Track Planning & Layout Ideas - New Builds Started

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Track Planning & Layout Ideas - New Builds Started

Postby Knuckles » Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:21 pm

Thought I'd open another thread, this time for layout plans that I am planning, tweaking and hoping to possibly build some time. I have billions I've planned in 00 on Anyrail but I've only reciently seen they have updated it it with Exactoscale P4 track - so I've redone a plan to P4. I'm still learning Templot slowly but for the time being I can now legitimately use Anyrail with P4 geometry. A step forward definetly.

Ok, First up is Knapford Junction before the rebuild and subsequent move to North of the river. All Sudrian fiction but I hope in a realistic way. (Can provide indepth details if requested- none of it is real mind!)

I accept it looks a triffle cluttered but that is largly due to me only having a shade over 17 foot x 11 to play with. A fair amount of space but not really enough for what I have in mind.

My idea is to build the baseboards so that the top main scenic sections are removable and break down to be stored IN the basebaord, like a racking system. This should enable me to build more than one layout (thinking long term) and fit in the same area with the curves being the first link on the next boards (so no transition curves sadly-could be an issue ), also for my film making that I like doing it would provide severel locations. I'm not saying this is nessasaraly going to be my 1st layout becasue as a first P4 layout it's probably too much but I'd like your thoughts on it. I do intend doing it at some point.

3 turnouts (in yellow) are 3 points of contention, points, get it!? Eeugh, soooo old. - Will possibly have to build these myself as there are no curved turnouts in the range.
:shock:

Pic has explanatory text within.

Image
Last edited by Knuckles on Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
John Donnelly
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby John Donnelly » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:14 pm

Thats quite an ambitious plan for a first layout in P4 (mine consists of 3 straights and a single turnout :D ) but good luck to you :thumb

John

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:58 pm

Thanks, I don't know if it will be my 1st for as you say, it's a little ambitious. The top right turnout has been sorted and isn't a problem now - I just shuffled a few things leftwards. I am however trying to design a kind of fiddle yard and have a couple of questions that would help a grgeat deal.

Exactoscale's baby turnouts; 4NT AO5L - 9.57" long A5 turnouts I want to use in the fiddle yard area. Since being a S4 member and reading much on things it seems the radius reccomendations are usually broken down into two main groups; that which is minimum for visual believability and that for running qualities. As it is in an offstage area visual considerations aren't a worry for me so I was wandering if these would work. The scenic area's are nearly all B7's and a couple of A7's for the mini Inglenook. As said earlier I do want to eventually get Pacific's and other wee beasties around the layout so I understand A5 turnouts are micro small, BUT!...

The Exactoscale PDF says the switch radius is 1928mm's, well above the recomended 4 foot minimum (1200mm's)

So would it be operationally feasable?

Other details with which I understand not:
Closure radius 848mm's (I know what the closure rail is but is this saying THIS is the turnouts minimum radius? I joined a few together on Anyrail next to a 4 foot curve and it matched so I doubt it.)
Lead: 188mm's (no idea what this is)

Also If I made the points not from Exactoscale and curved them a tad maybe this would help, dunno.
Any ideas? :)

EDIT: Oh, this is my 150th post, yayness.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

martin goodall
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby martin goodall » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:23 pm

As some members may remember, I used to have a small exhibition layout called "Crichel Down" - long since retired from the exhibition circuit but still in existence, albeit stored and slowly falling to bits.

This layout was orignally built in '00' with Peco Streamline track, complete with the 2-foot radius turnouts (including the notorious Y-point, which the late Cyril Freezer admitted didn't work even in 00 gauge). In 1982, I conceived the crazy idea of converting the layout to P4, and doing it in public, with help of friends in the North London Group, on the Scalefour Society's stand at the last ever MRC Easter Show to be held at Central Hall.

