Dungrange

In the Direct Rail Services Bookazine published by Key Publishing in early 2020, one of the photo captions states "The MoD flask workings were the last nuclear trains in the country to transfer to DRS operation, EWS having held the contract until 2006." Therefore the EWS Class 66 and Inspection saloon was obviously the standard traction at the time. DRS haulage is only appropriate for those interested in the post-2006 period.

You don't need to apologise, but welcome to the 'real' RMWeb. You'll find there are certain topics where some individuals hold quite strong opinions on subjects such as track gauge (00 vs EM vs P4) or control system (DC vs DCC) or even between automation control software (iTrain vs Traincontroller). Thankfully most are willing to engage in an amicable way and accept that others do things differently from the way they would or do. It's probably best to ask questions in separate threads if you want to get a wide range of views or experience or the questions become quite technically specific, as the experts on something like signalling may not look at threads with a title 'layout design help'. However, to give you my opinion on your questions: Mainlines tend to have a clear shoulder, but my perception is that there is no or little shoulder to the ballast in a yard or TMD. I'm sure there will be someone who can produce a photograph showing a shoulder at location X, but I'd have thought that the photograph that @Kris has posted above would be the norm rather than the exception. I'd see the variation in level that a shoulder would create as a potential trip hazard to staff moving about the site, so it would probably be frowned upon in today's Health and Safety culture. As such, my answer would probably be neither. I'm using closed cell foam on my own layout, but that's driven by a desire for noise reduction, which I think is slightly better with closed cell foam rather than cork. If you think a small shoulder will look better, I'd go with whatever material is cheaper or available locally and don't overdo the thickness. Signalling - as per the response from @Kris. There wouldn't be any signalling within the depot, just signals that control departure from your two platforms and something controlling exit from the TMD into the station. I'd probably see that as a ground signal, but there could be other options as @RJS1977 highlights. I'd expect the points within the TMD to be hand operated levers. However, as you say, I'd expect the points that control access to your platforms and entry / exit from the TMD to be motor controlled from the Signal Control Centre.

Yes, I can relate to that - I've often fancied building a small micro-layout, but by the time I want to add an extra siding, make the sidings longer, it would no longer look like the layout that inspired that thought. I think this definitely looks better. The layout of the TMD looks more logical to me and it looks like you have space to operate some longer trains if desired. The longest storage track in the fiddle yard would now accommodate a Class 220 Voyager type unit (possibly a Class 221) or alternatively a locomotive hauled working, such as the top and tail services that DRS operated on both the Cumbrian Coast and in East Anglia in recent years. I suspect that you might be limited to two locomotives and two coaches (rather than the three that were used on the Cumbrian Coast services), but at least you have the option of something more interesting if you want. I think my only 'concern' with the plan as currently shown is your scenic break. If you are now modelling part of a large station, then in reality, there would be lots of point work in a multitrack formation in the station throat (ie the top right corner of your plan). In the model, you only have a single track. As I see it, the only way to explain the lack of a more complex station throat is, as has already been suggested, to have a long wall along the rear of the layout (about 11 ft in length and a scale 30 ft high). This would need to look as though it supports a large roof (which is effectively behind your back-scene). You could then arrange to have a covered footbridge that connects your roadway at the maintenance depot and passes through the wall. The stairs down to 'Platform 8' would then be behind the wall, so you wouldn't need to model them. In trying to think what this would look like, it struck me that there is an example very near me: Edinburgh Waverley. Waverley has a large overall roof that spans all of the platforms at the station bar two on the south side of the station (which were I think added later than the others to handle trains on the former 'south suburban' line). Access to the station from East Market Street (which runs to the south of the station) is via a footbridge over these two platforms, so the next time I'm over that way, I'll try and remember to take a couple of photographs to show what I think may work from a scenic perspective. You can sort of see what I'm thinking about from Google Streetview, but the topography of the ground to the south of the station doesn't match your scenario and the presence of a wall on East Market Street makes it a little difficult to envisage how it might look on your layout. However, I'm glad that you seem to be happy with your plan.

