Lacathedrale

I should be clear that I am going to continue to tinker with models in EMSF on and off, in the way I have done so already; a few hours here and there building up some detailed kits and models - the result may be at some point in the future, enough to start a layout with - but not yet, and the pressure to produce for a layout is not compatible with how I want to deal with it!

Just popping in to say I loved that video filter on the 150 - I'm not normally one for that kind of thing but it is just perfect.

Decision made, order placed @Regularity you're not wrong about the penny dropping, but I have realised that as much as I want to build exquisitely detailed jewel-like victorian models and tasteful dioramas, right now I want a model railway. I have never really wanted a single-line branch terminus and and so on those principles, I have placed an order for proprietary (i.e 00) track to the Wickham plan. Time to migrate the layout topic to the other forum, but obviously feel free to continue to use this as a kick off point to discuss garage-sized, operationally focused, retro-inspired, model railway layouts :)

Fair play! I was being a little glib but hopefully my point still comes across :)

Frankly, I'd be happy with a cohesive set of motive power, coaches and freight stock - whatever the era or geographic focus: a passenger express, a mixed traffic, a tank branch/shunter, some coaches with wide applicability and some freight wagons with a brake van. I think the worst thing that could happen would be a completely fragmented approach where there are no overlaps to the products being produced: did a Class 31 ever run on GW metals? Did an Austerity? How many 16T wagons has a Class 66 pulled? etc. etc.

I think on the face of it you're right. Any layout requires consistent and dedicated effort over a period, but for either of these plans there's a significant period upfront before the layout can work at all - and that may end up being an achilles heel. Without resorting to RTR I feel like there is one 'out' that could potentially mitigate it. We spoke about the contrast between Belle (simpler track plan, more demanding stock requirements) and Wickham (the reverse), but that little dotted line in front of the fiddle yard in the Belle Linear plan has given me pause for thought. Maybe as per @xveitch's thoughts - I could build the "extension" BEFORE the main layout? It would by neccesity be limited to the length of the traverser that it would screen (4'6") and probably around a foot wide. Any staging would be 'tactical' rather than permanent, since the layout would be designed to ultimately plug into Wickham or Belle. Belle Goods could be as simple as a tandem turnout and a headshunt, on a viaduct leading into warehouse doors, with wagon hoists, etc. at the front. Alternatively, Wickham's twig, "Lindfield" - could be something as simple as East Brent or the first Leighton Buzzard? While in no way would it be as fully satisfying as the larger garage-sized layout, it would give me experience for the whole gamut of skills required for a Victorian EMSF layout. It also has limited requirements of the same kind of stock the main layout would end up needing, and it could be exhibited alone to test the waters and inform design choices of the larger layout that it would ideally be integrated into eventually. I'm not sure it's exactly where I want to end up - but seems like a pragmatic step towards it, with little/no "waste" ? Certainly, food for thought.

