Castle Aching

[drduncan]

There are a number of interesting possibilities or ‘routes to market’ (sorry, couldn’t resist) to work out the workings of additional coaches. First, a timetable for the railway which will show up the total number of movements and from the operating department’s view the minimum stock needed to work it. For example, depending on the service frequency and timetable a single rake of coaches (say a branch set) could actually work two branches either in the same day, or over successive days. Second, a list of events in the modelled week (I’m assuming a week for the timetable) that might generate additional traffic above that which can’t be coped with by the standard sets - strengthening coaches. Again, the network timetable will show what the total will be and from this the minimum number to service it can be derived.  This may lead to empty stock movements to get vehicles in the right place at the right time. Third, the timetable will show where additional services could be fitted in between the normal trains: race day specials, football specials, militia/yeomanry/territorial troop specials, even pigeon specials (an excellent excuse for some far distant npcs to get onto the layout). These extras can be generated by dice throws or cutting cards (or even, gulp, computer). The same system of random movements generation can also be used for headband tail traffic such as OCTs/CCTs and saloons etc.

 

Regards

 

Duncan

[drduncan]

Norman Eagles ‘sherwood section’ articles in model railways 1982 might give inspiration…

 

D

[Edwardian]

26 minutes ago, drduncan said:

There are a number of interesting possibilities or ‘routes to market’ (sorry, couldn’t resist) to work out the workings of additional coaches. First, a timetable for the railway which will show up the total number of movements and from the operating department’s view the minimum stock needed to work it. For example, depending on the service frequency and timetable a single rake of coaches (say a branch set) could actually work two branches either in the same day, or over successive days. Second, a list of events in the modelled week (I’m assuming a week for the timetable) that might generate additional traffic above that which can’t be coped with by the standard sets - strengthening coaches. Again, the network timetable will show what the total will be and from this the minimum number to service it can be derived.  This may lead to empty stock movements to get vehicles in the right place at the right time. Third, the timetable will show where additional services could be fitted in between the normal trains: race day specials, football specials, militia/yeomanry/territorial troop specials, even pigeon specials (an excellent excuse for some far distant npcs to get onto the layout). These extras can be generated by dice throws or cutting cards (or even, gulp, computer). The same system of random movements generation can also be used for headband tail traffic such as OCTs/CCTs and saloons etc.

 

Regards

 

Duncan

 

On my way to the Smoke so will be brief. An excellent suggestion. 

 

If anyone wants to have a stab at a time table, that would be interesting 

 

Actually,  you could probably work out the likely traffic from the description of West Norfolk in the opening post of the topic 

Give Achingham a weekly market on, say, Tuesday and BM on, say, Thursday and you are there

 

The industries etc of the various places are given in the topic opening. The system map suggests traffic routes 

 

Your list of events is ideal,  I'll just add Sunday theatre trains to move a Rep company,  B-N-t-S and Norwich theatres!

 

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, uax6 said:

This sort of leads on to another interesting question:

 

How do you envisage actually operating the railway?

 

What I mean by that is: Are you going to run operating sessions or ad hoc?

 

For operating sessions (which can take months to come to an end) do you want to do a days timetable complete, or say a weeks timetable complete? Rolling dice can give variations for days, weeks, months, traffic loading, failures, late running etc. One thing you would need for this would be some simple clocks for each locaton, so that you can keep note of the time. Ian Thompson of this parish uses home made 3min * finger worked clocks, but it could be that use just have paper digital(!) clocks, where you turn the number over from the back to give a simple time display.

 

Ad hoc working would be just running something when-ever you fancy. 

 

Andy G

 

* 3 mins gives a good representation of a move (un-coupling and moving in one direction counting as a move).

 

I think weekly timetable 

 

See operation more as a sequence than as timed events, so like the idea of a flip card of events better than a clock

[uax6]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I think weekly timetable 

 

See operation more as a sequence than as timed events, so like the idea of a flip card of events better than a clock

 

In that case I take it you have seen www.myafk.net then?  A whole railway system run on the session principle, but as its such a big system its usually a day at a time!