There are no 'lies' in this thread: that's just your paranoia. All you will find is a number of opinions and some of these obviously differ from your own. Clearly as a result of your condition (ASD) you interpret things in a particular way. That's not wrong, but you have to learn to understand that others are entitled to have an alternative opinion and look at things in a way that's different to how you see the world. You are entitled to an opinion (as we all are), but you need to learn to respect the opinions of others. If you're unwilling to try and see other people's point of view, then you are implying that you think your opinion is superior and that will simply be perceived as arrogant (because that's what it is). Internet forums are simply a place to share ideas, tips and advice - it's like a virtual model railway club. Others can choose to follow or ignore that advice as they see fit. There are several people on this site for whom I value their opinions and trust what they say (even although I have never met them). There are a few others that I couldn't care less what they think, because their attitude does not impress me. On the one hand, you say "l'm not going to tell him what to do" and on the other you say "if you're going to reject alternative advice, fine - you don't have to implement my advice". That sounds as though you are annoyed that your advice isn't being followed, which probably stems from your unwillingness to accept the opinions of others. Most people on this site give their opinions and advice freely: they don't have a little strop when they think someone is following a suggestion made by someone else that they don't agree with. Besides, it's not exactly clear to me what 'advice' you think you've given. You've expressed an opinion that playing trains is more important to you than attempting to build a scale model and operate it like the prototype, but what have you actually suggested that would help @Ellis NZ improve the operating potential of his plan? Most other contributors have made suggestions for potential improvements or highlighted potential issues that means I think @Ellis NZ's latest plan is an improvement on the first one and I think that is a general consensus. However, like most others, I don't actually care what @Ellis NZ builds because I'll never see the layout, unless he posts a picture of the completed layout here. Of course that doesn't mean that I'm not wiling to highlight potential issues or pitfalls that I've learned from the nearly 40 years that I've been interested in model railways. I've made hundreds of post on here asking for information, advice or opinions on a wide range of topics and I've been grateful for the most of the replies I've received and I've also made hundreds of posts that attempt to answer questions posed by others. That is how RMWeb works. To be honest, I don't think that accusation was specifically aimed at just you - I think it's aimed at anyone with an opinion that is different from @JonnyNicholson - ie anyone who wants a model railway that tries to emulate prototypical practice.

I note that there are other colour images out there - I guess the biggest challenge is the high resolution criteria. This one looks promising in terms of the colours (ie I can see all the colours in the crest), but I note that the lettering is incomplete in both 'Manchester' and 'Railway'. It appears that this photograph was taken a couple of years after first application, so not only are you looking for a colour and high resolution image, but preferably also one that is not worn with age (as the yellow also looks a bit more faded in this image than some others that were presumably taken when the crest was newer). I can see that being quite a challenge. I suppose it needs someone to find an image and then contact the photographer to see if they have a higher resolution version. I'll leave that to someone who really, really wants to see you produce these.

I'm assuming this one isn't any use - it's square on, but probably not high enough resolution - It's not my photograph and I don't want a set of transfers for this locomotive, but clearly a suitable photograph may exist.

According to their brand guidelines - https://www.thepwi.org/uploads/pwi_brand_guidelines "Since being Founded in 1884 and Incorporated in 1908, the Permanent Way Institution’s has been synonymous with expertise and knowledge".

The photograph below is, I think, a university in Mexico, and the image is copied from the website https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/gallery/2021/02/11/mexico-a-university-campus-defined-by-arches-and-modular-volumes.html Is there an architectural name for the pale concrete coloured horizontal lines between the floors? I'm assuming that this is in fact nothing more than a concrete floor slab that extends through the line of the wall and that this could therefore be replicated in model form by adding a plain plastic section between brick panels. I'm also assuming that there are UK buildings with this feature or something similar. The reason I ask is that I'm looking for a way to increase the height of an H0 kit so that I can incorporate it with other buildings that have a higher floor to floor height.

The train is travelling in the opposite direction in this video, so obviously the previous video was just the two locomotives and escort coaches going to pick up their load and they are now returning with some spent nuclear rods. Funny how the KUAs were invisible when they were empty, or perhaps they have a cloaking device when they are loaded.

Indeed, because an obtuse crossing is only found in diamonds and slips, as opposed to the common crossing, which is much more 'common', as it's found in all forms of point and crossing work.

As far as I'm aware, the "proper, British term" is the common crossing.

Since decorated samples were originally due before Chinese New Year and that would have enabled delivery of the production models by the end of Q2, I think we can safely assume that delivery has slipped by something like four months, so perhaps September if you're an optimist and just in time for Christmas if you're not so optimistic. Of course @Accurascale Fran has promised us an update once the decorated samples have been received and reviewed, so hopefully we'll get some stunning photographs soon and an update on the delivery schedule.