The point of this long-winded preface is that the P4 track had necessarily to follow the geometry of the Peco Streamline track, so as to reproduce exactly the orginal track plan. The track was built on copper-clad paxolin sleepers and conformed to the P4 track standards. Much to everyone's surprise (and not least mine) it actually worked.

So 'Knuckles' need have no qualms about reproducing his track plan in P4, although I think soldered construction might be a safer bet than using plastic sleepered/chaired track, especially if it involves reduced curve radii.

On Crichel Down, I was careful to use only short wheelbase locos and other vehicles, but we found by experiment that 6-coupled locos (such as a Dean Goods and 57XX pannier) would negotiate the 2-foot radius curves, provided they had plenty of side-play on the middle axle. Two panniers by different builders were tried out on the layout. One had virtually no sideplay on the axles, and refused to negotiate the sharp curves; the other, which had plenty of sideplay on the middle axle negotiated even the sharpest curves without any difficulty.

So my advice to 'Knuckles' is to go ahead with the proposed track plan, even though it might be considered a bit 'tight' by P4 standards. But I think that it might be worth considering soldered construction in one form or another, rather than plastic sleepered/chaired construction.

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:44 pm

Thanks for the reply. That's very interesting indeed. For the off scene areas I might ocnsider soldered track as it would be quicker I'm sure. I've built 1 Exactoscale turnout and one C&L turnout, both seem to be happy with the small amount of stock I have so I'm quite confidant I can do soldered points, possibly with less sleepers. I'm comfortable soldering. Again though as a 1st P4 layout I think this might be a bit OTT...?

I've been tweaking the above plan in Anyrail and the top right turnout is sorted, the left two 00 ones are still the same representing custom radiai and I've added a fiddle yard idea. A few points would have to be custom built and a couple of curved cross overs.

How's it looking?


Image


I've seen a few people now use apostraphies on my name, but never on any other forum, is it considered odd having that as a username? It's just what I have been known as for yonkies. ;)
Can always change it if it's that weird.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Alan Turner
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Alan Turner » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:04 am

Knuckles wrote:
I've seen a few people now use apostraphies on my name, but never on any other forum, is it considered odd having that as a username?


prsumably because its your layout we are talking about.

Alan

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:05 am

Unsure what you mean, never mind.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Mark Tatlow
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Mark Tatlow » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:31 am

That track plan is essentially the same as Stanley Jct, where the highland mainline to Inverness curves away to the left from the Caledonian mainline (but not so main it is not now closed!) to Forfar and Aberdeen. The Highland's line was single line once it had left the loop and the Caley's was double track both to Forfar (to the left on your plan) or Perth (right on your plan).

One of the oddities of the Stanley arrangement was that southbound trains from the Highland's line stopped at the middle platform - ie the island platform. This was to enable them to clear the single line at the first opportunity (ie without waiting for the up Caley line to be free) so that if there was a northbound train it could immediately take the single line. Not relevant if your single line is to be a branch, but both the lines at Stanley Jct were trunk routes, so it was important.

Couldn't tempt you into the green of the Highland and the sky blue of the Caledonian could we? Or even better, period one LMS were everything was fully lined red - it really suited the scottish locos i reckon!
Mark Tatlow

Armchair Modeller

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Armchair Modeller » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:46 pm

I may well have misunderstood your intentions, but I don't see how branch trains can run clockwise on the layout, as it stands. The single point connection from the branch to the double-track main line only connects with the anti-clockwise main line. For trains to reach the branch running clockwise, they would have to run wrong line along the main line from the junction station round to the lower junction, to get onto the branch?

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:16 pm

Mark, that's very very very interesting about the track plan. I've made this plan up using a mixture of RWS illustrations, Wilbert's proposed layout plan and a little tweaking of my own. To know that there is almost a bang on prototype is of imense interest to me so I'll be researching it out. If ou have any pics or links I'd be very greatful. I am a fan of LMS but haven't decided on all the style yet, being fictional it's not all set in stone but the scenery is west cumbrian to a degree.