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

 

In that case I take it you have seen www.myafk.net then?  A whole railway system run on the session principle, but as its such a big system its usually a day at a time!

 

Andy G

 

 Yes, magnificent creation of an Honourable Member. 

 

Not sure I have the head for the graphs and knowing what trains go where is fine, but giving them arrival and departure times based on motive power, train weight, gradients etc and ensuring that they don't keep bumping into each other on the single track is all rather beyond me!

[drduncan]

Do you have worked out the distances in miles between stations, junctions, passing loops etc for the WNR? Also do you have any feel for the  passenger trains per day along each route and whether they are all stations services or not?

Duncan

[2ManySpams]

On 01/09/2021 at 09:50, RodneyS said:

I've never used AJ couplings but I have read that, because there is a lot of 'slop' between the wheel flanges and the rail in 00 gauge, the couplings may not always line up correctly.

There is less slop with EM or P4 gauges.

 

A friend uses AJ couplings on a small shunting 7mm layout with quite sharp curves and they work most of the time.  If they fail to couple he just has another 'bash' and if they don't uncouple he just pushes one coupling down with a stick.

 

AJ and 3 link rely on using the buffers for pushing so buffer locking can be a problem.  

Rodney

 

Yes, that's the problem with AJs and OO - the slop.

 

As an experiment, take a typical 4 wheel wagon and place on the track. From above twist the wagon clockwise on the track so that the flanges of opposite wheels on opposite axles are hard up against the rail and axles are hard against the bearings. The wagon should be pointing slightly diagonally down the track. 

 

Now twist the wagon anti-clockwise. It should now be pointing diagonally again but offset the opposite way. The amount of slop between these 2 turns is surprisingly large.

 

AJs have a very small head and rely on the wagons pointing along the track so that they meet and link when coupling up. The slop in OO means that the AJs can easily not line up and can miss each other. As you go from OO to EM to P4 the tolerances tighten and the slop reduces resulting in the AJs progressively working better. 

 

It's a bit like the analogy of holding a high precision gun in your hand and aiming to hit a target. In OO you have a very wobbly hand, EM firmer but still shaky and P4 sufficient steadiness to enable you to hit the target most times. 

 

(PS not a fan of AJs (fail to work reliably in exhibition situations) or P4 (stuff falls off too often), so this isn't a diatribe in favour of either).

[kingfisher9147]

Why not make them Into slip coaches? You can add and detach without trouble of stopping to shunt. Might be worth reading about the Kent and East Sussex railway a very interesting line mixture of stock and working and one on the mid Suffolk light railway another interesting practice of railway workings. Also worth reading about light railways very handy when planning period railways

Mike 

[Regularity]

20 minutes ago, kingfisher9147 said:

Why not make them Into slip coaches? You can add and detach without trouble of stopping to shunt.

I think detaching without a shunt was ok, but adding them back on…?

[Nearholmer]

Have you never seen a slip-joining platform?
 

They were a sort of elevated bay, up

on stilts and accessed by stairs, from which the slip coach would depart down an incline that vaguely resembled part of a rollercoaster or a lifeboat ramp. Most had some sort of water-balance-weight system, so that a tank was filled when at high level, and then allowed to descend, hailing the coach up by wire rope.The tank was then emptied at the bottom, and re-elevated using a smaller balance tank. Sprung buffers were compressed and used to

overcome stiction and get the coach to the start of the incline.

 

The tricky bit was the points, which were spring-operated, and triggered, simultaneous with release of the carriage, by the train passing on the mainline. There were many instance of premature triggering, causing slip-coaches to be appended to goods trains, which is what led to such systems eventually falling out of use. Another difficult part was the automatic connecting-up of the continuous brakes, but the technology eventually found use in air-to-air refuelling of ‘planes.

 

In one of his inspection reports, Major Hutchison described the slip-joining system as “Possibly the most ingenious arrangement yet devised for bringing about the premature deaths of railway passengers.”

