Jump to content
 

sulzer27jd

Members
  • Posts

    927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by sulzer27jd

  1. I had a package arrive from Zaratren in Zaragoza this week. Tax was taken at their end and the shipping was free. The total was around 140€ so under the £135 threshold and I had no additional fees to pay at this end. All in all the service was excellent. I especially like this shop because they understand my Spanish when I e-mail them and are really helpful. So I'm pleased this weeks arrival. I don't know what the process will be like if the order is over the threshold. John
  2. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here Nick but a brick retaining wall would most likely be built in Scottish Garden Wall bond, that is, 5 stretcher courses to 1 header. John
  3. The TSSA along with the other trades unions had an opportunity to put forward a combined employee bid ahead of the previous franchise process but they, collectively, were more interested in playing constitutional and party politics than looking after their members interests. The fact that the ASLEF rep was on the Labour Party national executive and the RMT rep was either still or had just left a similar post and was in with the woodwork at the STUC meant that they simply would not consider working with the SNP. The ultimate democratic solution is to convert Scotrail into an employee owned cooperative.
  4. I really like this idea and how you are developing it. When I started Balbeggie Sidings the original concept was just a long stretch of mainline, although there was to be a level crossing as a focal point. This was a throwback to many hours spend at places like Longforgan, with the pleasure of hearing the signal box bell codes, semiphores being pulled and gates opening and closing. As I built it though I added the extra sidings and yard in order to give "operational interest." The really interesting thing was that when I operated the layout I either ran the mainline (including the loops) or I shunted the little yard. I found, that for me, it was one thing or the other and I didn't need the extra bits to add operational interest when I was running the mainline. What you have done here is quite brave, in that you have dispensed with all of the other things that generally modellers want to add in such as stations, yards and sheds and are letting the railway tell its story. I really like this idea. For the most part, outside of towns and cities, we see the railway in this type of setting far more than we probably realise. There are miles and miles of open line that are rarely modelled because modellers think of the bits between stations as a bit boring. I, for one, would like to sit back at your bit of mainline and simply watch the trains go past. I am looking forward to this layout developing further. John
  5. Thanks John. Dismantling the boards won't be a regular occurrence, I really just want to build in the ability to move them. Cheers
  6. I'm looking for some advice on the best way to deal with overhead power lines and baseboard joints. The Sommerfeldt description states that it "is recommended only for permanent and stable layouts." Is there a way to adapt it in order to split boards for transportation? Any help appreciated John
  7. Newcastle to Margate TO sets XC61 and 62 BG (NAV) 5x SK BSK 4x SK Mk1 VAC These worked a variety of duties to Margate, Torquay, Newquay, Portsmouth and Eastbourne. John
  8. The Carriage Working Notice (Loco Operated Trains) has the Parcels train as; Victoria 3.10 - Platform 8 1 BSK (MO) 1 BSK 1 BG 1 B 1 GUV 1 GUV - for Dover Priory 2 BG - for Dover Priory 1 BG - Sheerness on Sea The Newcastle set is listed as being 1 BG plus 10 ER Coaches John
  9. One other consideration might be the relationship between private trader wagons and the CR and NB. There were around 30 private traders on the GNSR system but their wagons were registered with either the Caledonian or the NB. Other private traders coming onto the GNSR system from the Scottish coal fields for example would also be regarded as either Caledonian or NB wagons as it was they who held the registrations for them. For the modeller this means that a wagon listed as CR or NB may not have either railway company livery but instead be in the livery of the trader. John
  10. Ian do you have access to the 1914 WTT? There seems to be more of a separation of timings for goods workings as well as clear indications for when train cross at stations. There are also specific notes on arranging of 'waggons' in order to avoid further shunting, exchanging with Caledonian and NB which are helpful to the modeller. The main pick-up appears to be the 9.20 am from Macduff which is timed into Turriff at 10.02 and allowed 11 minutes to shunt. A further note instructs small consignments for the NB route to be placed into wagons for Aberdeen NB or returning empty NB wagons. There is no corresponding instruction for the other connecting railways. John
  11. Don't fall into the trap of considering a small railway to be inefficient. The GNSR ran a very effective timetable including a mainline and suburban services. Like most railways at the time the running of branch lines was done at a pace that today we may consider to be leisurely.
  12. There are a number of images available on the Scottish Line Society archive, which is accessible via any of the line societies. John
  13. Woodland Scenics Medium Ballast, which is their HO range, used in 7mm. Johnston's Klear was used to fix it. John
  14. I’m not trying to be picky but the change was to Both Side brakes and away from Either Side. At least as that was understood in the language used in the early 1900’s.
  15. Agree but the point I am trying to make is that if you want to make the maximum reduction in accidents, with the minimum delay, in a world of single sided braked wagons, You opt to put manual brakes on both sides. You do not need to go beyond that and into the complications of ‘either side’ apply and release. I also sought to clarify that there was no ban on either side brake arrangements, only a requirement that they meet BoT approval. 1911 rules, schedule 1 point 5. john