I assume you have installed Steam (ie the interface) and are now downloading a game that you have purchased. Depending on the size of the download and your internet connection speed that may take a while. What game are you downloading and did it not say how big the download was when you started?

RSSB Guidance Note GI/GN7616 that provides "Guidance on Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains" states that "The distance between the front of a train at its intended stopping position and the face of a buffer stop should not be less than 2 m (paragraph G 7.1.5)". https://docplayer.net/30046939-Gi-gn7616-guidance-on-interface-between-station-platforms-track-and-trains-rail-industry-guidance-note-for-gi-rt7016.html However, I understand that local instructions can override that, albeit my understanding is that a driver is still supposed to stop the train at least two metres from the buffer stop and then if necessary, move it closer (ie in some locations, it is necessary to reduce the distance between the buffers and the buffer stop to permit a train of a particular type to fit in a particular platform). The same seems to be true for permissive working into an occupied platform: the driver is supposed to stop at least two metres from an existing unit and then once stopped, draw forward and couple up if required. However, since I don't work in the rail industry, that is only my understanding from on-line research, so I'm happy to actually be corrected by someone who drives trains for a living and will therefore be much more knowledgeable than I am on the finer details.

My understanding is that under normal operation the buffers on a train are not supposed to come into contact with a buffer stop: if they do it is considered to be a collision. I believe a driver is supposed to stop 2m away from the buffer stop. Therefore, if you are driving your trains prototypically, it shouldn't matter. However, if you are asking in relation to the event where you accidently drive your train into the buffer stop, then I'm sorry, I don't know the answer as I don't have any of these buffer stops.

Yes. A lot of people's first port of call will be one of the large online retailers, so they are going to run out first and that therefore means a longer wait. If you try one of the smaller model shops, they may have what you require. They have a slower turnover so are less likely to have sold out, but equally they may only have one or two of whatever turnout you require. You don't say what Electrofrog points you are looking for, but you could try someone like my local model shop - https://www.harburnhobbies.co.uk/acatalog/_00__H0_Track___Accessories.html It looks as though they have most of the range in stock, but with a few exceptions.