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There were many instance of premature triggering

More prevalent with older equipment.

[Hroth]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Have you never seen a slip-joining platform?
 

They were a sort of elevated bay, up

on stilts and accessed by stairs, from which the slip coach would depart down an incline that vaguely resembled part of a rollercoaster or a lifeboat ramp. Most had some sort of water-balance-weight system, so that a tank was filled when at high level, and then allowed to descend, hailing the coach up by wire rope.The tank was then emptied at the bottom, and re-elevated using a smaller balance tank. Sprung buffers were compressed and used to

overcome stiction and get the coach to the start of the incline.

 

The tricky bit was the points, which were spring-operated, and triggered, simultaneous with release of the carriage, by the train passing on the mainline. There were many instance of premature triggering, causing slip-coaches to be appended to goods trains, which is what led to such systems eventually falling out of use. Another difficult part was the automatic connecting-up of the continuous brakes, but the technology eventually found use in air-to-air refuelling of ‘planes.

 

In one of his inspection reports, Major Hutchison described the slip-joining system as “Possibly the most ingenious arrangement yet devised for bringing about the premature deaths of railway passengers.”

 

As well as the reuse of the automatic brake coupling system by the aviation industry, it is well known that Hornby Dublo adopted the automatic coupling mechanism used to attach the slip to the rest of the train...

 

[Edwardian]

Thinking about WNR traffic and, ultimately, timetable.

 

A very rough calculation suggests WNR route mileage of 160 miles, of which 108 is mainline, the remainder divided between 4 WNR branches and the Joint Tramway. 

 

Currently the WNR locomotive roster stands at 32 locomotives, excluding the tramway.  I would rather like that to be the total actual WNR fleet, as opposed to a selection modelled. 

 

It seems to me, on the other hand, that I do not need to model every last item of rolling stock.  It might be necessary, however, to give numbers for every wagon and coach said to exist, and then only use some of these.

 

Currently the revenue-earning  goods stock planned, and realistically capable of realisation, is:

 

48 general merchandise and specialist wagons

12 livestock

10 mineral

 

Any thoughts on numbers/numbering schemes would be welcome.

 

I had thought it might be good to give different types of wagons different blocks of 100s or 1,000s, for instance.

[Annie]

27 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I had thought it might be good to give different types of wagons different blocks of 100s or 1,000s, for instance.

I think that's a good idea James and certainly something that several railways did during the late part of the 19th century.  Some wagon types such as horseboxes as an example might not need a very large block whereas mineral types would need a larger block.

 

31 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

It seems to me, on the other hand, that I do not need to model every last item of rolling stock.  It might be necessary, however, to give numbers for every wagon and coach said to exist, and then only use some of these.

Exactly the system I use.  Anything not seen in a number sequence is plainly off at work elsewhere on the railway.  With the Windweather Tramway's considerable number of 3 plank drop side wagons though I chickened out and left the numbers off.

 

On the tramways all the locomotives that should be there have been modelled, but on the 'railway' railways I do indulge myself in having number only engines that must be elsewhere and not around here today.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I had thought it might be good to give different types of wagons different blocks of 100s or 1,000s, for instance.

The CR started out numbering merchandise wagons in the series 1-10000 and mineral wagons 10001-35070.  As time went on and the fleet grew, other blocks, and in a couple of cases individual numbers, were used.  Special wagons(trolleys etc) had their own series as did brake vans and NPCS, horse boxes, carriage fish and milk trucks and gas tanks.  Likewise with coaching stock each type of coach had its own series, with ones for saloons, firsts, composites (including brake composites), thirds (including brake thirds) and luggage and brake vans.

 

I suppose, in theory, it would have been possible to have a train comprising several different types of vehicle, e.g a brake, first, saloon, composite, and brake third, all with the same number!

 

Jim

Edited September 9, 2021 by Caley Jim

[Nearholmer]

A really arcahaic, and superficially confusing, numbering system would be a great deal more fun.

