appears to have had a locomotive (i.e horizontal with fire and smokebox at opposite ends) boiler

I'm happy for you to repost them here so long as they're credited. I would have added a few to my last post but the plans were already taking up a lot of space.

Surely Mike you're not suggesting that our beloved government could be in any way economical with the truth. Given this government's attitude to major long term (i.e. beyond the next election) infrastructure programmes, filling one pothole probably IS nowadays a major infrastructure programme.

It's worth noting that if you add an extra siding to the original Piano Line thus or thus you get a lot more play value operational interest out of it. There was a second version inspired by the Rev. P.H. Heath's Piano Line featured in RM in Feb 1983 in an article entitled "Imitation is...". That used Peco Streamline (small radius and small Y) where Heath had used Tri-ang Series 4 so was a bit longer at 5ft 6ins and looked more realistic Again, it would take no more space to add a second siding FWIW This is my drawing on a six inch grid of the enlarged (in width not length)version of Goonhilly which I greatly enjoyed seeing at Wycrail in 2008. The break is (obviously enough) between the two back to back points. If any of my photos of Goonhilly were lost in the Great RMweb Image Disaster I'll post them here. BTW If you think the basic Piano Line concept is unrealistic, it isn't . I've found at least three light railway termini that were laid out that way for space reasons. They weren't in Britain.

Like any commuter run, I suspect that the novelty would soon wear off. I binge watched progs 1-3 this evening (having seen prog 4 on repeat a few days ago) and, by a curious coincidence, had actually travelled to and from Sydenham station yesterday to see friends I'd not visited for a couple of years. Does anyone know anything about the grey "construction foam" that Pete Waterman was suggesting to Francis Rossi? It looked to be denser than the usual blue foam so I'm wondering how much edge cladding etc. it would need to use as a baseboard.