Jump to content

xveitch

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

175 profile views
  1. Fantastic thank you! I couldn't find any photos of the tapered type to compare it to so guessed it must be parallel. How do you tell the 2500g and 3000g tenders apart? Interesting; so presumably the original was replaced during its german overhaul, along with the roof and cab sides.
  2. Hi All, I'm planning to scratchbuild a Dean Goods in H0 for my local model railway club here in Austria. Being no expert in GWR matters, I'm wondering if anyone here would be kind enough to set me straight on a couple of things. The subject in hand is 2435, as far as I know the only British locomotive to have come into Austria. After transport to Dunkirk, it was captured by the Germans, with a general overhaul at Cottbus. It came to Austria, hidden away in sidings for the duration of the war before being discovered by the Soviets and used in Soviet-occupied Austria. 2435 is from lot 92, built in 1893, with a narrow footplate and plain coupling rods. By this time it's had a B4 boiler fitted, but has it got a low or high roof cab? I'm also presuming a steel cab roof and not the earlier canvas-on-wood. The smokebox door looks to be the newer, pressed type, without ring and the chimney appears to be of the parallel type. I'm guessing that the balance weights are the smaller plain design that I've read about? Is the tender a 2500 or 3000 gallon Dean tender? Does anyone have any information, drawings or dimensions of the WD modifications (Are the tanks on the side a pressure reservoir for the Westinghouse pump? And why is the lower piston cylinder casing twice as long as the upper?) Can any modifications from its general overhaul by the Germans be seen? Can anyone guess/give more information on the text on the locomotive. Many thanks for all your help! Xander
  3. Salisbury shed allocations: Both LSWR and SR shed allocations are available as searchable spreadsheets through the Southern Region E-Group: http://www.semgonline.com/shed_allocations/shed-alloc.html LSWR are also separate (you don't have to open them in Excel): http://www.semgonline.com/shed_allocations/lswr-shed-alloc.html And from 1945-67: http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2017/06/salisbury-1945-1967_80.html
  4. I've decided to collate all of my research here, that way I've got it all together and available incase it interests anyone and if anyone can help then they know exactly what I do/don't know! I've contacted both Salisbury Museum and the Network Rail Engineering Archives, although the museum had nothing on the goods yard, Network Rail had a plan that they've published on their website/shop (https://nr.printstoreonline.com/non-operational-railway/salisbury-milford/salisbury-station-milford-layout-19201641.html). I'll try a couple of other museums/collections to. I've also dug through the HMRS photo collection; despite a few around salisbury, there are none near the Milford side. This is the only good photo of the rail side of Milford Goods that I can find: There's a very useful website with images of the buildings on the street side and a couple of maps here: https://www.milfordstreetbridgeproject.org.uk/content/places/milford-goods-station/milford-goods-yard Xander
  5. I'm looking for any information or pictures of the Milford goods yard, situated on the east side of Salisbury. The goods yard was originally the LSWR terminus station on their line from Eastleigh, opened in 1847, and turned into a goods-only yard with the opening of the current station in 1859. Except for a couple of photos, OS maps and a plan from the Network Rail archives, I'm struggling to find much more information. I've read somewhere that the traffic was mainly coal coming in and livestock going out, but any more detail would be very useful. As the current station used to have a small goods yard, how was the traffic divided? Were certain goods sent only to the Fisherton side or was this only used by GWR traffic from Westbury? I can take a pretty good guess at which locomotives were used during its use by looking at the depot allocations, but have no hard evidence that a particular loco was the on duty shunter (I presume G6's at first, falling later to class 2 tanks and then 08's and 12's by the time of its demise). Any particular book recommendations would also be a great help. Thanks! Xander
  6. Grant Shapps has been appointed, according to the BBC. Anyone know who he is or if he's faintly useful/capable?
  7. That would be certainly the type of layout that I would be interested in if I go down the shunting layout style route. I get your point about the cost - this hobby is expensive but I really enjoy it so by taking my time and buying only what I really need, alongside scratch building what I can, helps to bring the costs down. Building a small layout itself isn't particularly expensive, it's usually the surrounding equipment and rolling stock that constitute the main costs. I've dug through a couple of Rice's plans. They're very inspiring in that they have so much operational opportunity within such a small area. Your point about shunting layouts in general is very true; I guess that means that I would have to go for a freelance layout for anything operationally interesting or go for a prototype location for something more for a scenic and running perspective. Maybe I just build the minimalist option, with just a through track allowing me to run whatever stock I want to? Or a prototype location that has few enough changes over the years that I could run whatever year I want on the line, but with the correct stock? Haha don't give me any more encouragement for EM; I'm already on the edge! I wanted to go for 00-SF first because then I don't have to convert chassis, plus the requirements on how perfect my kit-building skills are, are not so stringent. After I've gained the experience from that then I can decide whether the difference in EM is large enough for me to change. Just moving from 00 rtr track work to 00-SF handbuilt track makes a huge difference, so we'll see... Just out of interest, how did you move from the traditional gauges into Finescale?