If trains are travelling clockwise on the main then to get to the branch there would have to be a bit of messing about but that isn't projected to happen much. As brach lines go it's the smallest in the world! Isn't even long enough to accomodate a reasonably sized train, but in truth due to space constraints it's more a representation of two junctions miles apart.


Found this so far. Can see the similarities....

Image

Interestingly a small siding on Stanley Junction map at the top by the goods yard is included on Wilberts proposed plan (albeit facing the other way) which gives idea that he may have used Stanley as the basis.

Proposed, bearing in mind that this is still compressed against his 'true' image due to it being a plan of his layout idea rather than the location he concocted with which this plan was based and compressed:
Image

Actually built, way more compressed:
Image

The 1st picture shows his proposed layout and a few features like the goods yard are seen in the illustrations of a story or two, the layout he actually built however is below and severely compressed and reduced. What I want to do is take the proposed layout, with the illustrations in the books and my own fictional research to produce a realistic believable station as in my Anyrail plan above. Stanley Junction it seems may indeed be the prototype or a strong link of inspiration regardless.

Interesting!

Also, Yarnton Junction is almost identical, maybie even closer...
http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Plans.htm <-- please click that link. - It also demonstrates how using a single slip instead of a double at the far right would be safer and easier to build! The joys of prototype research for fiction. :)

Again though, as a 1st P4 layout I'm doubting it'll work out. What you think? Probably a silly question but it's always good to get a collective.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Alan Turner
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Alan Turner » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:32 pm

Knuckles wrote:Unsure what you mean, never mind.


You said Apostrophe and I took it you were referring to "Knuckles’s Plans".

Sorry I see you were referring to 'Knuckles' being in single quotation marks.

The convention is: to use Single Quotation marks to highlight words not being used for their meaning, which is why I suspect they were being used.

Alan

Armchair Modeller

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Armchair Modeller » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:36 pm

Stanley Junction and Yarnton Junction (as drawn in the top plan) are very different operationally. Stanley is designed for through working only, all trains going through to Perth. On Yarnton, no through trains would be able to get direct from the main line onto the branch. I suspect all branch passenger trains would terminate and run round there before returning down the branch.

I suggest you think carefully about what you want the branch trains to do before settling on one plan or the other. Whilst it may only be your first layout, it will still take a lot of time and effort to build. It would be a shame to find, only after you have built it, that you can't run trains in the ways you would like.

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:12 pm

It isn't my 1st layout. whatever I build next will be my 3rd, technically 4th. But without question will be a 1st P4 layout if I do it. The branch trains I have envisioned come in, run around and bugger off again. Sometimes they are to drop off or pick up a few goods, that is mainly all I've thought up except for some transfers from the main. The main would have predominantly through trains, some to stop and some to carry on. The larger platform is for a certain express to stop when travelling clockwise only. These are my main intensions so far. I know my knowledge of prototypical workings are limited but I have been doing alot of reading, even though it is fictional I do want it to be believable so I appreciate you/others advising and warning me of potential stupidities. :thumb
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:42 pm

I have been wandering though, those 'bendy' diamonds might be a bit of a swine to do, also would they and all curved turnouts require the frog to be tcurved also, so the frog would look like a talon in shape? I don't see in my mind how a perfect V can be inside a curved turnout because surely that would be a small straight section in the curved turnout?
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
ClikC
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby ClikC » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:51 pm

Knuckles wrote:I have been wandering though, those 'bendy' diamonds might be a bit of a swine to do, also would they and all curved turnouts require the frog to be tcurved also, so the frog would look like a talon in shape? I don't see in my mind how a perfect V can be inside a curved turnout because surely that would be a small straight section in the curved turnout?


Turnouts crossing vee's are alway straight, to the best of my knowledge, with the various curves taking place on the rails before or after the crossing. IIRC further information is covered in the Society datasheets.