I couldn't agree more. A layout should fulfil the aspirations of its creator. Of course what an individual wants can vary enormously. At one end of the spectrum is the individual who simply wants to build their dream 'train set'. As a young child they were inspired by a photograph in the Hornby catalogue from 19xx and promised their young self that one day, that's what they would have. Fifty years later, they have the time, money and space to construct that dream, and they try to cram four circuits with two stations, freight facilities, and engine shed with turntable and a tunnel into their attic or garage. The layout may not be prototypical and the signals may be no more than decorative. It may not represent anywhere in particular and the stock that runs on it may be from a mix of eras bought simply because it's pleasing on the eye, but if that's their dream, then that's what they should build. At the other end of the spectrum is an individual who strives to create a near perfect scale model of a particular location at a particular point in time. They spend hours collating old photographs, Ordinance Survey maps, Working Time Tables and Sectional Appendices and trying to understand the typical merchandise handled at or passing through their station in their chosen year, examining train formations and seeking to replicate everything as accurately as possible, even if that means scratch building stock and infrastructure from scale drawings. The rest of us fit somewhere between these two extremes but some individuals can relate to one end of the spectrum better than the other. Certainly not. When someone says that they want to create a model that represents the East Midlands in the 21st century, what do they mean? Do they just mean that they want to run modern stock that has been seen in that part of the country, or do they actually want to create a layout that is a plausible representation of the area and time period. It's not clear from the opening post precisely what the aim is and the degree of authenticity that is sought or desired. A model doesn't need to represent an actual location, but I believe it should try to capture the main characteristics of both the location and time period if that's what its creator seeks. I also think that a track plan should be designed with reference to the stock that you plan to use. To give you an example, my club exhibit a layout called Glendevon, which is supposed to represent a former North British Railway branch line terminus as it may have looked in the 1950s. It's a typical steam era layout representing a station that probably would have been recommended for closure by Dr Beeching. At exhibitions, I enjoy shunting the goods yard and marshalling the next goods train that will depart for the fiddle yard. A departing train will typically have about eight or ten wagons with a brake van on the rear, as that is all that will fit in the fiddle yard at the other end of the layout. I'm happy enough doing a double shift if required. However, if I try operating the layout in the clubroom with some of my own stock, it's not nearly so enjoyable. Why? The answer is that the layout was designed for steam era stock. The head-shunt in the yard can accommodate an 0-6-0 tank locomotive and six or seven steam era wagons at a time, but when I swap that for a class 66 and some Cargowaggons, I can only fit the locomotive and a single wagon and a Cargowaggon is too long to fit in the goods shed: it fouls the adjacent platform. My longest wagons are Revolution trains' IZA Cargowaggons, which at about 360 mm in length equate to at least four wagons from earlier times. That makes a huge difference to how a layout is operated and therefore a layout that may work with stock from an earlier era is not necessarily suitable for more modern wagons. I'm actually using an incorrect track gauge of 4ft 1.5in that was introduced in the 1920s!!! Of course the correct prototypical track gauge of 4ft 8.5in predates the Victorian Era: Railway Mania was in full swing before Queen Victoria came to the throne. However, you make a good point, even in the 21st century, the majority of the buildings around us were constructed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Old infrastructure can remain in use for as long as it is fit for purpose. That seems like a good enough reason to have a TMD centre stage on your planned layout. I prefer your V2 layout, as I can envisage that there is a large station close by and this is the site of the mainline depot that was built by company A. At a later date company B built a line that cut between company A's depot and the mainline and this high level line was subsequently truncated at your station. Being close to a mainline would present the rational for the old steam era infrastructure having been replaced with something more modern and suited to the needs of the modern railway. However, if you want to revert to an all on the level approach, @TonyMay's suggestion of representing just part of a larger station also presents a plausible explanation for your TMD. It has already been highlighted by @Harlequin that access to the sidings in the lower part of your fiddle yard could be problematic if you build over the top with the upper level fiddle yard and block the front with a factory. However, as these lower sidings seem to be primarily for locomotive storage, you may not require access all that often, although you will need to be able to see what is parked where so that you know what DCC address to select (unless you're aiming to use Railcom). Two other points that are worth highlighting. I can't read the dimension showing the length of your longest siding in the upper fiddle yard (but I think it says 930 mm). I'm not sure what DMUs you plan on using, but a three-car class 170 unit is about 920 mm long, so it will be a tight fit. Your other two sidings will only hold a two car DMU. My other comment is that the route from the lower fiddle yard to your fuelling point is now rather convoluted, which involves three changes of direction. If going from your largest maintenance shed to the fuelling point, there would be four changes of direction. On a model it's not a big issue to flick a direction switch, but on the real railway it would be more of a hassle for the driver, so I'd look at amending that part of the plan so that access for fuelling is a bit more direct. Apart from that, I don't think there is anything else I can say apart from good luck and I hope it makes you and your son happy.

Okay, but what is going to make you want to upgrade later? If you don't know what a real class 17 sounds like, how are you going to at a later date decide that the sound file you have on your model class 17 is 'wrong'? It's not like you are going to become familiar with the prototype at some point in the future. There are people on here who work or have worked on the railways driving real trains (or spent lots of time by the trackside) and claim that they can tell the difference between different subclasses of locomotive (and they probably can). The class 37/0 locomotives apparently sound different from the 37/4 subclass, which again sound different from the 37/6 and 37/7 subclasses. If you gave me a sound file for a class 37 and class 66, I could, I think, identify which is which, but if you were to give me four different class 37 sound files and ask me which subclass of locomotive was used to record the sounds, then I wouldn't have a clue. Therefore if a ready to run manufacturer or an after market supplier sell me a decoder for a class 37/4 locomotive, I'll just take their word for it. I don't know any different and I never will. All I want is something that sounds like how I believe it should sound, so I'm typically hoping for a bit of bass. If you ask on here who does the best sound project for any particular model, you'll get a range of opinions - some will prefer a sound file from provider A, whilst another will prefer the offering from provider B. However, the choice of speaker is also important. If you search on YouTube, you'll find several speaker comparison videos where the reviewer plays the same sound project through maybe ten different speakers. It's amazing the difference that changing a speaker can make. Therefore, whilst I might say I prefer provider A's sound file with speaker X, I may actually prefer provider B's sound file with speaker Y. Obviously the aficionados can spend a lot of time trying different speakers and speaker locations in pursuit of what they feel is the best sound experience. That can involve modifying the fuel tanks, or milling the chassis block to get their desired decoder / speaker combination to fit in the model. However, what is the point in putting in all that effort if you don't know what the prototype sounds like? What will make you want to upgrade later is technological improvements. Over time, sound decoders have improved. The amount of Random Access Memory (RAM) has increased, which means that sound providers can now include additional sounds or longer recordings of the start up sequence. Speaker technologies have also improved over recent years. You may therefore hear a DCC Sound locomotive at a future exhibition in five years' time and think that sounds better than mine. However, there is nothing you can do about that, as the reason may well be that its a newer generation of decoder or a speaker that is not currently available. Since sound is rather subjective, I think it's something that you have to hear and make up your own mind about.

