Lacathedrale

Did I hear you say 'safety cab'? Anyway, this german railways lark is definitely giving me pause for thought on my Minories plans - maybe the limited (ha!) stock requirements for a european Minories would make it easy to wrap a bow around? I've bounced around from 2FS to Finetrax to Kato Unitrack to Peco 00 to Hornby Dublo to Maldon Tinplate in search of a platform that will just ALLOW ME TO RUN TRAINS FOR GODS SAKE and every. single. one of them. has a bloody problem. Maybe just switching to H0 with reliable, modern european models is the solution. Maybe shades of Acheaux? Anyway, looking wonderful as always @Dr Gerbil-Fritters - I would love to see it in person some time. I'll bring the bollinger and the acid jazz, just tell me when and where - in the meantime, would it be possible to get a video panorama of what you've got? All the very best,

Thought this may be handy, from the S-scale Newsletter of May 2006:

OK, so for the sake of argument if my bogie and my driving wheels are both using twin compensating beams - what's the simplest way to lay that out? Is there a standard implementation guide I can see? I do apologise for asking as I get the impression that this is very much 'salt to taste' but I just don't have a reference point from which to diverge.

Absolutely beautiful. You'd recommend then that the bogie has individually sprung hornblocks rather than pivoting frames? As I said this is literally the first time I'm attempting this so success is more important than it being perfect! At this stage, if someone can say 'do it this way, it'll work and be the most expedient way to achieve it' then I would very much appreciate that, and then once I have one under my belt, can experiment with alternate solutions I'm assuming about 0.5mm sidways play on the driving axles. If it's compensating beams, the CLAG.org.uk / Scalefour site suggests a single beam down the middle of the chassis - but @Regularity I see in your example you have it butted up against the inside of the frame (presumably on both sides) ? I guess with beam compensation you don't need to spring the hornblocks? Cheers!

It is my understanding the MRC 'Minories GN' layout was originally a verbatim copy of the plan envisaged by CJF, but has subsequently been altered that the two rear platforms are now through lines to provide an oval connection. It brought to mind - what is the Minories equivalent of a through station? Is it just one side of Minories with the remainder off-scene (like Minories GN) or are there equally suitable through station designs akin to Minories? Presumably the additional complication of bays for terminating services in one or both directions is offset by my assumption of no integrated goods platforms (those presumably being in an adjacent yard, rather than being dealt with on the platforms).

Indeed - but a Hornby Smokey Joe no matter how well fettled is either stationary or full pelt Any thoughts on 3 vs 2 rail?

One question I've got - are the Dublo mechanisms usable at low speeds, or is it a case of running at either 'a gallop or a canter'? While I'm not in a position to do much modelling, I was thinking that a little Minories using tinplate would be really nice - I'd gotten started in tinplate 0 but it was just too large and expensive overall. I'm not looking to collect really, just to have a representative set of locos and coaches in BR livery... I'm fond of 3-rail O-gauge, but not sure whether that puts me in a position of buying more expensive items in the Dublo catalogue - what impact does that have on things?

Wow, thank you both! How would I lay out and implement the simplest compensating beam (instead of CSB) ? I'm happy to do, and would love to implement the most simple implementation of compensation on this very first of my locos. If it's likely to be more straightforward to the point of success or failure, I could defer the 0-4-4T and bring up an 0-6-0 tender loco ? Is http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html#figure27 what I should be aiming for? Looks like I can fit a 2S, 300mAh battery between the wheels inside the boiler space: If I leave the bottom of the firebox open, this would provide an easy way to charge and host a power switch, I think? Either that or in the coal bunker under a removable load. How important is battery removal? I think there will be enough space to slide it out... I've yet to settle on frame spacer material, so both PCB and square brass have both been considered (the latter obviously mandating BPRC). In the above I've amended to 20 thou brass, with the outside faces 3/4" apart as per article in Sept 2005 Gazette

@ianb3174 and @Regularity - answering your replies here: Thanks re: info on BPRC - doing some checking and it looks like the A-class tanks will have capacity for a few different battery combinations. I could fit a 240mAh battery in each side tank and still have room for a reciever and voltage booster but not sure about battery management/etc - realistically I don't think I have to make any kind of decision about that now as the space will be the same space regardless of how the loco is built, and I can hot wire it with crocodile clips while I'm testing. re: motor/gearbox - I was thinking that a known-good gearbox and motor combination would be a sensible way to allow me to focus on ... literally the entire rest of the loco. Are there any good resources for me to read up on? I have some wire and handrail knobs for a planned 0-6-0 CSB compensated loco build, would that work as well as equalising bars on the driving wheels of the 0-4-4T? The advantage being, again, that it's a known-good solution from High-level for my first full scratchbuild I was planning on a slotted hole for the bogie pivot, but honestly not all that sure on how I'll handle the bogie compensation. I think something like this: http://www.clag.org.uk/midbogie.html? i.e. an inner box containing the pivot and some slotted holes and pivot points, and then outside frames containing the bearings - pivoted using the same handrail-and-wire method? Lastly, now I have my ML7 I can machine S-scale tyres, so I assume that using a normal knife tool to take down the flange diameter and flange-base diameter down to their desired, I can then use the form tool to tidy up the corner and the face of the tyre?