@xveitch that's not a bad shout, layouts which have the potential for extension seem to have a higher level of retention. I have been playing about a bit with both designs and attempted a kind of hybrid - but what makes Belle interesting are the operational idiosyncrasies - the extensive use of a station pilot and the distinct arrival and departure platforms - and those aren't really all that compatible with the larger country terminus that Wickham tries to ape. The addition of the runaround and goods yard just makes the throat a good deal larger and more complex. I thought it would be prudent to show Belle Sauvage in linear form, seeing as that's how it would likely be setup initially: Belle Sauvage "Linear" I made a few tweaks along the way, but I think this is the final version of the plan (at least schematically-speaking!) Shortened the dead space at the platform end - the left hand side of the layout is bracketed by the station and hotel facade. I added the miniature carriage siding at the front of the island platform (as per Holborn Viaduct shown earlier) with capacity for one bogie coach or two six wheelers. I think this is a good shout for a couple of reasons: All my coaching stock is going to need to pull double or triple duty for each operating session, so lots of capacity is unlikely to be required Access to this pocket is on the bidirectional platform lines, so is an ideal place for the pilot to hang out if the station is not too crowded. The layover siding remains in-place, but no development is to occur in this area other than some basic ground work. The wedge is large enough to accomodate a Victorian-sized turntable on the current board, or could be extended infront of the traverser with some proper carriage sidings, a high level goods warehouse, etc. If I can be totally honest, I'm still feeling a bit adrift with regard to Victorian EM-SF and Edwardian 00. The progress on my locomotive build and stock in general is steady, but very, very slow. I am acutely aware that at this rate it could be a few years before I have enough stock to run the layout that's being planned, and the attendant risks of attention and focus wandering. I wonder if I should reduce the scope of the Victorian EMSF idea to an office shunting plank, rather than a whole layout initially? In the meantime, I could quite easily pick up a kernel of RTR pre-group locomotives and stock to get me going on Belle for either the SE&CR or LBSCR. I do know we've had this chat about wanting more of less, or less of more - but I don't know that it can be considered in a vacuum as there needs to be a minimum-viable stock collection for a layout to work - and this entire thrust is to create a working layout!

That is a fair point, @t-b-g - I guess I could always sell the wheels on eBay or something 😀 I do appreciate the need to adapt a B2B depending on wheel profile, @martin_wynne - thank you. I could in theory turn my wheels to a Manchester standard with the lathe and a custom form tool using pressure turning but if Gibson/Ultrascale wheels work fine, there's no point. Thank you!

Good shout - that said I'm looking at half a dozen clockwork non-040 models on eBay for the £200-£350 mark and they look so bloody charming. I know you said that there's a bit of a gulf between clockwork and electric but when they're a quarter of the price... I've been reading with some enjoyment the Sherwood Section by N.S.Eagles in the early RMs and keep thinking "Well, it might just be possible..." with my 14 x 8' around-the-walls space...

@martin_wynne If I use P4 wheels am I using the same 16.5mm BTB? I have about twenty 14mm mansell wheels that I can't find anyone to swap with EM equivalents...

Another silly clockwork question - is it possible to source clockwork mechanisms of quality that one might have seen in BL and Bing, rather than Hornby? I'm thinking of those with a good energy reserve, moderate speed, automatic stop/start catches and the various bells and whistles? I have a milling machine and a dividing head so it's not a huge issue to make gears or lay out plates and machine spacers, so in theory I could also potentially build from drawings if there are any around? I keep getting attracted back to tinplate despite my finescale pursuasions...

Perfect. I checked out the Rothes drawing of the Jinty and overlaid the same type of diagram: Taking the datum as the bottom of the frames and assuming a bit of elasticity in the drawing: The centreline of the axles is at 2mm For the front axle the pivot point bearing on the middle of the axle should be at 3.6mm. The bearing surface of the beams should be at 4.5mm and the pivot of said beam (with a nominal 4mm width) should be at 6.5mm. The ends are radiused or undercut. I should be able to use a combination of layout fluid, height gauge, scribers and my milling machine to get the various holes in place.

Hi chum, Make sense to me. Since the frames are already together, I should be able to use To clarify, the difference between white and peach beam is simply the shape (in order to fit around loco fittings)? A/E = height of top of hornblock with axles in normal position C/B are positive/negative offsets of pivot, since the pivot location it must be at least the diameter of the pivot plus some amount of clearance from A/E.

It's a High Level Jinty replacement Chassis - given my 3D shell is designed for a Jinty chassis, I'm hoping it'll be broadly compatilbe with the jinty replacement chassis! The kit comes with beam compensation on the leading/middle and a fixed rear(gearbox) axle. There are springs fixed underneath the horn guide cutouts so I don't think I can 'drop the axles' very easily, though. If I understand you correctly, We are instead going to pivot the front axle so it can roll by itself, and move the beam to the rear two axles pivoted so it can pitch: Seems reasonable to me. The other question is around where to fix them fore and aft - with the original bearing, that's the datum for locating the other two axles in their hornblocks and guides -but with all three moving, I can get them fixed relative to each other, but not sure how to get them in the 'right' place relative to other features on the chassis itself?