It sounds as though you already have an era in mind (ie 1970s) if you are asking about stock in a mixture of green and blue liveries. You probably want to try and decide what you want to build first before buying too much stock, so that you focus on what is relevant to whatever you decide you want to model. When it comes to DCC sound, you get what you pay for, so the Hornby Twin Track Sound (TTS) is more basic than a model fitted with a Zimo or ESU decoder, which could have half a dozen sounds playing simultaneously if desired. Ideally try to listen to the sound file before purchasing to decide whether or not you are happy. In my opinion, the factory fitted sounds are okay, but whether or not you agree will depend on how familiar you are with the real railway. For example, I've never seen or heard a class 17 in real life, so I can't criticise the sounds of a model. However, if you are familiar with the prototype, then you may feel that it is lacking something (I can't say what). For some models, the factory fitted speakers are not always the best, but these can be upgraded if you want and in many respects I think the speaker choice is as important as the sound decoder / sound project. Some sound decoders can be reblown (ie a new sound file written onto the decoder if you are unhappy with the sound project that is provided), but many factory fitted sound models can't, so you're stuck with the sound project whether you like it or not. That's why it's important to try to listen to sound before purchase if you're knowledgeable about what the prototype sounds like. With regards your choice of models, in most cases I think there is only one or sometimes two manufacturers to choose between. For the 08, you basically have the choice between the Hornby and Bachmann models. The coupling rods are finer on the Hornby model (the main range rather than the railroad version), but I have examples of both. The issue is that there has been changes to the design of the chassis of both models over time, so the newer models probably have more space for a speaker than some of the earlier models, which were manufactured before DCC sound was as popular. I'm not even sure if my first Bachmann 08 has a DCC socket, but the latest models should be DCC Ready if not sound fitted. I think you really just need to pick a model and identify what options are available and then ask specific questions about that model as it's rather difficult to give a general recommendation when you don't know what you want.

In @Ellis NZ's case, it may be because he already has a Hornby TMD shed, but I think most of us like locomotives, buy too many and then want an excuse to show as many of them off as possible. The cliché of a TMD then becomes the rational for justifying having a lot of locomotives and indeed buying more. As you say, there is nothing wrong with building a layout based around a TMD if the stabling, maintenance and fuelling of locomotives is what interests someone. I agree. If there was a run round loop at the main passenger platform, then it does indeed have a steam era feel to it. However, whilst it appears that there may have been some rationalisation in relation to the passenger operations, the rest of the track does look a little stuck in the 1960s. That's a good enough idea and there are a number of layouts based around similar concepts. I think what I consider to be 'wrong' with the layout as is, is that there isn't really enough space to include a passenger station, locomotive stabling and servicing facilities and freight facilities all in the one location and make it look believable. It was possible for all of these to appear in the same location in the steam era, but that's not what the 21st century railway looks like. Locomotives and freight stock are larger than in the past and it's simply not economic to operate freight trains that convey just one or two wagons (apart from nuclear flasks). If that is all the traffic that is on offer, then it would have switched to road haulage years ago. In my own case, I started with a list of things that I'd like to fit in, station, freight facilities etc and quickly realised that I couldn't fit everything in, so in my case the station went and all I'll have on scene is two freight facilities (warehousing adjacent to the up line and oil discharge sidings on the down side). These will both be accessed from a loop off the down line. It was simply a case of deciding what was most important to me. Going with a split level layout would allow two different elements to be incorporated in a believable setting. A passenger service on the higher level as you suggest and either a TMD or some form of freight facility on the lower level. Personally, I'd go for some form of freight facility on the lower level, but that is because I find shunting wagons more appealing than pretending to refuel locomotives. Ultimately we don't know what aspects of railway operation interest @Ellis NZ most. There is of course nothing wrong with building a layout that is not prototypically authentic if it provides fun to its creator. I'm sure my childhood self would have enjoyed operating the layout as is, simply because in those days, I was perfectly happy to imagine that a two wagon train was actually much longer. If playing trains is the priority, then that is perfectly acceptable. Whilst it is possible to load or unload wagons within a building or other space, you'll need to think carefully about access if you plan on having removable loads. One of the reasons that I adopted the industries that I have for my own layout is that the wagons look the same whether they are loaded or empty. That therefore meant I deliberately selected vans, and tank wagons and avoided things like automotive wagons and coal wagons, where it is far more obvious whether the train is loaded or empty.