 

How about the WNR having a big leather-bound ledger, ruled-up in columns, in which it records all of its capital assets, numbering from 000001 upwards, by order of acquisition? The detail recorded includes the cost, and when anything is scrapped or otherwise disposed of, it is ruled-out in red. 

 

The accountant can use this ledger to calculate either total capitalised amount, which can then be inflated to give replacement cost, or, using some "writing down" formulae, a notional current value for taxation or other purposes.

 

It will be wonderfully inconsistent in what constitute assets, because each will be recorded in the way it was purchased, so:

 

0000207 might be "Signal Cabin, Shepherd's Port, complete with lever frame, interlocking, block telegraph instruments &c", while 000208 might be "Tea Urn, Bishop's Lynn Refreshment Rooms", which somehow got charged to the capital account as an individual item. Whole tracts of railway are under single asset numbers where they were the subject of a single contract to build and equip, whereas odd sidings, contracted individually get numbers of their own.

 

Wagons will, of course, have effectively random numbers, according to when they were bought, and whether they came in batches. So, asset 004509 is "Ballast wagons, 8 Tons, six off", so they carry numbers 004509i to 0004509vi, whereas 004510 is "First Class Carriage, six compartments".

 

Now, some assets have been heavily rebuilt, but retain their initial numbers, and other things that might look like assets aren't, because they were bought using the revenue account. These things have no numbers at all, even entire locomotives, but some are recorded by description only in departmental ledgers, so that, for instance, the workshop foreman can keep some track of important points like how old boilers are. The entire Tramway has no asset number, and no book value, because it was built piecemeal using direct labour, funded from the revenue account, the initial rails being reused worn material from the main-line. Howvever, the tramway sleepers are three assets (purchase lots), while all the rail chairs and fastenings are another single asset.

 

Does that help at all?

 

[Northroader]

I go for random numbering sequence, pull a banknote out of my wallet, and use a few of the numbers off that.

[webbcompound]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Does that help at all?

 

Like it. But for a more ordered variant the company uses a limited number block for wagons, but when one is scrapped the number is re-used for a new, maybe different, wagon for capital accounting purposes so as time goes on the sequence of numbers becomes more random. I think a few companies used a variant of this system

 

[Edwardian]

Thanks, Annie, and thanks Jim.  The Caledonian number block system is a good example of the sort of thing I had in mind.

 

I need to finalise the wagon transfer requirements, now that I have finalised the fleet, and there are matters other than running numbers to consider. 

 

When I last looked at the issue of appropriate tare weight ranges and laden weights (in May 2020), my own survey, followed by wise and knowledgeable Parish feedback, came up with this:

 

Sample Tare table thus:

 

Short 5-plank 1860s (wooden u/f)            6 TONS                               3-17-0, 3-17-1, 3-17-2, 3-17-3, 3-18-0

1 plank (wooden u/f)                                  8 TONS                                4-9-0, 4-9-1, 4-9-2, 4-9-3, 4-10-0, 4-10-1, 4-10-2, 4-10-3

Bolster (wooden u/f)                                  8 TONS                                 4-14-0, 4-14-1, 14-14-2, 4-14-3 

3 plank (wooden u/f) old round ended  8 TONS                                 14-16-1, 5-6-0, 5-8-3,

3 plank (wooden u/f) dropside                 8 TONS                                14-11-3, 5-7-0, 5-10-0

4/5-plank (wooden u/f)                              8 TONS, 9 TONS                 5-10-1, 5-10-2, 5-10-3, 5-11-0, 5-11-1, 5-11-2, 15-11-3, 5-12-0

                                                                                                                     5-14-0, 5-14-1, 5-14-2, 15-14-3, 15-15-0, 5-15-1, 5-15-2, 5-15-3, 5-16-0, 5-12-2

5-plank (steel u/f)                                      10 TONS                                5-5-0, 5-5-1, 5-5-2, 5-5-3, 5-6-0, 5-6-1, 5-6-2, 5-6-3

6-7-plank (steel u/f)                                  10 TONS                                 5-7-0, 5-7-1, 5-7-2, 5-7-3

Covered wagon (wooden u/f)                   8 TONS, 10 TONS              6-5-0, 6-5-1, 6-5-2, 6-5-3, 6-11-0, 6-15-3

Covered wagon  (steel u/f)                       10 TONS                               6-10-0, 6-10-3   

 

Now, a number of these are no longer relevant because I have decided not to introduce steel underframe wagons, or because they are types not found in the general merchandise fleet I'm currently considering. 