Thank you matey, happy to give that a bash: I've ordered another set of hornblocks and horn guides. I also have ordered a poppy's woodtech jig so that should be arriving soon. Could you please advise how I'd go about setting the location and orientation what would have been the fixed axle? The kit comes with beam compensation, axial across the front two axles. Presumably, this will need to be amended? I don't know with the motor whether a transverse pivot like our discussion of the 2-4-0T would work, is there an easy alternative?

So, buy another pair of hornblocks and guides and get all three axles sprung? I don't see how I can have a fixed point for the driven axle with any level of accuracy at the moment...

Absolutely, but I would not pay £33 for a wagon that I then had to repaint :) Re: the Cooper-Craft wagons, is it just 1004 which is suitable? I see quite a few 1001 and 1005's knocking around but no 1004's...

Everyone said that the HL kit instructions must be followed to the letter, so when it said "for a compensated chassis, open up the horn slots to the half etched lines" I did so. Except on the first page it also said 'this kit can be sprung on two of the three axles'. I didn't join the dots, and well... I'm not sure if this is recoverable as although the horns guides can shift fore and aft to ensure squareness, and the horns themselves in the vertical axis - these plain bearing holes cannot, and now I have no datum to work from at all, so I think this is scrap? Honestly, I'm not even mad, this is 100% my fault - but it does raise the question of what to do? Try to salvage it somehow (how?), use the parts for a similar locomotive build (LCDR T-class: same wheels, smaller wheelbase, inside frames), or just get on with the 2-4-0T build mentioned previously (which will require the purchase of more wheels, extended axles and cranks, etc. etc.)

Pains me to say it, but the transfers I think do make this one look a bit nicer: It's had quite a few coats of paint and varnish at this point but now it's definitely in the 'good enough' bracket! My afford to represent grease axleboxes are dubious, I sliced off the front latch and side lugs and then added a 45 degree chamfer to the top. The original wagon used the Ratio coupling hook which I didn't drill out, so I snipped that off and slotted the headstock for a Smiths coupling hook and links. Unfortunately the entire underside of the wagon is packed with liquid lead, so sprung couplings were not possible - it's just glued in there. For posterity's sake, I initially coated this in a mixture of Heavy Sienna, Heavy Umber and Pale Sand - but it came out very dark and required too much pale sand added (which then turned it a salmon colour). The colour I eventually settled on was Vallejo 'Red' and Vallejo 'Red Leather', lightened slightly with some pale sand. This is roughly analogous to @Mikkel's recipe, albeit using brighter starting colours and needing less lightening. I would like to use the hybrid livery as shown by Mikkel in his fabulous 'Same but different' blog entry too, but I think this is after my 1899 cutoff. Maybe it'll sneak in for variety's sake at a later date.

Excellent both, thank you - 16.5mm it is! I will look to make your fixture, Martin - I'm sure that will be helpful. Cheers!

The 4 Plank Wagon = David Geen Models? Is it known by any other moniker? No need for a brake I'm afraid, I'm in a Wealden setting!

Lovely to read the thread, thank you for taking us on the journey with you, Anotheran! :)

I'm going to have a spare few G.W.R. transfers that it makes sense to use up. However, my time period is pre-1900, and it's not clear to me what (widely available) kits are likely to be suitable. So far I've come up with two vans: GWR Iron Mink 'A': Peco PC563 - replace axleboxes with grease and one brake lever, paint in Red livery. Already done this one! GWR Cattle Van W1 Coopercraft W1/W5: slot ends and r/h sides to reflect pre-1902 style of W1 ? Are there any readily available kits for 2- and 3- plank wagons? David Geen's wagons have dropped off the face of the earth, and I'm not sure what else is knocking around!