What radii are you using for the 90 degree turns in the corner? I can't tell if these are first or second radius, but most modern stock is designed for curves that are a minimum of second radius (438 mm). If first radius, then you'll be limited to older models and those with a short wheelbase, which is not really in line with your chosen time period. I agree with @RobinofLoxley that the sidings in the red section are rather short and the use of one or more curved turnouts would be a good idea to make at least some of them longer. The white dots are where the joins are between the turnouts and the plain track, but you'll need the front of your train to be well clear of these points to allow access to the adjacent siding. How far back depends on the radius of the curves and track centres, but I'd take the length of the flexi-track section in Anyrail and deduct about 75 mm (3") to determine the useable length. Also, you need to give some thought to how you are going to avoid driving a train off the end of the baseboard. If fitting buffer stops, then you will further reduce the usable length of these sidings (by about 50 mm (2")). It may therefore be better to construct a physical barrier on the end of the fiddle yard board made from plywood, or similar material. I can't really comment much on the specifics of the TMD layout as I'm not overly familiar with any prototype, but I'd ask why a small terminus station that only sees a DMU service would have extensive locomotive servicing facilities? In the steam era, many small branch lines had an engine shed at the terminus, which was used to stable the locomotive(s) required for the first train(s) of the day, but they were typically fairly basic facilities. Larger depots would have been at the mainline end of a branch. As you step forward in time, these sort of facilities at a terminus are no longer required. Passenger trains are generally no longer locomotive hauled, so the first train of the day is simply the DMU that was stabled at the platform overnight. By the 21st century, any steam era engine shed would likely have been demolished, but wouldn't have been replaced by a newly constructed diesel depot. Similarly, the majority of general purpose station goods yards had disappeared by the 21st century, so the freight potential at the end of a branch line would be much less than was the case in the steam era. If you're looking for freight activity in the 21st century, then you're either looking at an industry that produces something (eg a cement works, steel works or china clay production - all of which would be quite extensive facilities) or you're looking at some sort of receiving terminal. This could be a couple of sidings and a warehouse style building that would be used to unload and/or store the materials being delivered. Unfortunately, these are typically privately owned facilities (some of which have been built on the site of former railway goods depots) and typically don't have any TMD attached to them. As an example, the top photograph at https://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/a-visit-to-the-brunthill-branch-by-andy-laing/ is a photograph of the facilities at Brunthill in Carlisle, which was built on the track bed of the former line between Carlisle and Edinburgh. This facility is still there, but as far as I can tell, is no longer in use. However, in the early part of the 21st century (which is the period that I am interested in), I understand that this facility was handling at least three trains a week, which conveyed steel and cement for transfer to road for onward distribution. I think the buildings can accommodate six or seven wagons. In earlier photographs, only the building on the right exists, with the tracks to the left originally being outside. However, the facilities were enlarged to what is shown in that photograph in the early 21st century. This is part of the inspiration for the freight action on my own layout (under construction). The other freight facility on my layout will be an oil receiving terminal similar to the facilities at Dalston in Cumbria. Since the facilities at Dalston are quite small, the block trains that operate from Grangemouth are split at Carlisle Kingmoor and then tripped to Dalston in three shorter rakes (with each rake being six tank wagons). Ultimately, it's difficult to fit modern facilities into a small space, so compromises need to be made and you are probably best placed to decide what you really want. Copying another model is great if your primary goal is to play trains with your son. However, many models created this way are not prototypically correct, so if you are trying to create a truly believable scenario for a model of the real railway, then it's probably best to draw inspiration from the real railway. Good luck with this project and welcome to the forum.

