Lacathedrale

Thanks Flacky, that's really kind. Siberian Snooper, I did already try to smush the chair down with some butanone but it's made no difference. I'm in two minds: whether to leave it as-is and then perform whatever surgery is required when it's transported to the layout (incase the issue is the paper/board as per Martin's thoughts), or trying to head it off at the pass now. After some discussion with Martin and a fresh look I've smoothed out the geometry of the pointwork leading into the layout -the angles are all the same but this time the turnouts are slightly curved instead of being ramrod straight with a curved piece of flex on the end. I mean hey, if I'm going to all the trouble of laying my own track I may as well do some 'custom' formations, right? I also have consolidated the CCD and carriage sidings into a single connection to the up mainline (TR218 in the diagram) - this way it's alot more like a 'real' old goods yard to my untrained eye: The horror that is the timbering around TL186 needs resolving but now it's just a plain branch crossover I think that's easier to manage. The string of PL239/PL232/PL231 I'm not happy with either but I'm not sure how to fix it as the gravel shed needs to go roughly at PL232 and there's not enough separation from the running lines if I use straight track.

Thanks Paul, Amazon Prime Same-Day to the rescue. I think the problem is being compounded when I have to start slicing up the chairs around the nose, wing, check rails - hopefully the EMGS / Exactoscale have some components that can ease this.

Hi Gary, I literally just googled 'ballast profile' - it was to illustrate that on running lines generally speaking the rails sit on timbers, which sit on track ballast, which sit on a cess. The 'Track' book from the 2FS gives specific UK dimensions to the various layers, but my salient point was not to provide specific gauge recommendations and was to show that laying track directly onto a baseboard misses quite a signature component of most railway lines, i.e. the verticality.

Welp, had a call from the membership sec of the EMGS yesterday and it appears all is well and details are winging their way to me. I've been incredibly, super stressed at work - put on a new project where I'm barely keeping my head above water and the guy I'm working with is moving on. All has been focused on that for the last few days, but I did catch 5 minutes to work on the crossover. One of the key issues with the first half was that since the template was only taped to the work board and then pritt stick used to affix the sleepers to it, the paper became wavy and uneven - it makes troubleshooting particularly difficult. I lifted the other half and stuck that down as best I could and I think that'll make it easier. One of the closure rails has ridden up, and I can't figure out how or why, as it's on the same chairs as all the surrounding rail. I think the only solution will be to use pliers to slide the rail towards the toe end, slice off that chair and reapply. I'm fairly certain I'm going to thoroughly break the whole thing - but such is life I guess. This is one part about plastic turnout construction I don't really like - once the Butanone goes on, it's not exactly simple to resolve. I also got a DCC concepts reamer and I can highly recommend it - the HEA wagon I'm testing on doesn't have brass bearings, just ABS plastic - but after cleaning up the holes it runs very smoothly indeed.

Thanks both - I think work needs to stop temporarily (or if not then proceed with the real potential that it may be a waste of time and materials) until I can get the components I need from Exactoscale/EMGS. Definitely lessons learned already from the first turnout made: I didn't glue the template down (taped it) and chopped up normal chairs instead of using special chairs or PCB to support the crossing, and filed the vee by eye instead of using a proper jig. In fact, enthusiasm is again at a low ebb, my £400 of DCC control is still in postal limbo after almost a month, and similar issues with the EMGS (yes I'm aware the membership sec was on holiday). I'm seriously considering going the whole hog switching to P4 instead of EM...

Hmmm... why not just one diode of a larger value? I freely confess I have no idea how this works

^ the slab and bracket? Thanks both. I did hear that the membership sec was off but I think that was a couple of weeks ago? It's not a huge issue yet. Martin, I did post as requested on the templot forum with regard to the turnouts leading to the platform/carriage roads. I'm not au fait with Templot enough to know how to snap a 'new' track between two existing templates (which is what I gather I would have to do to replace the straight B6's with contraflexed B7.5's?). On those lines I am considering consolidating the entry to the carriage road and coal depot to a single siding off the up main, more like a traditional goods yard - that feels like it would be more prototypical and I could include a proper catch point and/or ground signal there. Thoughts? The space infront of the carriage road is mostly just dead space anyway, and it would potentially give a little more flexibility to the convergence of those turnouts.

Thanks, I think I definitely need to figure out a better way of handling the crossing nose support too. Trying to fit four chairs (one each side of the nose and then one each side of the wing rail) is too much. I'm thinking that a shim of plasticard underneath superglued into to raise it to the correct height above the timbers? I also need a way to budget for the energisation of the frog - current plans are that when I remove the track from the temporary base I'll flip it 180 and solder a dropper to the bottom. Lastly, one of the big benefits of going to EM for me was the fun of hand laying track, but I don't want it to become a source of trouble for the layout. Right now it feels like there are too many variables: position and angle of the wing rails, crossing nose, etc. are all done by eye and with only partial assistance from bits of plasticard/brass used as jigs and guides. I'd rather not spend another £60 on supporting infra from the EMGS (infact I haven't heard a single thing from them since I submitted my request 3+ weeks ago!).

