Jump to content

ColHut

Members
  • Content Count

    455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

262 profile views
  1. Thanks, I may try a replacement Cambrian bogie, but I don't have a lot of faith that new from old mouldings will be much better. Then again I could just have been unlucky. To replace the diamond bogie would require one with the same single vertical volute spring. The Parkside and Gramodels versions appears to have the twin springs. Thanks all regards
  2. Thanks all. Yes, and Romford. The problem is in the deformed centre conical bearing and screw assembly. I should have got replacements but did not. I will try out those two suggestions thankyou. regards
  3. G'day, Can someone suggest a source for replacement bogies for the above? The kit is made, but the bogies as moulded were definitely on the dodgy side, and there s so much slop as to cause very poor running. I thought perhaps something from MJT or elsewhere with white metal cosmetic sides, or even a complete RTR bogie, but so far have found nothing that matches. regards
  4. The recommendation came from the Col. Rich following an accident at Chartly on the S&U on 30/3/1882, a single line passing place recently taken over by the GNR, and resignalled 9 days earlier. The accident was caused by excessive speed. I have no doubt that all sorts of other ways of laying out the passing loops existed. Given the current track diagram I cannot see how , in practice, you could operate or accept more than one train on the single line, especially given I have no idea how the single line is controlled. YMMV. I had incorrctly recalled that there was a sub section on single line signalling on the Signal Box website, but the link to the section on single line staffs does not seem to work. To the OP, there is some information on the web in a number of places on working single lines. Some of the different ways are covered here pp 11-26 [nominal page numbers 1-16] (in the LNER General Appendix, NE area 1947) others were similar. from Limit of Shunt website: http://filestore.limitofshunt.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/sectional-appendices/lner/ne-area-1947.pdf How you envisage the line being controlled might help you with deciding how to signal it. regards
  5. You may find this useful, there were earlier and later editions, and they did not apply to existing works, (perhaps the majority): https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=7409 it would be easier if the up and down lines were parallel but offset such that arriving trains took the straight line on the facing point into the station platform, and went through the trailing point on departure: ____________________________ \________________________\____________________ This would also allow you to have trailing sidings on each side. As it is you would need a lot of facing point locks and I suspect you could still only have one engine in operation at a time given block working. Whilst rule no.1 applies (it is for your fun and enjoyment). You might find some inspiration and maybe more plausible layouts on the Fairford branch. Note quite a few stations are not passing places and have no signal box just ground frames. http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk John Hinson's site has a worked example of block working. https://signalbox.org/block-system/keepin-the-trains-apart/ regards
  6. A lot of the geometries for curves are online. There is bit of a fudge with a second to third radius crossover but pretty good. See here: https://jonscaife.com/model-rail/track-geometries-for-00-gauge-Hornby-setrack/ regards
  7. I would guess that the numbers are based on what account they were charged to. I would also think that different harness was used for the different roles. But it may well be that one horse might do both duties, although if there was not enough work to keep a road horse in full time use, the company might well have used an agent for the cartage. regards
  8. G'day, I had been looking for information on stables, and was intrigued by the many references to horses being used for shunting. I was a bit surprised to see how few horses were retained for that purpose. According to an article on the LMS Society web page, the number of shunting horse held by the Big 4 were as follows: 1923 - 1,130 1930 - 671 1946 - 238 This does not seem a great many for the number of goods yards and passenger stations at the time. It is also dwarfed by the number of horses directly owned by the companies for cartage and delivery which totalled some 18,000 road horses and some 32,000 wagons. in 1923. That article here: http://www.lmssociety.org.uk/topics/horseTransport.shtml Certainly shunting horses are not rare, but nearly as common as I expected. regards
  9. That looks like a motor lorry on a rail weighbridge, or am I mistaken in the above image of Colchester Hythe. regards
  10. I usually just email Peco and they are happy to oblige. regards
  11. To be honest, I was tempted, but started ' in the mddle' as it were. regards
  12. Off Topic really I suppose, but by way of explanation... Ymmv I like to mix the set track and streamline, mainly because I end up including the tight curves 2 and 3 radius around the room corners which require set track spacing to avoid 'impacts', the adjacent tracks end up for ease on the same spacing, but I like to use streamline slips and points and othe fancy point types. This enables me to get a level of operational activity I just could not get on a setup with more realistic curves, points, and associated track spacing. You certainly cannot join a set track point to SL point easily, (you need a short fiddly curved bit) but a short straight between two SL points is easier. At those short lengths, I prefer the set track type construction to cut-up flex, as they are more rigid, and have special sleepers at the ends to accomodate the fish plates. Of course you pay a premium in extra length too for the overall assembly. regards To the main topic, I am just not sure that the money stacks up. I reckon they would sell more set track slips and three way points if they could or did actually make them. Another competing geometry would mske some people very happy, and good luck to them, but I wonder what price they would have to bear just for Peco to break even? regards
  13. It seems a nice idea But to be honest I think it has no commercial prospect of success. Given space constraints for most people, I just cannot see them selling enough of these to cover design costs let alone tooling or manufacture. (A standard length set track piece to convert streamline spacing points at crossovers to to set track spacing might be a winner though.) Perhaps if focussed on the existing 12 degree range there might be more likelihood? good luck though regards
  14. Thanks for that and the link. I have indeed decided to settle on a Pagoda structure from Ratio. It seems it will fit in nicely. thankyou.
  15. Perhaps change the topic; I thought you meant sweeping and mopping
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.