mjkerr Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Continuing on from my posts in :http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28659-glasgow-queen-street-88/page-11 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 26, 2015 Author Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) I finally started construction this weekend, after the majority of my Farish ScotRail arrived a few weeks agoThe first thing I did was increase the above image by a factor of 6, printed it out and laid it on the baseboardsHowever, I then noted Platform 1 is too long! Edited July 26, 2015 by mjkerr 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) If it helps with scaling, length of the uppermost platforms and the structure etc, I have this OS scan I've found of the station. (it was a 3-month fantasy about doing Queen Street in the early 1960s in P4 or EM) A few NLS links to help (older, but can be useful): http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=55.8631&lon=-4.2497&layers=168 http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=55.8631&lon=-4.2509&layers=81 Quentin Edited July 28, 2015 by mightbe 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 If it helps with scaling, length of the uppermost platforms and the structure etc, I have this OS scan I've found of the station. The period being modelled is the late 1980s into the 1990s Sadly the maps don't match up well On the plus side I already have the platform lengths It looks like I will be making a visit to Glasgow Queen Street to finalise some measurements : The circumference of the supports for Cathedral Street The widths of Platform 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7 Column to column, for the canopy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I was meaning for the arch and relative location to the tunnel portals--I realize the track and platform layout was changed wildly in the late 60s and early 70s but the main glass structure, bridge, tunnels and retaining walls are all still there. Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 I was meaning for the arch and relative location to the tunnel portals--I realize the track and platform layout was changed wildly in the late 60s and early 70s but the main glass structure, bridge, tunnels and retaining walls are all still there. Using the diagram in post #2, this allowed me to purchase roughly the correct pointwork some time ago This in turn allowed accurate locating of the station mouth Then using the platform lengths a basic track plan, which is now in place It took me the best part of 6 hours of slowly locating pins to decide what looked the best I have then compared the track that is in place against reference photos from the 1980s and 1990s I have been able to place a HST into Platform 7 and it appears to occupy the end (north) position very well, although the only photo I can find includes a Class 37 piloting Moving on to the canopy From the image / map, there appear to be 10 supporting columns on each side, equally spaced and perfectly aligned There appear to be four in Platform 3 I have a photo from the early 1980s where they are still present There now only appears to be one in Platforms 1/2, with three directly infront of the Operations Depot, which resulted in Platform 1 being shortened in length I therefore need measurements for these four supporting columns as they are the only ones remaining visible Moving on to the overbridge Sadly there are no details in the image / map There appear to be six supporting columns I just need measurements for these now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted July 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 29, 2015 I had no idea how much the station had changed having only known it from the 1970s onwards. The old version looks rather more interesting to model and operate. Particularly of note is a good interchange with the low level platforms which has been lost when platforms lengthened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 I had no idea how much the station had changed having only known it from the 1970s onwards Even during the 1980s it changed I only started to visit once the Operations Depot was in place Platform 1 was then briefly disconnected, as it was deemed to be of little passenger use with the introduction of Sprinters, but was reconnected along with a new signal as loco hauled services continued to operate Ironically, Platform 1 was then reinstated into passenger use in the 1990s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Particularly of note when I was doing my own research was that the arch is very slightly trapezoidal and not rectangular. Here's an idea for measuring the distance between columns etc. Load the picture onto a large box in Anyrail, select "adjust outline" and increase the size until the distance between the rails matches a short length of P4 track That should get everything reasonably close, as the OS maps where generally okay (not great) about keeping the track gauge accurate, if not the precise geometries of pointwork etc. From the blown-up image in anyrail, matched to some P4 track (it won't work if you try to match with 00, as it will be 14% too large) you can measure the scale distances between objects. Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Seems easier to just go to Glasgow Queen Street with my laser measuring tape, paper and pen (or iPhone notepad)This is easy enough for the supporting columns, the problem comes with the platform edges, so hopefully there will be some trains in position or passing!I should be able to do this on Friday or SaturdayAs an aside, from what I can work out there are eight support sections (out of ten) between the end of Platform 2 and Cathedral StreetThat measures at 26" / 66mmTherefore the spacing between each column is 8.25mmThis equates to 12.21mIt will be interesting to see how this compares Edited July 29, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted July 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 29, 2015 Seems easier to just go to Glasgow Queen Street with my laser measuring tape, paper and pen (or iPhone notepad) This is easy enough for the supporting columns, the problem comes with the platform edges, so hopefully there will be some trains in position or passing! I should be able to do this on Friday or Saturday As an aside, from what I can work out there are eight support sections (out of ten) between the end of Platform 2 and Cathedral Street That measures at 26" / 66mm Therefore the spacing between each column is 8.25mm This equates to 12.21m It will be interesting to see how this compares You need a good quality laser measure to work reliably in daylight conditions. I am sure that there must be some good drawings available somewhere: York, National Library of Scotland... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 You need a good quality laser measure to work reliably in daylight conditions. I am sure that there must be some good drawings available somewhere: York, National Library of Scotland... It's a commercial laser measure tape, I use it at work without any problems I viewed drawings at the National Records Office of Scotland, but they are of the station prior to 1960 I then contacted Network Rail, and they advised me to contact ScotRail At the time the franchise was operated by First ScotRail and they were very uncooperative; no drawings, no assistance in the station to take measurements, etc I recently sent a similar request to Abellio, but sadly a similar response from the same person! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 I thought I had asked this question, but can't find on a search (term CK is too short)I am looking for photos of the Mark 2 and 2A CK coaches that operated in ScotlandI have searched, but so far none Similar to the Mark 3A CO, I want to make sure I declassify the correct end! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave47549 Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) . Edited October 3, 2021 by Dave47549 Removed pointless guff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 8, 2015 Author Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) There was at least one picture online but I can't find it at the moment. When looking at the corridor side of the coach, the first 3 compartments are 1st class, the remaining 4 are 2nd. Plenty of pictures of the Mark 2C CK, and these how these are arranged It looks like it is an error in the spreadsheet I am using 13380 GC v 13382 GC v 13411 EC a 13424 EC a 13430 GC v These are all FK, and not CK Oh well, that's that idea gone then! Edited August 8, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave47549 Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) . Edited October 3, 2021 by Dave47549 Removed pointless guff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 8, 2015 Author Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) the composite conversions were all Mk2c types: 7550 7551 7553 7558 7561 Still, one good thing has come from my search last night. In my records, I had the composites incorrectly down as seating 24F18S, which can't be right if four compartments were derated! I have compiled several spreadsheets of all rolling stock with the coaches from 1985, 1986, 1988, and 1990 The majority of the Mark 1 CK were 24F 18S The Mark 2C CK were 18F 24S (three bays of First Class) Oddly this is less than the BFK (four bays of First Class) and I never understood why this had been done The only conclusion I came to was in the unlikely event a BFK had to be used instead of BSO, and then full declassification could be avoided I really do wish a Farish Mark 2C was available, as the TSO(T) could then also be covered Edited August 8, 2015 by mjkerr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigP Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) -- Edited January 30, 2021 by bigP Deleted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 8, 2015 Author Share Posted August 8, 2015 Could you geta 2c from a 2a at all? Now there's a cut'n'shut project for ya I am quite sure someone will attempt it, but I would need to wait for the new Mark 2F to be released (2016) for many of the parts It's not a great issue as there are plenty of other possibilities in order to recreate the many Fort William / Inverness rakes Even my Mark 2D ScotRail rakes are not perfect, but that's all Farish have released, so make do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) I've essentially completed the first of the two baseboards that form the fiddle yard (remove and replace previous edges, realign track, reposition point motors, fit two new point motors, and amend wiring) These are recycled from my previous layout Today I started on the second of the two baseboards, and this one is much easier it is track only No sooner had I completed this, received an email from Mercig Studios that the Class 47 models were completed Sadly one of them has a slight error, so needs to be corrected The other four are perfect 47704 is the first of two fitted with sound, the second is a 37/4 and will follow shortly Edited July 6, 2016 by mjkerr 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Here is fifth one (correct A side) Edited April 22, 2017 by mjkerr 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlw Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Is this the CK you are after? http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p46631637/h18391f0#h18391f0 Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Is this the CK you are after? No, it was an error in my spreadsheet that had continued CK after the FK entries; there were no Mark 2/2A/2B CK As there is no base model for a Mark 2C in N gauge, it's not something I can include Instead my Inverness rakes will use a BFK (as that is as near as I can get) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlw Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 No, it was an error in my spreadsheet that had continued CK after the FK entries; there were no Mark 2/2A/2B CK As there is no base model for a Mark 2C in N gauge, it's not something I can include Instead my Inverness rakes will use a BFK (as that is as near as I can get) Have you thought of using Electra railway graphics? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Have you thought of using Electra railway graphics? I already have several models which use Electra Railway Graphics vinyls; Mark 2D TSO(T), Mark 2F DBSO, Class 156 SPTE, Class 158 Express ScotRail I am in the process of replacing all the previous ones with more realistic models, where available Ironically, I will shortly be ordering some additional DBSO (due to the late delivery of the Farish DBSO, so these will eventually be replaced) and a Mark 2D BFK The main issue with the Mark 2C will be the inaccuracies which would remain; roof, underframe, end doors Equally, on a previous one that I had the vent window frames appear too thick The Thomson (Ian Stoate) roof and underframe conversion parts for the Farish Mark 2D are no longer available, but I have completed one Mark 2A BFK using these Edited August 17, 2015 by mjkerr 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now