  8. Hello All, So there's a pair of empty boards hidden away and I'm feeling the need, like every modeller, to build something on them. The problem is that I'm stuck as to what. I'm therefore looking for some sound (or otherwise) advice on what looks feasible, similar ideas or developments thereof and anything else that comes to mind. So first the basics: I've got two 120cm x 40cm boards. That gives me either 240 x 40 or 120 x 80 and these boards don't have to include the fiddle yard(s) (I've got enough room for that to be separate, if small). They have to be able to be taken apart and stored. I'm probably going to go for 00-SF, especially after following Stoke Courtenay. In terms of what I would like to gain from the layout there are a couple of key points: - learning to build hand-built track - developing my kit building skills (and learning loco kit construction) - attempting to reach a new level of realism - something achievable - operationally interesting - short trains - affordable (I'm a student!) - exhibitionable (and therefore presentable) I thought I would go through a couple of ideas that I've been looking at and see how they would match up. Coleshill (later Maxstoke) Station on the Stonebridge Railway: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/coleshill.htm A very small station with even smaller trains. I like the idea of modelling a prototype location and the midland railway itself. The trains are exceptionally short and offer a degree of shunting in the adjacent siding. It's also achievable, with only one main building and uncomplex track work. However I would need to drum up some more traffic if I model the time around 1916 ish. Hampton Midland Goods Yard: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/hamptoninardenjunction.htm At one end of the Stonebridge railway was a goods yard serving Hampton in Arden. The old engine shed for the Stonebridge railway was taken over by a timber merchant, giving interesting traffic. It's more complex when compared to Coleshill and therefore offers more shunting opportunities. Even so, in my limited space I'm not sure that I'd get enough in to make it operationally interesting. Something similar to the MS&LR's Ducie Street (Manchester) Goods Station. Although clearly too big for the space I have available, either a smaller similar prototype or a fictional, smaller version would provide plenty of shunting and a variety of rolling stock. I could set the warehouse facade against the backscene and then maximise the space available. 1970s/1980s Parcels depot: A small previous passenger terminus converted into a parcels depot. Would allow me to use my Heljan 128. Other than shuffling GUV's around, what else would it entail? What other traffic would/could go through a parcels depot? Engineering works: Some kind of (possibly private owner industrial) railway serving various engineering facilities. Would allow a wide range of unusual wagon loads. Tall factory buildings and small locos would also create a good atmosphere. Minimilist option: Simply a single track line through the scene. Small cassette fiddle yards either side. Scenic section with undulating landscape, bridges, etc. Either based on a prototype or freelance. Maybe end of steam would give exceptionally short trains. Would love to hear your thoughts! Xander
  9. I think this is the best shot so far; a sky view photo taken to record a nearby warehouse fire in 1932. Xander
  10. Haha will do! I think there is no easy solution here! I'll have a little think over and chuck some of my thoughts up on here. Most likely it will require pre-block switching - I don't see a detection system that is fast enough or harmless enough to use. Also finding a system that avoids modification to either DC or DCC locomotives is tough. If anyone does see a better way, or a chink in my metaphorical armour, I would love to hear it.
  11. Ahh okay; guess that means the only option would be pre-block switching
  12. Thanks Darius, From what I understand, DCC sends an AC pulsed signal at a set amplitude. The pulse width conveys the bit information to control the decoder within the locomotive. It's true what you mentioned about the DC locomotives, however if the pulse was short and quick enough, a DC Locomotive would only move a couple mm at most. If this was still a problem then the block sections would have to be pre-switched. Xander
  13. Clearly, that is a possibility. However for club members, the ability of DCC Sound and other features is desirable, more than merely acting as DC locomotives. Otherwise they would generally be happy with driving the current DC locomotives on the layout.
  14. Hi All, Would love to pick your DCC-Brains about something I've recently been thinking about. The two questions are: A. Is there a way to detect, quickly and automatically, whether a DC or a DCC Locomotive is sitting on a section of track. B. Is there a way to control DCC Locomotives generally, without using their DCC Address It's probably best if I frame them in the situation itself. My model railway club has a large analogue model railway system, including block systems, automated running between stations and various other DC - based technology. Therefore moving to DCC would not be desired. However, as more and more club members move over themselves to DCC, it would be ideal to find a way that DCC locomotives could also run. The easiest solution would be to build a small DCC model railway and run this separately. This would be, however, a resource drain on the club, as well as not contributing to the main model itself. I was thinking whether it would be possible to build a small piggyback circuit onto each DC control unit (including the automated DC controllers), that could detect a DCC locomotive and then convert the DC voltage into a DCC signal. The operation steps would probably look something like this: 1. A block is selected, connecting the DC controller (and therefore the Piggyback DCC) to this block. 2. The Piggyback DCC sends a signal to detect the presence of a DCC locomotive 2a. When no DCC locomotive is detected, the Piggyback is bypassed, connecting the DC Controller to the track directly, as per normal. 2b. When a DCC locomotive is detected, the Piggyback converts the current DC voltage it receives from DC Controller into a DCC signal to drive the locomotive. For question B, a work-around would be to program all the DCC Locos as Address 3 (Or any other number), so that the DCC Controller just controls number 3. As there is a block system, it would therefore control only one locomotive at a time. This is by no means ideal, as every locomotive would have to be programmed Address 3. I see several problems: 1. DCC is a one-direction control system; there is no built in feedback system from the locomotives. Therefore detection would have to be somehow passive, or through another system (e.g. reed switches or other physical detectors). 2a. Either the detection would have to be so fast and fluid that as a train moves from one block to another, there is no observable stop and start. 2b. Or the system would need to track the DCC locomotive, pre-switching every block it moves into for DCC. 3. Except the example of programming on a programming track with more than one locomotive, where you can program several locomotives together, without specifying their DCC Address (usually something that is avoided), there is no example of controlling a DCC locomotive without before choosing its address rather than a general, open command. 4. What is the damage of sending a short burst of DCC information (to detect the presence of a DCC Loco) on a DC locomotive? This would undoubtably be very short, however if it occurred at every block intersection, this could add up. Is there anything that I've missed? And is this even possible? Or is there a better solution that I haven't thought of? Many thanks, Xander
  15. Has anyone thought of the fact that very few GWR locos had outside valve gear, therefore designing and building kits were easier, so back when RTR was limited, GWR or BR(W) locos were preferred, leading to the new RTR to also be GWR? Xander
×
×
  • 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.