I agree that if the polarity of the frog is incorrect, then a short will occur at the location @transferman has highlighted. The issue is, what is causing the polarity to be incorrect? Are you suggesting that the frog for turnout A is being powered from the switch on the point motor connected to turnout B and vice versa? If so, then I agree it would matter which way the two turnouts are set and if they are not set correctly (or one doesn't throw properly) then there is clearly the possibility that the polarity is wrong and a short will occur at the location identified. However, that's not the way that I'd arrange for the frog polarity to be changed. I'd power the frog for turnout A from the point motor switch connected to turnout A. That is, I'd wire up each half of the crossover as I would any other standalone turnout and if that was the case, then a short caused by only throwing half the crossover would always occur at the insulated rail joiners in the infill section: not at the location shown. Apologies for simply assuming that this is the way @transferman has wired these - I realise that may not be the case. That is therefore one possible explanation for the problem. However, if they've been wired as I'd do and the frog for turnout A is connected to the switch for the point motor connected to turnout A, then I think the only way in which a short would occur would be if the switchblades don't throw but the frog switch does, or the switchblades are changing, but the frog switch isn't. That would sound like a faulty Cobalt SS controller, would it not?

I'm not sure I understand your rational here. If the points are set differently, then yes you can get a short but that would occur at the location of the insulated rail joiners that are shown at the infill section between the two turnouts. That is, a short would occur when part of the pickup arrangement of a locomotive is on one side of the joiners and the other half is on the other side of these insulated rail joiners. The solution to that issue is, as you say, ensuring that the two turnouts are thrown simultaneously. However, @transferman is indicating that the shorting is occurring between the switchblades and the crossing vee. That therefore implies that the problem has nothing to do with the fact that it's a crossover, but that the problem either lies with the modifications that have been made to the turnouts or it is a problem with the frog switching. It just so happens that the same issue appears twice - ie it's a consistent mistake. As indicated in my last post, I think there should be greater separation between the new bonding wire between the closure and stock rails and the cuts in the closure rails. However, if the same issue is observed at two turnouts and with both throws of the turnouts, then that would imply four separate stray wires, which seems unlikely (but not impossible). As such, it's perhaps more appropriate to consider that it's a methodological error rather than an accidental one. The issue with that is that if the frog switching is wired up incorrectly, or the bonding wires were on the wrong side of the closure rail cuts, then I'd expect the problem to always be there and not to be an issue when first run that subsequently goes away. As such, I'm not sure what to suggest.

I think the only comment that I'd make is that the links you have added between the stock and closure rails seem to be very close to the cuts that you've made in the closure rails. If it was me, I'd have wanted to have the cuts and the links separated by at least a sleeper. If your new soldered links aren't that good, then there may be scope for there to be a loose strand of wire that is intermittently shorting across the gap to the frog. Apart from that, I can't see anything that is obviously wrong.

No the NEM standards for coupling mounts do state the dimensions of the coupler pocket, its height above the rail head and how far back the coupling pocket should be placed relative to the buffers. Kadee have therefore designed their NEM couplers to work with all models that fully comply with the NEM-362 standard. The problem is that the NEM standards are produced by MOROP, which is effectively the European equivalent of the NMRA. They produce a whole range of standards which are translated into French, German and English. You can see the list of standards translated into English at https://www.morop.org/index.php/en/nem-the-norms.html I can't find a link to the NEM-362 standard in English, but you can see it in French at https://www.morop.org/downloads/nem/fr/nem362_f.pdf. This was adopted by the Double O Gauge Association (DOGA) as the recommendation for UK outline models back in 2007. However, as the NEM-362 standard relates to the fitment of pockets to H0 models (which is obviously the norm across Europe) and doesn't specifically mention 00, many UK manufacturers initially chose to adopt the pocket dimensions, but ignore the rest of the standard on the basis that their models are 00, so therefore they can place the pocket wherever they like and still call it a NEM pocket. Thankfully manufacturers are now understanding that they need to fully comply with the NEM standards, not just the bits that they want to, if we are to actually have the ability to interchange couplings. The NEM-362 standard has the same mounting height for both H0 and S, so since 00 fits between these two scales, why did UK manufacturers choose to ignore the recommended mounting height and adopt their own model specific values? It seems very much like the typical British attitude that we don't like following what we perceive to be other people's standards.