Jump to content

RLWP

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Neutral
  1. 502 errors here, View New Content searches take several seconds, 'storing' posts takes many more Chrome 73.0.3683.86 Windows 10 Richard
  2. Slow for me on Chrome, and occasionally times out with a (from memory) 502 error. It's been like that ever since the upgrade This probably belongs in a different thread Richard
  3. So, does it comply with "Safety Points - worked scotches or derailers may be used in instead of safety points where protection is necessary." ? It sounds like a piece of shunters safety equipment, not a piece of signalling equipment I'm not denying it's usefulness in a shunting yard, it clearly would do what is intended of it. I'm trying to work out if it would satisfy the BOT if it is not somehow interlocked. I'm not expecting point rodding or some kind of positive link to a signalbox, perhaps a key to unlock it that can only be released when a set of sidings is isolated from a running line Richard
  4. If he has to remember to drag it back, what's the point of having it?
  5. How is the use of that controlled? The other derailers are obviously linked to a signal box, I can't see anything on that, not even a padlock Richard
  6. "in the most accurate way possible" is an interesting idea. As there is so little information, you could do almost anything within the dimensions of the very few drawings, and it's unlikely anyone could prove you wrong. Or you could do a huge amount of research about early locomotive design in general, and for Crewe specifically, and still end up with something that it is unlikely that anyone could prove you wrong (or right!) Did you make any progress @Killian keane ? Richard
  7. The mechanism ringed looks like the lifting links for the valve gear Locomotives of this era rarely had brakes Richard
  8. I usually order the NEM pocket couplings now. The 'lump' that goes in the NEM pocket is formed by folding the coupling shank over a couple of times. Therefore the unformed shank seems to be longer that the other kinds of coupling I find the longer shank more adaptable for the various projects I do Richard
  9. So, that's the answer to the Rolling Stone's question
  10. A couple of locos come to mind. The LNWR 4' tank: sold to Kynoch Ltd, Witton in 1919 and now preserved And probably the most famous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson's_Rocket#Service Richard
  11. That sounds better, I was mislead by the diagram So, have you decided how to signal your railway? Richard
  12. I'd say, compared to the gradient to get the quarry line over the other line, signalling is going to be a small problem. Have you worked out the gradient?
  13. In 1878, the L&NWR worked the whole of Kenilworth station with a single seven lever ground frame. It was similar to this arrangement in that Lockharts Sidings (to the brickworks) was included in the scheme No signal cabin of course - the L&NWR didn't spend money if they didn't have to Richard
  14. Out of interest, where would 'station limits' begin on the 'L&Y' end? Presumably far enough up the line for the whole of the quarry train to be inside while waiting for the quarry road to clear? Or would you hold the quarry train outside station limits until it's road is clear? Richard
×
×
  • Create New...