Regards

Matt
Matt Rogers (AKA ClikC)

Exeter Model Railway Society

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby grovenor-2685 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:59 pm

Turnouts crossing vee's are alway straight, to the best of my knowledge,
Curved vees were and are used in the prototype practice, just look at track pictures in some of the many railway books, the idea that all vees are straight is just a modellers myth. Straight vees are used for preference, but if it doesn't suit the application curved vees are used.
(Our turnout designations on DLR include CV100 and SV100 for example, CV stands for Curved Vee, SV for Straight Vee and 100 is the turnout radius in metres. Typically we use SV for crossovers and CV for junctions where the curve continues beyond the turnout). The Network Rail track design handbook for 2003 gives lots of details for cast manganese crossings including curved crossings. All the cast crossings for standard double junctions are curved to give an even radius through the junction. The vee crossings for the diamond in a scissors crossover are a special where both legs of the vee are curved in opposite directions. Even crossings as flat as 1:24 are available with a curved leg, 1650 m radius in this case.
Regards
Keith
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
ClikC
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby ClikC » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:19 pm

grovenor-2685 wrote:
Turnouts crossing vee's are alway straight, to the best of my knowledge,
Curved vees were and are used in the prototype practice, just look at track pictures in some of the many railway books, the idea that all vees are straight is just a modellers myth. Straight vees are used for preference, but if it doesn't suit the application curved vees are used.
(Our turnout designations on DLR include CV100 and SV100 for example, CV stands for Curved Vee, SV for Straight Vee and 100 is the turnout radius in metres. Typically we use SV for crossovers and CV for junctions where the curve continues beyond the turnout). The Network Rail track design handbook for 2003 gives lots of details for cast manganese crossings including curved crossings. All the cast crossings for standard double junctions are curved to give an even radius through the junction. The vee crossings for the diamond in a scissors crossover are a special where both legs of the vee are curved in opposite directions. Even crossings as flat as 1:24 are available with a curved leg, 1650 m radius in this case.
Regards
Keith


I stand corrected, thanks for the information Keith.

Regards

Matt
Matt Rogers (AKA ClikC)

Exeter Model Railway Society

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:30 am

Same, that's very helpful thanks. I was thinking the V would have to be curved if the turnout/crossing was curved otherwise to my mind you would run knto a straight bit. I've not found anythjng on building a bendy V. I'm guessing yoj could just start out with a standard one and file fettle away? Not the neateat but it could work...I think.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:03 am

Due to the curved diamonds being rather scary, how about this idea ...

Basically the fiddle yard for the outside line is fixed in place and would be much easier to build (I think) the inside fiddle yard however would have to sadly be removable but I wouldn't mind really. The idea would be to have the scenic pass as planned but with less trains going through on the inside line, then I could in theory remove the scenic pass (whole layout planned modular anyway) and insert the inside fiddle yard, it would have 2 or 3 through lines but most trains woul dhave to be reversed back into their sidings and another pulled out.

What you think?

All these unideal compromises wind me up but I'm not rich to buy a mansion!


Image
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Armchair Modeller

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Armchair Modeller » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:23 am

With all those sidings, the thought occurs to me - how much stock do you already have?

As a newcomer myself, I anticipate you have very little so far. Trying to build such a complicated layout and the stock needed to fill those all those sidings to a very high standard is likely to take a long while, even at the admirably breathtaking pace you seem to have started with ;)

You mentioned at the start that this is just your "first" P4 layout. Out of sheer curiosity, how long are you anticipating this project will take?

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:06 pm

I have a fair amount of stock but it isn't all converted to P4, I had a 00 layout before for around 10 years, some of that stock I wish to keep, a fair amount of it I'll probably sell. I'm guessing this layout if I did it as my first would probably take no quicker than 8 years, probably more like 15?

I've spent over 10 years rushing things in 00 and I've learnt that it doesn't work, so I'd rather take things slower and do them properly.