  16. There was no explicit ruling against it, only that any such system had to meet with BoT approval. None of the pre-existing systems were deemed to be sufficiently satisfactory to recommend them for general adoption. The deciding factor was not advantage or disadvantage of any braking system but was determined by the way in which railways could best reduce the number of accidents, this was in the opinion of the Committee, fitting brakes to both sides of wagons at cross corners. John
  17. Remember also there was use of single sided wagons, that is, vehicles with doors or drop sides on only one side. In the period we are discussing there would be a need for shunters to cross under/through/between wagons in order just to do their job. If the priority was safety, which according to the Committee that looked at this was a key factor, then the reduction of that necessity would have a significant impact. It would seem that the Committee took their priority to be reducing accidents rather than deciding wagon specifications. They happens to consider though, that by fitting brakes to both sides the number of crossing movements by staff would be reduced reduced. It would be interesting to see if there was a reduction in injuries and deaths over time.
  18. One of the problems we face is in the use of language. "Either side" could be taken as meaning you can put the brakes on or off from both sides of the wagon and it makes sense that if you put them on using side 1 then you could only release them from side 1. By definition you could equally put the brakes on using side 2 and release them using side 2 but would not be able to apply the brakes on side 1 and release them on side 2. The arrangement of on side 1, off side 1 etc. is what the Committee deemed to be brakes that could be applied on "both sides" and the arrangement of on side 1 and off side 2 is what the Committee deemed to be "either side." The previous BoT specification ordered railways to adopt brake gear that could be applied from either side. That appears to have been interpreted (rightly or wrongly but we must assume that someone at least asked) as requiring the ability to apply from side 1 and release from side 2. The Committee were specific that whilst 172,000 wagons had brakes on both sides, 33,000 had brakes that could be applied from either side. The Caledonian Railway attempted to meet what was perceived to be this "either side" requirement by using the McIntosh Patent Brake. In its documentation it specifies the ability to apply or release the brakes from either side [that doesn't help clarify] but it refers to the ability to hold the brakes in position without the aid of pins, wedges or other means usually employed. As you could not have pinned a brake lever down on on side and expect to release it anywhere else, I think think this gives us a clue that McIntosh brake was intended to have the ability to be applied on side 1 and released on side 2. Wagons so fitted would fall into the 33,000 either side category. I don't know if the Royal Commission was established as such or if the BoT Committee did the work in its place. It was made up of Mr R Turnbull (LNWR), Lieut-Col Yorke (Railway Inspector BoT) and Mr R Bell MP. Its first report was November 1906. John
  19. The wording of the Committee's recommendation was that "No wagon for service to be fitted with an either-side brake as defined at the commencement of this report,* unless it has been approved by the Board of Trade on the advice of this Committee." It was therefore not an outright ban, but the practicalities effectively ended the use of such systems for hand brakes. * The report talks of trials of 'either side' brakes as being the ability to apply and release. The trials found that none of the brake systems trialed was "considered sufficiently satisfactory to warrant our recommending it for general adoption." They also considered the risk that because the either side lever acted simultaneously on both sides of the wagon there was actually a risk of a shunter on one side being injured by the application of the brake lever on the other. The Committee examined the number of accidents there had been and came to the determination that, " the majority of accidents would be avoided if every wagon had a lever on each side, by which a brake or brakes could be applied, even though it could only be released from the side on which it had been applied." The scale of the problem was significant for two reasons; 1 - as an example in 1900 the Caledonian Railway had 1 in 197 shunters killed and 1 in 13 injured in shunting accidents. 2 - in 1906 (during the Committee's examination) the UK railways had 750,000 vehicles of which 172,000 had brakes that could be applied on both sides, with 33,000 fitted with either side brakes. There were an additional 650,000 wagons belonging to private traders, giving a total of 1,400,000 wagons. The implications of fitting an either side system, in cost and delay, were balanced against the option of fitted levers to both side that could apply the brakes even though they could only then be released from the same side. The committee concluded (specifically mentioning "delay" and "in the interests of the men") that the best option was to go for brakes fitted with a lever at cross corners. The recommendation were that; 1) new build wagons be fitted with cross corner levers 2) wagons with one sided lever only be fitted with an additional lever within 7 years. 3) wagons fitted with two levers but with them at a single end have them rearranged within 10 years. 4) as above re either side and requiring approval. Committee appointed April 1906 John
  20. It is no surprise to any of us who are regularly inflicted by BBC Scotland but their report on this last night barely even formed coherent sentences. They seemed more focused on linking these to the Carmont derailment than actually reporting any facts. Possibly the same people who previously tried to suggest the driver of the derailed train was exceeding the speed limit. It's hard to tell if it is an anti-rail agenda or just the usual standard of so called journalism that passes for news reporting in Scotland.
  21. I use very fine soil, almost to the consistency of dust and blow that over freshly planted grass. The soil works best if it is dried and then ground down to a very fine powder. John
  22. Agree with Quarryscapes, it can be done, but requires a experience and even then cannot tackle some of the jobs. if you want to build your kit with confidence, invest in a temperature controlled soldering iron. John
×
×
  • Create New...