Sorry, right you are - so a combo of carriage wheels and Branchlines half-axles in the motor bogies? Seems quite reasonable. I keep glancing at the P4 wheeled Lima 37 and thinking to myself 'eh, it's only a short change...' but given my ropey track laying so far I don't think I'd survive it. Somehow despite gauging everything the whole way through, there's a bit of narrowing on the diverging route; and despite using exactly the same timbers and the same chairs on the same base, there are some annoying jolts in the railhead as it goes between joins.

I guess I will then have to take the bogies apart to review them - I was hoping that it would be as simple as edging the wheels out and/or replacing with some standard DCC Concepts coach wheels.

Ah I see, it was my understanding that it was a requirement in model form in order that the curved switch rail would not introduce a rough 'bump' when the turnout is open. I spent a little more time with a needle file to smooth the blade and thin it out more and it appears to have done the trick without the need for a joggle - thank you!

Thanks Martin! I got the set in the curved rail, but forgot the joggle in the straight rail - much swearing but with a little judicious filing my one and only EM wagon runs through. The stock rails have alternating gaps where the check rails are, so the latter can be supported and cosmetic chair ends fitted against the stock rail afterwards. Some slide-chair timbers have come adrift but nothing dramatic. It seems that practise in 2FS has paid off in EM; at least now I know a few MM drift away from the plan doesn't matter so much as long as everything is gauged across/around/from each other properly.

So I'm at a point of no return with my crossover - I need to fit the main road wingrail and curved switch - the latter I'm fine, because I've not fitted the curved stock rail and I'll use the switch rail to set it - but I'm just not sure how to get the wing rail in the right place. I've got some ideas but they're rather rube-goldberg

Yes indeed it is a shame, but I think this thread shows that we as a community have been very understanding and patient, and certainly much slack has been granted to Phil in light of the various explanations that he has for missing, delayed or otherwise problematic orders. At some point, one must cut their losses and simply move on.

Speaking of 73's, I'm definitely going to be making up 73103 for my layout when it comes to it - just look at the little guy! https://imgur.com/a/XZ3PA1N

Oh, so you mean use a Heljan bogie/motor with Hornby chassis and Lima body, then sell the Lima chassis complete? I can't find any reference to mustard yellow?

Track building finally commences! I bent and filed that Vee by eye and I'm not all that sure how accurate it is - it seems to confirm with the track plan though, so I'll take it. Making one that matches it, is turning out to be a bit more of a challenge Here's the half-converted 37 that I got from hattons for £20 - new horns/handrails, P4 wheels and all-wheel pickup already done. As per the 'Class 37 upgrade' thread, I've already got a bunch of etched parts to use so even if this ends up as a bit of a dog it won't have costed much and should be good practice: EDIT: Won an auction for a 2EPB and I'm just about to win one (hopefully) for a set of PGAs too - so I think the layout stock is coming along nicely. I really want to make sure 73103 makes an appearance, it looks great: https://imgur.com/a/XZ3PA1N

I hate to diverge too much into conversion territory but I'm a little at a loss as to where else to ask: I gather from the above I can just easy out the wheels on my Bachmann 4CEP and 2EPB's?

Cheesysmith, the 47 is probably the only loco eligible for my layout that I haven't got a model eyed up for so I would be interested to hear your results - using Heljan motors/bogies sounds like it would be an expensive hack though!

So the top crossover has been re-printed and I'm about to make a start - however with Martin's suggestion I have re-worked the platform points B8's instead of B6's and it seems to work - the only geometry that seems to affect is the siding (bottom right). I have staggered the crossover at the top of the plan away from the middle formation and that seems to work nicely:

So I should cut where the marks are around the vee for a gap, except where that mark falls by a check rail I should have it going just past the checkrail where the mark falls very close to the tie bar of a turnout, I should cut short Is that correct? Martin, That's some very interesting info, If I understand correctly while it's incorrect as it pertains to prototypical track formation, surely it's only a factor when I have carriages arranged specifically as you have shown above? i.e. one halfway onto TR103 while another is going through the curved route of TR102? Thanks,

Cheers guys - I'll try to build as whole units - I'm just a bit nervous How short should I trim close to the vee for that joint? I am worried about things getting kinked. for example, I've soldered up the Vee that would sit under the label PR143 but it looks like it would only be about 3 timbers long before I it starts to overlap with the check rails of TL149

Perfect, thank you! For some reason I thought the sound predated Networkers as I'm fairly certain that they weren't around at the time I was thinking - but clearly I have things muddled up. Thank you sir!

I've finally got the bits enough to start constructing the pointwork for my layout, but I'm having a right mare of a time figuring out where to start. I thought the turnout TL150 in the below diagram would be good, but every rail either ends up as a Vee, or from an existing Vee. I''m not sure my measuring and modelling skills are good enough to have this down perfectly! Where should I start on this? I assumed the crossover highlighted in red would be one unit, the zig-zag platform entry roads another, and the entry crossover and first siding the last - but I didn't expect to have to build them all as one piece! Is there any way around it?

Hi Corbs, I actually have converted it with a new CD motor (which is why IMO it's alot better than the original 37 I compared it against), but no instructions were provided for a diode to drop the speed down. That might help, do you have any further info?