Out of view sidings would be copper clad with a few timbers missing so that should in theory speed things up in that area, as for complexity I guess it is fairly complex, but nothing compared to my main terminus plan! Probably one to do when I'm twice the age...if I'm lucky.

I have also thought of just doing a really small layout with a few points as a basic end to end, probably a good idea. The only two problems I have is that it would need to fit into the whole of the removable section for later on the plan above because I want to make provision for swappable modules, thinking long term and for filming. Secondly the issue would be that my main interest is main lines and so coaches and locomotives would mainly be longer types, usually somewhat out of place on a small shunting tester. But I don't know, currently I'm still renovating the loft so plans and ideas are wide open.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

David Knight
Posts: 663
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby David Knight » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:24 pm

Hey Knuckles,

Just a thought here that was passed on to me by an old friend who had a big layout. He said it's all very well to build a big layout but then you have to maintain it. I don't know if you plan a one man operation or you will have a crew in to help build and run but if you're flying solo the maintenance is something to consider.

Cheers,

David

Armchair Modeller

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Armchair Modeller » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:10 pm

Well, I admire someone with ambition and what seems like a reasonable timescale to do it all in. Thanks for explaining :thumb

I just started by messing around with a few uncoordinated little projects to prove I could do it. I am now thinking I ought to get my act together to build a small layout and stock in P4, but nothing like as big as yours - partly because I don't have the space. I really need something I can stack away when I am not working on it. Also, I really don't have the time or the energy to do something as big as you, but admire someone who has.

Most modellers in P4 seem to go for a small branch terminus or similar, based on a real prototype. I guess you may not get too many people on here offering advice on your layout design, simply because it is outside what they would normally do themselves. Don't let that put you off though. A fictitious station on a fictitious railway has been done before very successfully - like some of Ian Rice's many layouts, for example.

I wonder if building the layout on 2 levels might help - gradual gradients either side of the station, with the fiddle yard on a lower level would give more space for pointwork and sidings - but at the risk of small, light locos not being able to haul heavy trains.

I will follow your progress with great interest.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby grovenor-2685 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:50 pm

Realised I had not added the promised response, My thought is that having the branch rejoin the main in the bottom half makes it all a bit crowded. I would delete the main line scenic section in the bottom half and just leave the main running through the fiddle yard. Then the branch can either have a small terminus or maybe just a halt and industrial siding while it continues to the offscene sidings on the top right. As the branch is for short trains it can climb enough in its route for its terminus or fiddle yard to be above the main line avoiding conflicts in the tunnel.
Regards
Keith
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

Knuckles
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Knuckles's Layout Plans

Postby Knuckles » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:20 am

Thanks keith, after much thinking I've decided I'll leave the bottom area as a fiddle yard, but in a style typical to me and very much keeping with the whole premise I'll probably try to make that removable too. Could possibley add a scenic section temporaraly then.

Please could you and/or others have a look at this picture and give suggestions. I know facing points are often avoided which is why I opted for a single slip (and built it) but because it's a junction that oesn't allow trains to enter one of the platforms-and I'd like that flexibility. Junctions to my knowledge had more facing points than other stations for this very reason so if I were to install a double at top right would it need a Facing Point Lock, and is there anything else I need to know? I'm constantly studying prototype practices but as there is so much to know I'm only 0.000000002% through!

At the top left side in this plan instead of a double slip and short station run around I've changed it to 3 standard turnouts - this provides a bigger station run around should it be needed but it means trains entering from the branch have to run wrong road until it gets to the other end of the station. Is this a genuine problem that would be avoided? It was the reason I opted for a single slip at the top right to begin with, so trains stay on the right lines for as longs as possible.

Also there is a point providing some kind of service, unsure what.

Image

Please see what ye think, want to get this planned good before I do any of it (so I'll probably tweak it 53 times more yet).
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests