TravisM

Sometimes a small diorama keeps your hand in when either a project stalls or more likely, close to completion (If there ever is such a thing).  Terrific modelling.

I went to order several of the Barclay industrials and was hoping to pay by installments, but your site wouldn't let me except order them and pay now, or when you have them

I’m really pleased to see that Accurascale have picked up the Hatton’s Original’s and production of the announced models.  I must admit that I had heard something through the grapevine last month about this, but I thought I’d wait until it was formally announced.

It would be nice to see the FEA and RHTT flats to be announced as well at a later date.

On 25/01/2024 at 19:34, HMB said:

Progressing with my H0 Italian layout based around the Cinque Terra region 

I’ll soon be at a stage where I need to represent the sea lapping against the rocks of coastline 

the question is how do get a convincing Mediterranean Sea ? Anyone got experience of products to use and techniques 

 

I asked the same question regarding the coast on my Cumbrian Coast Line layout.  I've picked up some really good ideas and tips off YouTube, so I'd suggest looking on there first.

Are these models only available from you or can they be ordered from dealers who already stock your models?

24 minutes ago, Revolution Ben said:

 

Hi there,

 

When the drone video was shot nearly a year ago the Class 18s had been sent to Wolverton for storage pending Network Rail approval.

 

This process was necessary because it became clear that customers would need the locomotives to occasionally 'touch' the network.  The Tata steel and Sellafield versions, which do not need to run over Network Rail track, do not require this so have been in service now for several years.

 

My understanding is that later this month the first will be deployed from Wolverton, with further deployments taking place over the coming months.  The locos require (I think) a 415V charging station but this is not considered a huge issue in most industrial applications.

 

The 08s have had a fantastically long and successful service life but in terms of ongoing maintenance, sourcing spares and environmental concerns they are reaching the end of their days, at last for mainstream industrial use.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

As I want to order a BNFL CBD18 version for my highly condensed Sellafield layout, can you let me know what the length of the model is over the couplers, so I can plan my minimum length siding for one of my shortest trains (Class 18 and FNA-D)

1 hour ago, TravisM said:

 

I did as you suggested regarding the double slip and I must admit, it does work better, but I'll keep everything as it is because I want to turn the former crane siding a siding where the caustic soda wagons used to go.  I've also got rid of the engine shed and put the crane there, created several buildings including a walkway between two to create a view block.

 

 

This any better?

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

 

 

🤐

 

Re the trackplan: the quasi-loop arrangement still looks clunky. It might be the best possible, but a couple of suggestions to try if you haven't already

• Replace the RH turnout into the warehouse spur with a double slip
• Replace that RH turnout with a RH curved turnout into a LH medium to give your crossover and headshunt roads.

Either could eliminate the dodgey-looking RH after the 24° crossing on the crane siding, and can balance the longer formation with greater, yet smoother, curvature. This allows you to extend the tracks into the top RH corner to maintain spur length and make the most of your practical space. The greater separation between them and the front track would then allow the fuel tanks to be rotated 90° to make the most of your visible space and help prevent the scene looking cramped.

I did as you suggested regarding the double slip and I must admit, it does work better, but I'll keep everything as it is because I want to turn the former crane siding a siding where the caustic soda wagons used to go.  I've also got rid of the engine shed and put the crane there, created several buildings including a walkway between two to create a view block.

I've decided to change the location from the docks in East Anglia and Lincolnshire to to a highly condensed version a Sellafield, mainly due to the fact that I'm struggling to find suitable modern dockside models and the models I already have, I can use on this, as well as on my eventual Cumbrian Coast layout.  This means I can get rid of my BYA's as I have far, far too many and just use my FNA and PFA wagons.  Would love a set of the Accurascale KUA's but I think they are far too big, but I would love to know if anyone does the Caustic Soda tanks that used to run onto the site as that would make a interesting addition. 