I'm drawing up an LCDR A-class and had some small questions: 1) I assume 0.5mm sideplay is fine for driven axles? 2) Gibson have 5'6" drivers and the association have 5'7" - if the latter is required, is it going to just be altogether easier to size for that, rather than turning them down? 3) How much vertical deflection should I expect in the rear driving axle? As per the above diagram the prototype has about 40 thou equivalent, but with the oversized wheels I'm down to about 20 thou clearance!

Thank you Scott! I've used a mandrel to turn down wooden wheel blanks on my unimat, so very similar to that, albeit much more 'serious' Having done a bit more digging I think the A-class needs some further tweaking. The prototype uses 5'6" wheels. Assuming I'm using 10 thou brass for the splashers, the model would only have 40 thou between the outer flange diameter and the underside of the splasher. The high-level hornblocks by default have 60 thou of upward deflection, so we have a shortfall of 20 thou. The society has 5'7" wheels and rims available off the shelf - which gives only 20 thou clearance and a shortfall of 40 thou. The solution would appear to be, to use 5'7" wheels and fix the front (driven) axle, springing the other driving axle. Thoughts?

Ah, lovely. I guess for me it is simply a case of getting started, so while a parallel conversation on the S-scale list on groups.io is ongoing about carriage construction, I wondered if this might be fertile ground to discuss a brass chassis scratchbuilding. I'm tracing an LCDR A-class 0-4-4T drawing from the SECR society which seems fairly dimensionally accurate. This is what has resulted: As you can see, my plan is to use a 1420 motor with a Roadrunner+ gearbox, and high level hornblocks in the frames. Somewhat experimentally I'm also going with dead rail, RC-control. As it stands I can fit a fair sized set of batteries in the tanks - 50mm x 18mm x 8mm. In this case, I've hedged my bets for a single 300mAh battery in one tank, with a voltage booster in the other tank. My thoughts are to use 3/8" x 1/16" brass strip for the frames. I have some other questions if that's OK? Bear in mind this is unlikely to be without error and fault, so reliability and ease of construction much more important than elegance Should both driving wheels be sprung? Or one fixed, and one sprung? I am assuming yes, with a springy wire to bear on the gearbox/motor to stop it moving around. What's the most straightforward arrangement for the trailing bogie? Thread/nuts and a spring? Should the wheels be sprung/pivot? I was thinking of using countersunk screws to hold solid frame stretchers at the front, and strip at the rear to help with weight balance. Other than holes for the wheels, gearbox and a support for the bogie, do I need to bear anything else in mind? While I get ready to sketch the extra components - generally speaking, how wide should the footplate be? and the distance between the outsides of the frames? I figure if I get the chassis with the driving wheels and gearbox/motor built, I can at least prove the principles

Corbs, we spoke a little about RC conversions before, and I'm in the process of speccing up something for a scratchbuild. I was wondering if you might be able to summarise your thoughts on selecting LiPo batteries at this point? i.e. assuming the largest 3.7v you can find, with a booster? Is it possible to put one battery in each side tank of a loco for a higher capacity, or is that asking for trouble? Have you exhibited with your dead-rail/RC locos? At home I'm not worried about an hour's driving limit but may end up a problem if half the fleet is recharging whilst the other is operating!

Sorry, to clarify - I meant, a standard set of adjustments you apply to an off-the-shelf Gibson wheel to amend it to the SSMRS/scale standard specifically

Is there a standard set of dimensional adjustments? My understanding is that there's about 0.3mm off the back but not clear on the flange changes? Obviously not a problem to measure from first princinples but I'm just curious My workbench has sat somewhat forlorn but the gears are whirring again - I need to figure out everything below the solebar for my trio of wagons. Annoyingly, stuck away from all my modelling supplies due to the most recent lockdown!

