Lacathedrale

Thanks @Regularity! Perfectly clear now. I'm looking to use RC/battery control for my loco so not so worried about shorting, but out of interest wouldn't wheels that have the ability to move up towards the footplate risk striking the inside face of splashers/etc. ?

Ah, I understand the concept. I have used springs in the past, but only with vertically opened-out bearings rather than what you've shown. If it's not too much trouble, how are the hornblocks retained in the guides your example? I can see the flanges on the inside (presumably corresponding to slots in the hornblock) but what about the bottom? And while I understand the concept the specifics of what I see is a little vague - does the hornblock have clearance to move up (towards the foot plate) or only downwards (towards dips in the rail) from its default position? As it pertains to my loco choice, I was thinking of an LBSCR E1 - if anyone has any strong feelings as to whether that's a good idea or not I'd gladly hear them. Tomorrow however, I try to rescue the wonky RCH wagon

So I've got a wagon kit to finish, but to me it's fairly important to have a working locomotive of some sort before I get too far along this route. I enjoyed almost all the time I spent in 2mm, but after ~2 years did not have a working kit/scratchbuilt locomotive to my name (although I got very close quite a few times). I'm wary of treading too familiar ground, especially since my sophomore efforts will definitely cause (at least me) to compare unfavourably to RTR 4mm or one of the eminent builders in S-scale. As I try to home in on a suitable prototype, any practical observations about what to consider would be greatly appreciated - I am going to work on the assumption that a rigid, inside framed, side tanked loco with three axles (2-4-0, 0-4-2 or 0-6-0) is probably the best solution. I've not really settled on a prototype, but it does seem a little daft to attempt modern image or something which is going to put me in a position of doing Walschaerts valve gear at this stage!

Was it fair to say that LNWR black was just full, dark 100% gloss black? The reference to 'blackberry black' makes me think could be a very dark purple-blue?

Flipping the layout works, but it puts the loco pocket and bay platform off of the up main line - one could make the argument that there could be a draw-ahead (?) signal to permit these movements but it doesn't feel as clean as the unflipped version: (flipped) Either way I think it's starting to resolve into something very much doable - so thank you! Operationally I imagine there will be morning perishables (Surrey St. Market was a stone's throw from the terminus) and newspapers/parcels , gravel and engineering material from Fairfield yard (reversed out onto the up main). Urban four wheelers and Terriers at the extremity of service, fast six wheelers pulled by D-classes and Gladstones, and a visiting trains from the GER, LNWR and LCDR.

So, while I like the middle plan the platforms were annoying me - an island platform with two bays either side just felt a bit strange, especially given that both bays were operationally isolated. I've reworked the throat to bring the two platform roads into alignment with Buckingham's - Platform roads (2 and 3) are brought together into a central pair, and P1 added back in - all three have direct access to both the up and down mainlines. Platform 4 is a siding for vans/short trains and access to the pilot siding. The slip itself isn't valid in this configuration, the blades are over the top of the diamond crossing - but I've got some flexibility in Templot that doesn't exist in xTrkCAD so I'm not worried: Each platform road can contain my longest train (the B1 and four six-wheelers shown above) with breathing room and the scissors is now on-layout. The loco pocket matches other examples I've seen at London Bridge and Norwood Junction, and the signal box and exit are evocative of Greenwich Park I can also probably fit Central Croydon's sawtooth canopy and station buildings into this layout without too much trouble. In a true 'kill your darlings' process, this design has no provision for freight at all. I'm sure it could be forced in, with a bolt-on wedge adjacent the P4 (bottom) road and attendent headshunt aisle-side to the signal box, but at this stage I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

Gosh, lovely track work! Here's another view that's a little more authentic to Buckingham but where in order to fit the single slip into the length, I've had to split the platforms differently. The pointwork spans about 4'6 as it stands - again, I'm sure I could adjust this if drawing it in Templot: I would imagine the next step would be to use the image above as a background to a templot plan, but if I'm honest I quite like the middle plan in my previous post - the throat of Buckingham (almost) with scenic cues from Greenwich Park. I'm undecided but I think in the bottom plan of that post, the goods siding takes away more than it adds...