The track plan will remain the same and I'll probably order one of Revolution Trains BNFL's Class 18 CBD18 loco's, but I'm trying to find out how long they are over the couplers (in 4mm), so I can work out the minimum length of my sidings for my shortest train.  Maybe @Revolution Ben can help with the dimensions.

Please no jokes about glow in the dark trains, rather tiresome and juvenile.  

2 hours ago, Glencoe Model Railway said:

The Bachmann coaches have the pockets at the wrong height sadly. Best option is to get some of the Keen Systems drawbars which are pretty good. 

Is that just the Mk1's that have them at the wrong height or it all of them?  I tested my Mk1's against a Kadee coupler height gauge and they seem to be spot on.

2 hours ago, Gordon A said:

Most people put uncoupling magnets at the toe of the points.

More like this?

Before I start laying track down, I’m really wondering if I should bother with putting a cork roadbed down?  With some of the track going into sheds and warehouses, as well as buried in roadway, as well as the slow speed, is it worth it?

As I'm using Kadee couplers and want to use their No 308 under the track uncouplers, but struggling to find the best locations to put them.  I've put some X's on the track plan where I think they should go, does anyone agree or do people think I need more or less?

1 hour ago, simon b said:

Modern cranes are big, very big. This is on aliexpress. https://www.aliexpress.com/i/1005004101513533.html

 

Wow, that would certainly be a conversation piece on the layout, even in HO scale.  Thank you for the heads up.

I'm struggling to find a modern dockside crane for my 'The Docks' layout.  All I can seem to find is either the Dapol Travelling dockside crane, or the Kibri Double Link dockside crane, both are not really suitable.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I might find one?

If I was going to do 'Minories', this would be my plan using 6'x18" boards, but could be put on three 4'x18" boards but I wanted to keep all the point work on one of the boards as I used Peco long radius points.  It would be set in the present day and showed where there used to be a centre road in the station, long since removed as a cost saving exercise back in the 70's by BR.  I've shown modern signalling but I'd love to have put semaphore signals in instead.

15 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

On the contrary Gary, very well done. The central siding is something seen at Greenwich Park LCDR  - and you'd end up with something quite similar:

 

 

Note the signalbox at the rear - it has a loco siding/ash-pit behind it, just as you have described too. The turnout to access it can be seen in the foreground below:

 

 

Certainly a very evocative prototype, particularly since it dives straight into a tunnel too. Here's a map:

 

 

There was another crossover beyond the Burney Street Bridge, but without it, it's quite similar to the ideas that @t-b-g has with his arrival-only and departure-only version of Minories.

 

Though my Minories++ is stalled at the moment, one thing I think in retrospect I'd wished I'd included was a longer run between the station pointwork and the fiddle yard. Using Peco Bullhead 00 there are only a few inches between the last turnout and the start of the traverser - so shunting moves have to use the FY.

 

I reckon having a train length between the throat and the FY is the perfect size, but hard to do in 4mm/ft in all but the ladder shed!

I remember seeing the plan of Greenwich Park awhile ago and thinking 'wow', it has so many possibilities.  You could even model it in the present day, basing it on the track plan of Norwich Thorpe station, between Platforms 4 and 5, with the centre road being used for storage.  The road crossing the railway behind the signal box, makes the perfect scenic break.

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree with you. I have never suggested that any small terminus can be called a Minories. All I have said is that my own small terminus stations were inspired by Minories. That is a simple, indisputable fact I know to be true 'cos it was me that was inspired!

 

I looked closely at the Minories design, chose which parts I liked and which I didn't and came up with a couple of layouts. To say they are Minories is wrong. To say they are nothing to do with Minories is equally wrong. They are just a variation on the design and calling them "inspired by" allows me to give some credit to CJF for the original plan and the inspiration.

 

 

I seem to remember that CJ Freezer was interviewed (in probably Railway Modeller as it was so long ago), and he said that the Minories plan, as was all his plans, were to inspire people, to adapt them if needed and not to follow them as if they were written in stone.  I think some people need to take a step back and admire what people have created, not criticise.  If not, build your own and show it to the world.