 

Tare weights are weird and wonderful things. I had a call only today with a retail commissioner trying to convince them, I don't think wholly successfully, that two wagons of the same diagram of the same Lot could leave the works with different tare weights!  Thus, a range is called for in the case of each wagon type, based on equivalent prototypes, though what I in fact need is a series of sample tare weights within each range to give to the transfer producer.   

 

To give a little more detail of the standard types now evolved:

 

1. 15' (over the headstocks) wooden underframe grease axlebox open wagons, braked one side: Appropriate laden weight(s) and appropriate tare weight ranges for:

• 1 plank - as above, current samples are:    8 TONS, 4-9-0, 4-9-1, 4-9-2, 4-9-3, 4-10-0, 4-10-1, 4-10-2, 4-10-3
• 2 plank -  this I have nothing for
• 3 plank -  this I have nothing for
• 4/5 plank (same height) - as above, current samples are:     8 TONS, 9 TONS,  5-10-1, 5-10-2, 5-10-3, 5-11-0, 5-11-1, 5-11-2, 15-11-3, 5-12-0, 5-14-0, 5-14-1, 5-14-2, 15-14-3, 15-15-0, 5-15-1,                                                                                                                                          5-15-2, 5-15-3, 5-16-0, 5-12-2
• 6 1/2 plank - this I have nothing for, as originally the high capacity opens were to be post transition to steel u/fs (as per GE)
• 2 plank (same height as 3 plank) - as above, current samples are:   8 TONS, 14-11-3, 5-7-0, 5-10-0

2. 15'9" (over the headstocks) wooden underframe grease axlebox outside frame covered wagons, braked one side: Appropriate laden weight and appropriate tare weight range:  - as above, current samples are:   8 TONS,  6-5-0, 6-5-1, 6-5-2, 6-5-3 

 

3. 16' (over the headstocks) wooden underframe grease axlebox covered wagons, braked one side: Appropriate laden weight and Appropriate tare weight range: - as above, current samples are: 10 TONS,  6-11-0, 6-15-3   

 

4. 13'9" (over the headstocks) wooden underframe grease axlebox single bolster, braked one side: Appropriate laden weight and Appropriate tare weight range: - as above, current samples are:  8 TONS, 4-14-0, 4-14-1, 14-14-2, 4-14-3

 

Any comments, corrections or additions gratefully received at this point.

[Nearholmer]

40 minutes ago, Northroader said:

pull a banknote out of my wallet, and use a few of the numbers o

Banknotes?

 

Do they still exist?

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Banknotes?

 

Do they still exist?

 

Always a rarity for some of us!

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, webbcompound said:

a more ordered variant

There can be nothing more orderly than the system advocated, allowing, as it does, direct correlation between invoices paid and capital value thereby accumulated. If used together with the Venetian Quadruple Entry System, and Strangebold’s Ready-reckoning Tables (1789), it allows The Chief Accountant to present perfectly auditable accounts at a moment’s notice, yet also to live in a style strangely out of keeping with the meagre salary afforded to him by The Directors.

[Edwardian]

OK, but for sake of sanity (mine) I vote for the blocks of numbers system. All I think I really need to decide is approximately how many of each type of wagon the WN would need.  Very approximately. 

 

Oh, and help finalising the tare weights would be much appreciated.

[Annie]

I must confess that on occasion I have cribbed your original Tare weight list for my own purposes.