Here is (what I can roughly estimate!) to be Buckingham's passenger-only throat superimposed into my space without the loco pocket or the goods runaround, and rotated to fit into the orientation already described: It doesn't really have the bufferstop/platform characteristics of Greenwich Park, but hopefully the location of the loco pocket/signalbox/exit bridge does. The additional siding north of the station acts as a headshunt through the (now double) slip for Fairfield Yard located on the rear FY track. Fairfield Yard acted as a gravel pit and then an engineer's yard until it closed in the 1930's and was indeed accessed via a headshunt into the station area. I am taking into consideration the modern-era practise at Purley where gravel hoppers were shunted right there on the down slow platform roads - that may have been a factor of rationalisation but in a cramped spot such as this, certainly at least as permissable. Rotated to a sligntly more aesthetic angle (which neccesitates flipping the loco pocket and allows a more explicitly tangential exit to Fairfield gives this: Though some of it feels a little clunky still (particularly the layout of the platforms) it's really nice! Buckhingham Park? Central Buckingham? Last variant, with the platform roads gently curved and an angled 'bolt on' to the front for a line to what was on Buckingham a perishable goods depot, but for Central Croybuckwich Park would probably be coal staithes (see Bromley North in a similary suburban position): Thoughts?

@rovex I really enjoy making trackwork, but a minimum radius is a minimum radius no matter how you slice it - anything less than a B6 strays below the recommended minimum radius (4'4") and an A4 turnout is under half that (1' 11")! @Harlequin I think one would have to be a brave soul to suggest there is anything wanting in Mikkel's farthing micro layouts when it comes to a place to photograph models. Wow @t-b-g - that's very generous of you. I've tried to draw out the passenger-only throat of the plan and ended up roughly like so: Omitting the extra line on the approach to the 'goods' headshunt doesn't actually save any space, since the three-way below is part of a four foot long heel-to-toe arrangement of pointwork. I really like the combination of the diamond and the single slip. It is worth remembering that this plan is in S-scale, so it demands approximately 1/5th more in length and width than EM, but with a minimum radius like a scaled-up P4. I'm sure with some judicious curving and staggering of the pointwork I could cut down from the seven feet implied above, but it does either way occupy a significantly larger space than what we have been hiterto discussing, mandating at least 12 or 13 feet by 2 feet. This thread has highlighted two mutually exclusive points about an end-to-end station layout in 10' (in S-scale, or 8' in P4): The desire to operate the layout without resorting to traversers and manual handling The desire for authentic, interesting track layouts. The former requires at minimum three feet of plain track either side of a scenic section, mandating the latter to a limit of four feet. The latter demands at least five if not six feet, precluding the former. I feel there is some kind of universal truth to eek out of these discussions around mandatory values and parameters...

Thanks @Harlequin - you're right that it's not my favourite - keeping the tracks towards rear-exit (so the kink occurs in half-hidden pointwork) would only work if the layout was operated from behind (since a traverser would need to move up/back relative to the footprint of the FY module. I'm open to the idea of exhibiting (the practicality of which diminishes significantly with a 90 degree bend and the associated logistical concerns) but I don't want to mandate it - so the layout needs to be fully operable from the front/side. @t-b-g are you referring to Peter Denny's Buckingham terminus? Is there any scale plan available? The formation between the line of the coal drops at the leftmost platform starter seems absolutely bananas!

Please don't think I was saying they were wrong - I was literally just curious! (As regards to card, I've just come across your first article about it in the 2000's SSMRS newsletter)

Presumably the layers of paper are to achieve the correct diameter? I've never tried scratch-building a loco so I'm sure there's an obvious answer - but would it not have been simpler to roll a boiler from brass sheet?

@Harlequin that actually works pretty well (with no FY accounted for): However, I'm just really not comfortable with the idea of having a layout which I can't operate (I don't really think that shuttling a pilot back and forth counts). I can make a photo plank 1/10th of the size to pose models on! I think the crux of the matter is that my minimum train length is 3' - so the maximum visible layout is 7' - of which three feet is once again allocated to platforms/etc. My idea of: Option 1) - Bitsa Throat - modelling the throat requires 3' either end, so again results in a four foot visible section. Option 2) - Bitsa bufferstops - see Earl's Court Option 3) Run the layout around the corner - I have a room with 8' + 8' (instead of 10' x 18") - so if I could fit the relevant throat pointwork (such as those scissors) inside a 90 degree bend, then one arm could be staging while the other could be half throat, half platforms. Option 4) Discombobulate the plans into multiple micro layouts of 2-3' each as per Farthing

As a rough idea, here's the Minories in S in the same area: As you can see, the platform areas look and feel very vestigial - so even if that board were modelled, would probably benefit from only going as far as modelling the 'front half' of the station - after all, that's where all the interest is in this plan. There would be another six foot of station off-scene on the left! Gross templot sketch below using B6 geometry for the throat, below: I could make that lowest turnout (with the bold timbers) into a three-way to retain a central road (although it would be even more abbreviated). It's all starting to feel a bit like trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, and maybe would benefit from the 'cameo' treatment.

@t-b-g by 'as it is', you mean with scenic platforms and an additional scissors, but without the runarounds, i.e. something like the below (I appreciate that the throat needs to bend and then the scissors need to bend back - there's no way the up main would go through the diverging road on a turnout - but just bear with me) As you can see, the scissors form a fairly discrete addition - it would almost make sense to exclude them from the plan and 'drop them in' at a later date, particularly since as you can see it makes the layout 11' rather than 10' long. That said - if I'm going to drop the double runaround then I'm straying far enough away from the original plan I may as well craft something that meets my needs more simply (such as Minories standard or a derivation like Bradfield)

Scott, are you slicing those bolt heads off with a scalpel or a guillotine of some kind?

Thank you all for the very astute observations - I'll review and report back shortly

The more I consider the plan, the more I feel that there is alot of interest at the throat, and just not very much beyond it - particularly if the runarounds are removed. An option to consider would be just omitting the left hand side of the plan entirely in favour of some off-scene fiddle yard tracks - and expanding out the throat to contain all the elements required (in the case of Greenwich park, the scissor crossing). This way, the focus stays on the track and pointwork (which I love) and the unobstructed view of the trains (which is also pretty important!) A very quick mock-up below - obviously it needs fettling but hopefully it might give a rough idea: Clearly in this arrangement, the scissors being so close up against the rest of the throat makes slightly less sense - but you get my meaning of putting it all together, with just the tips of the platforms and overall roof on the left, and a bridge or tunnel on the right to bisect the visual space. You know, I was concentrating so much on having space on the middle runaround track that I didn't even consider how many coaches COULD be runaround there! It looks like a shade over 90 feet of clearance - three six-wheeled coaches or four four-wheelers. It is a good idea - Crystal Palace High Level (another inspiration) also had this arrangement (see here) - though even more apparent is that the tracks run outside the rear of the station building - so ripe for omission entirely and using a cassette at that end even if one doesn't omit the entire platform area (as discussed above).

Or as per @justin1985's suggestion - a @Mikkel -style bitsa layout of an even larger station - just the throat, just the bufferstops, just the milk dock, etc. Definitely a bit of food for thought on that one! Hi Ian, you're not wrong that this would be a good solution, but at the moment I'm thinking to take a step back from 2mmFS to try something that's got a bit more physical breathing room - I don't know if I will be any more successful but it will at least give me a contrast!

The space I have available for the layout is a long wall, at one end of which is a window - having the flat 'fiddle yard' board there with cassettes means that the window is still able to cast light fully into the room. Flipping it around would mean that the boxed up end of the layout is up against the corner with the window, so not really suitable. I think the general idea is that this space is just a TINY bit too small for this - an extra three feet for that scissors crossover would make all the difference @Harlequin - as you have said, it would be very easy to 'cheat' ! That said, I'm not sure that modelling proportionally less of a larger station - i.e. like @Mikkel's Farthing diorama-layouts - would be any more sincere. Certainly the goals would be different, but there would be just as much operational cheating on a bitsa station as there would be on one with half the throat missing. Maybe the solution is to have a pluggable 'scissors' module between the end of the layout throat as drawn, and the FY module. This would allow the layout to operate "properly" when fully set up, but still be operational (with potential for cheating) in abbreviated form? Alternatively, if we start talking about extensible layouts then that opens whole 'nother kettle of fish...

The underside of my RCH wagon, almost complete: I know the brake lever is a little short - my fault for getting too excited with the shears there! I've added a little lead ballast underneath and I'm waiting for it to cure before more tests - all wheels run smoothly while it's upside-down but there is a very subtle waddle when I push it along with my finger. EDIT: seems the compensated unit is able to rotate transversely - although 0.7mm is a great fit in the unit, the holes in the pivot hinges seem more like 0.9mm - doesn't seem like much but over 0.88" between treads, this is enough to materially change the wheelbase for that 'boat in a swell' effect. I've removed the unit and will attempt to gently ream out all holes to take a 1mm rod.

The radius of the shoe is a perfect match to the wheel, so I filed it back, shortened the rod by 40 thou or so and it appears to be fine - there's a slight waddle which I've not encountered before, but I'll try to fix it myself before bothering this thread

Thanks @ScottW - my immediate thought is to just shorten the push rod on that side so the shoe clears the wheel when the unit pivots. I'll hold fire until later. For now, almost done: I added the rings onto the end door pivot bar which were missing in my earlier versions. I'm building this particular wagon without reference.

As requested:

I'm building the association RCH wagon kit and having great fun - one small thing I'm not clear on though, is how to set up the brakes - they are located centrally via the brake rigging and are a very close fit against the wheels: Seeing as the front axle rocks some 10 degrees or so, clearly the brake shoes are going to foul against the wheels. Am I missing something obvious?