Salisbury Railex 2026

 Last weekend I was at the Salisbury Railex held at Thruxton motor circuit. 

The big story of the weekend was of course the heat - with the temperature into the 30's. Unfortunately, I was in the pavilion, which was a hybrid of tent and greenhouse... and was hotter inside than standing in the sun outside. By the Sunday, we had fans, which helped.

Several layouts had unexplained running issues by the afternoon, probably due to the heat. And Jamie assured me that his fiddle yard tracks used to be straight and parallel...

I was there with Loctern Quay (which the organisers insisted on spelling as Lochtern!).

Next to me was David Marshall with his 009 Harringford Light Railway, which is a different spin on the inglenook theme. David is an ex Sussex Downs group member, now living in Salisbury and a member of the club organising the show, and kindly put me up for the weekend. 

The other side was Jamie Warne with his delightful Sandy Shores, making three 009 layouts in a row. 

Over in the air conditioned main building (where some people were wearing jumpers), Ian Morrison's Kaninchenbau (HOe) completed the narrow gauge line-up.

Here's a sample of the standard gauge layouts, which also included an inglenook, Express Daisy Sidings (EM).

Exton Quay (OO)

Ravenscar & Torstead (N)

Royal Albert Bridge (N)

Canute Road Quay (OO)

Helland Wharf (OO)

Lantra Quay (OO - dual gauge)

Brighton East (OO)

Unfortunately, the show seemed quiet, especially in the afternoons. This was likely due to being a bank holiday weekend and the start of the school half-term week (the dates being dictated by the venue's race calendar), perhaps worsened by the heatwave and by the venue being quite remote. Many could be put off by a long drive on a hot day with the risk of holiday traffic. I hope there were enough visitors to cover the club's costs, but did feel especially for the traders. 

Loctern Quay prep for Salisbury

Next weekend I'll be taking Loctern Quay to Salisbury Railex, which looks to be a good show in an interesting location - Thruxton motor circuit. 

Loctern doesn't need much prep, having been out once already this year, but I do check operation carefully including the couplings as they are critical for reliable operation on a shunting layout.

At Tonbridge I found the new "Whiting" tram loco couplings didn't behave, sometimes refusing to stay coupled. I think this was a combination of the longer shank couplings I'd used to clear the cowcatcher, and the curved approach when collecting wagons. I found a short shank coupling fitted and would work, just clearing the cowcatcher, and with a little adjustment it seemed to behave in testing with all wagons. 

There's only an extra couple of millimetres in the length of the shafts, so I wonder if the issue is as much about the leverage against the spring as it is the overhang. 

I also tested the WD Hunslet, since it is now running nicely, and it does look good on the quay. However, like the WD Baldwin when that is used, it must run cab end to the wagons since the overhang (from leading driver to coupling) at the smokebox end is so long. 

Look how far the coupling swings from the track centre-line!

I just need to finish loco testing and pack up. Do say hello if you are at the show.

Whittingly - To Extend or Not?

After my last post considering what next for Whittingly I've pondered on the feedback and the practicalities, and sketched an alternative idea - Plan C? In this case, short 6" extensions are added to both ends of the scene, being fixed extensions to the baseboard where marked with arrows on the plan. That on the left provides the spur beyond the platform canopy and extended hospital buildings, while that on the right extends both loop lines and the engine shed. The overall board length is now 3' 6" which is still easy to store and handle, while a separate fiddle yard need only contain a turntable or sector plate. 

This is difficult to picture in 3D, so thanks to the visualisation possible with CAD (card aided design) using cereal packets, here's a mock up of what this plan might look like. 

At the left-hand end the front track protrudes beyond the platform canopy, providing somewhere for the loco to rest in view. Most of this extension is taken up with the stores building, which would need to be extended from the low-relief building on the existing board - this is likely the most difficult task since brickwork would need to match and I'd rather not lift the existing building. I've not mocked it up but behind this the boiler house roof would need extending too, but there is space for a curved backscene, and perhaps a tall brick chimney? The left hand end could feature a flat/low relief wall of the main hospital building. 

At the right-hand end the two loop tracks are lengthened. The engine shed and its siding would also need extending, the back of the shed just being an open hole against the backscene - and as it is at an angle, it would be difficult to extend. Making the extension in corrugated iron as if a later add-on might make things easier (and more interesting), though matching the roof could still be tricky. In the foreground, I might move the tree to the right (perhaps with a second tree) to hide the exit. There could be space for a footbridge as a view block, although I don't think it is needed. 

This view shows that the lengthened loop lines will allow plenty of clearance to run around 4 wagons or two 6-wheel coaches while they remain on scene. The fiddle yard still completes the run-round loop so the loco must go off-scene; extending the scene to fit a point in adds at least 18" as in Plan B in the last post.

So, this all looks possible, although extending the buildings looks difficult without removing them from the scene, with the resulting ground cover damage to make good. The question is, are these extensions worth the extra effort? The alternative remains Plan A, which effectively has the extended trackwork but in non-scenic areas, and so keeping the original scene unmodified. The scenic extensions of Plan C means that more of the trains are visible more of the time, and the scenic frontage of the layout is increased without increasing the overall length, but operation is unchanged. 

I'm interested in your views!