I've always thought that Weymouth Tramway would make a brilliant layout, but because of it being on a outward facing curve, it would look great at a exhibition layout but not so good on a home layout, unless you built it more or less straight.

13 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

It is possible to plot track arrangements in Anyrail where point tie bars will foul when laid out - this was for a curved fiddle yard entrance that Anyrail said was OK.  Anyrail is a great product and very useful, but it is worth checking tight arrangements, Keith.

 

I agree that AnyRail is a good product, quite easy to use, but as Hornby Dublo points (and track) is made from stamped steel and absolutely no give in them, so it can be difficult to get them to fit as you'd like them.

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for and with HD 3rail you'd lose the real virtue of the Minories scheme. For plans like that, he seems to have followed the general guidelines favoured in the 1950s  of 3ft radius points. This  was the nominal radius of Pecoway points and those hand laid using Peco's track components before Streamline was offered  (originally with 2ft radius points). Hornby Dublo 3 rail points were AFAIK about 15inch radius.

 

The whole point of the Minories design was that it avoided the immediate the reverse curves (on all but one of the six routes) that the more usual arrangement of a facing and a trailing crossover would have so that passenger trains could snake rather than lurch through the pointwork. However, that breaks down if you use smaller radius points . I have seen a layout (Horn Lane) with a terminus based on Minories that used two foot radius points but that was with LT Underground stock so the sharp curves weren't such a problem.  

I've long wanted to see a layout based on such "heritage" equipment but built for proper operation rather than for simply running trains roud and round but, in terms of appearance, I think that for a three platform main line terminus ,with HD track, straight crossovers would actually look better but you may disagree. this is what the two plans look like with HD 3 rail

I notice that the straight-crossover version is also rather narrower

I must admit that I do like the first plan, but what worries me is the point throws, either manual or electric can interfere with other points if laid too close to the diverging route of another point.  Or is it just the way it's drawn on AnyRail but not like that in real life?

My very first 'proper' model railway when I was a kid, was Hornby Dublo 3 rail, and I've recently bought a few items to relive my childhood.  I'm seriously thinking of building Minories as CJ Freezer designed it, but with the track work of the era in mind when first drawn out, do you think I can make a convincing layout, to the same size and track plan using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track?

On 25/01/2024 at 14:34, Colin_McLeod said:

Would a 9mm bit be covered?  😀

Only in swarf 😂

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just remember that the bays both ends have to do that.

 

Recently there was a thread about Darlington, here, which has a single ended bay, but fitting it into the available space.

 

Personally i would say that proposal is too symmetrical. That might be how it is, but there arent many operating variations compared to Oxford Road.

I have to agree with @RobinofLoxley, the bay platforms are very short and the maximum length DMU that would fit is 2 cars (easy to work out on the grids), not 3, and I also feel that scenically, the station would look very compressed.  If your modelling the modern era, with BR and it's cost saving measures in the 70's and 80's, I'm pretty sure the passing loops would have long gone.

I would stick with your Oxford Road plan, lots of movement which will keep you busy, and therefore enjoyable.

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

2 hopefully (🤪) helpful thoughts - does your headshunt planning leave room for buffers?  And how long are you going to have to wait for PECO to come up with a bullhead short crossing? 

All sensible suggestions, thought's and questions are most welcome, as to buffers on the head shunts, I've decided only to have them in the warehouse and the siding under the overhead crane.  I want the world to think that they go further on, so if I decide to expand the layout, I won't have to worry about removing them.  To stop stock rolling off, I plan to use thick clear plastic that I can screw to the ends, high enough to stop stock hitting the floor, not high enough to be noticeable.

I'll probably have long gone up the chimney before Peco finally do a Bullhead short crossing, so I'll have to make use of their normal code 75 for now.