I think I would be inclined to remove the outer crossover and shift the branch connection to the station-side of the remaining, to consolidate the throat length a bit - it's about the same length as a typical Minories throat. Hopefully you can excuse the rather clinical symbolic view! : It's using #6 turnouts which isn't ideal, but fits into a few inches over 4'6 in S and a few inches over 3'8" in OO/EM/P4 which is broadly similary to the Minories throat. @RJS1977 great minds think alike Initially one would only need to lay track on the throat board, the country and station boards could both be off-scene - the station building itself need only be modelled with the start of an overall roof. Additionally, there are lots of tweaks that could be made: If one was inclined to split the pointwork across two boards, the use of #8 turnouts would be a great boon, and you could fit the engine shed connection in the 'right' place using a barry slip. One might also shorten the layout with various tandem turnouts without affecting the routes available. The Dock very directly fills the function of a loco pocket if that's preferable.

The branch up leads directly to a quayside goods yard - unusual in that it consists of two yards (ballast quay and deepwater quay) in series? Either way, both have a runaround. These maps, as I'm constantly told, are not always accurate - so maybe the diamond was a single slip? If not, then yes via the passenger arrivals road (topmost in the plan) reversing onto the outbound main and then again into the branch. Probably better for operational interest and at least somewhat justified.

Absolutely as intended you are making manifest what we all (presumably) feel but don't have the gumption to wrestle with

Very interesting, I'm sure that @Dr Gerbil-Fritters has posted this photograph: This is actually the throat of Sligo station, details here: Who'd have thought that I'd find a confluence of ideas with this bizarre and erratic thread?

I did a bit of research at Sligo, and wow, it's really just perfect for a Minories-type layout with lots of the operational kinks we have discussed: Cattle dock, arrive/departure platforms with central carriage roads, a loco shed and a quayside branch that could easily loop behind the station - nary a runaround in sight! A 1948 view looking toward the buffer stops: The original station building was a little more grand....

Indeed, it's just a shame the scale is about as moribund as S-scale (oh wait...) I think one of the things that attracts me about Minories is that without fussy additions, it squarely sits into the 'railway as a system' paradigm - the modular Minories (CJF circa '81) design shows how one can easily build out, rather than up, for a cohesive model railway system. I would imagine however, this is more supported to smaller scales where one can reasonably include a double track mainline station, approach, engine shed, goods depot and junction - without having to roof over the tennis courts.

I think when you > four large bogie coaches that have prototypical hallmarks the effect (or lack thereof) of the odd-numbers-as-pleasing effect is over-awed. What about Bournemouth West - no runarounds , just a scissors and a turnout leading to each platform road. https://maps.nls.uk/view/106011336 if you strip out the goods yard and carriage siding either side, it seems very utilitarian indeed!

Zomboid, do you have any more info about Sligo? I can't find much online and that's where my mother's family is from. Just an addendum to the Holborn Viaduct plan above, it was clearly not fit for requirements as the next available plan (albeit 20 years later) shows a crossover between 1 and 2 to make them both bidirectional, and the amendment of the final turnout on the down main into a slip connecting to the up main - so all the other platforms are also bidirectional. And the removal of that bizarre diagonal route to the ash pit.

Certainly the use of additional approaches leading in from off-scene, as well as the use of arrival-only and departure-only platforms is a great stimulus for creativity. Looking at the original 1874 Holborn Viaduct plan it was really quite bizarre in that respect: And zoomed into the throat: This isn't an artistic license, this is the chief engineer responsible for construction! The bottom platform (no. 1) is arrival only, xcept by wrong-line running up to the next station on the line and using a crossover there. The next platform (no. 2) is departure only, but the only way to shunt to it is via the other higher numbered platforms and is equipped with a carriage dock Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are bidirectional, No 3 having a bizarelly obtuse crossover onto the engine shed ashpit. No 6. is departure only Neither the engine shed or pilot siding can access platform 1 except by running up to the next station on the line and using a crossover there.

This thread still giving nuggets of wisdom 77 pages later, huh? With regard to layout size, it would appear that TT is a perfect fit in terms of being a tabletop terminus, and obviously N/2mm make things very easy. In 4mm the bifold-across-platform-ends is also seen as a realistic option. In S and O however, the pointwork ends up being larger than the suggested maximum board size. By my calculations about 5' as a bare minimum from heel to toe across the formation, and about 5'6" with a reasonable lead-in either side of the pointwork. Below shows S-scale: S7 is even worse, with about 8' of continuous overlapping pointwork: I think I can see one spot where you might split the formation as drawn, here: The timbers aren't adjusted at all, they would be full length across the formation - so a pair of solid block of copper clad PCB runners either side of the joint could keep things in adjustment - but it's four rail joins in quite a crucial spot - would that even work? It would bisect the length to permit a pair of reasonably sized boards. It might even be worth rotating the whole formation to make that joint perpendicular rather than angled?