Summoning @martin_wynne to this thread 🪄 I've not found any trouble with a standard 16.5mm B2B so far, but on my loco build I may as well stack the deck in my favour - 16.5 or 16.6mm for EM-SF? Many thanks!

Returning somewhat to the original topic, there is definitely strong competition for the "bedroom branch line" in these 1950's RMs. I'm coming towards the end of the decade and have had a steady diet of Buckingham, Charford, Berrow and Tyling. The fairly strong argument for one of these (Buckingham maybe excepted in its later guises) is that one sets up an positive feedback loop at the earliest possible moment: A small, limited scope layout is faster to build, and with a modicum of stock can be operated and enojyed, and the need and desire to expand the stud of locomotives, wagons and coaches is a natural progression. This is in comparison to an open loop of building large amounts of stock before a bigger layout is ready, or building a bigger layout that cannot be used without a large, uninterrupted block of stock building. As it pertains to stock building, sod is cut on my locomotive chassis so rest assured it's not all 🐦 cheep-cheep 🐦 but the below may be a little fluffy: Exploring that premise a little more, I thought it would be helpful to summarise the four layout plans under meaningful consideration. All of them have the following characteristics: 14' x 8'6" L-shape or less At least 2 platforms, a carriage siding and dock for NPCS working. Engine shed and/or facilities Limited train lengths mean the initial traverser-type FY can host loco + coaches + loco, for bidirectional working. A requirement for a couple of passenger trains, and a goods train Belle Sauvage, Urban Terminus Belle Sauvage is my view of a pseudo-Holborn Viaduct at its zenith, with top link expresses, boat trains and continental traffic working between shabby locals and transfers. 🟢 Few points (6 sets) on one board with space for a lever frame 🟢 Easily exhibitable and could be built initially with the traverser end-on, and extended later around the curve of the garage. 🔴 Challenge of viaduct setting 🔴 Few goods facilities 🔴 Cannot operate with limited stock Notes: The layover siding could easily accomodate a 60' turntable a-la Cannon Street or Ewer Street if this were deemed appropriate at a later date. @t-b-g has a plan similar to this, with a single central carriage road instead of the two platform faces, which could be used to limit the scope of the layout more, but would lose some of the essential flavour of the terminus I'm looking for. Overall, represents the apex (to me) of the urban terminus layout plans we've discussed. Wickham, Suburban Terminus Wickham is an idealised provincial terminus supporting both mainline and branch line traffic, with the facilities for both NPCS and goods. 🟢 Excellent goods and facilities 🟢 Most appealing as a rounded layout 🟢 Can operate with limited stock, but has high potential for growth 🟡 Most points, but only marginally 🔴 Home layout only, requires L-shape Notes: Essentially a double track passenger station in the vein of minories, but with an additional goods siding and runaround. Could be sited in London's armpit, or as a provincial terminus of a secondary main line. OK, so which layout to build? Wickham can operate authentically with a winter timetable of one or two rakes of coaches and a dozen goods wagons, Belle Sauvage will require significantly more vehicles upfront to form a reasonable reserve of stock for basic operations. Between Wickham and Belle Sauvage, the former is obviously more complex- both in size and permanent way, and fulfill different desires. There is absolutely nothing to say that one layout cannot follow the other - much like Jas Milham's various S-scale GER adventures, stock for one layout could run on another and (generally) vice-versa and provide an easy leg up. So, maybe the question is 'what should come first?' The only meaningful difference between the layouts is that Belle Sauvage has no requirement for goods stock, but instead has a demand on additional passenger stock. Given that I already have (and enjoy building) goods stock, maybe Wickham is a sensible first stab? When skills are proven and a critical mass of stock is obtained, then building Belle Sauvage, even as an exhibition-only layout, could be a satisfying diversion. It could even in due course be installed in the garage 'opposite' Wickham. But, enough of that - soldering iron is warm and it's time to get on with some actual modelling...