Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Having previously mention Culkerton West GF, I came across this on the web

 

https://bid.gwra.co.uk/past-auctions/srgw10013/lot-details/4b6dd1c7-d474-4c81-9d36-a888011e8f51

 

This plate, and its ‘East’ counterpart, were ordered in 1917. Apart from the different wording, the ‘North’ and ‘Station’ plates at Tetbury would have been of the same style and roughly the same size – I wonder where they are now?

 

As an aside....given that previously at some unknown date there had been an order for a plain ‘Culkerton Ground Frame’ plate, I wonder if originally there had been just one central GF at Culkerton, replaced by separate ones at each end in 1917? I’ve not found any suitable reference yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ground frame plates were either "liberated" by souvenir hunters or smashed up for scrap.

I had an interesting conversation with someone years ago regarding my collection of enamel signs (long gone and occasionally lamented) where it was rightly pointed out that they were still technically the property of the oil companies and their successors. (Some even have "property of..." Printed on them.) He went on to say - What about all that railwayana, that was nationalised and is technically property of the state?

That's a can of worms for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a crop from a 1936 photo of Tetbury. You get quite a good view of the back of the 'cover' of the Station GF and can even just about make out the nameplate on the wall facing the track. I am told that the cover had gone by 1955.

 

You can see more clearly now also that the rod run from the North GF did not actually go past the ES at all, and that the rod from the Station GF only came as far as the base of the water tower. However I realise that the different relative positions of the relevant points to the ES on the model will change that.

Tetbury ES + Stn GF view.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The misalignment of the points does change the appearance slightly.

 

A3313510-BDFB-48D5-A2DE-7328C05FC3A1.jpeg.fa875f83868489eeb4296ceaaef8101c.jpeg


Point rodding has been adjusted but its been made worse by points 2 & 4 also being wrong.

 

E92E4817-A94F-4E48-8367-7DAAFF0914D1.jpeg.7dcf0bafef0a4e7b2c1522791d8048b9.jpeg


The options were leave it as a hand worked point, put a central run as the photo above, or move the points.

 

I decided I wasn’t ready to move the points around, so I’ve gone with Option 2.

 

And I still maintain that Wills point rodding is extremely annoying to work with!

  • Like 9
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Each to his own devices, of course, but....I think I would have simply taken the run from the Station GF alongside the run from the North GF (ie a short section of double run) and then turned across under point 6 direct to point 3.

 

I'm puzzled by the seemingly spurious cranks in the two runs in the 6-foot between the main and loop lines adjacent to point 2 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the run in the six foot, I was trying to avoid a double run in front of the engine shed for photographic purposes. Also I may in the future brave moving the points, and wanted the flexibility to switch things about.

 

The spurious cranks were due to my limited understanding of the back of the Wills packet. Swapping them out for a bit of brass rod isn’t a big issue, but it’s sure not going to be more Wills rodding!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chris Chewter said:

Re the run in the six foot, I was trying to avoid a double run in front of the engine shed for photographic purposes. Also I may in the future brave moving the points, and wanted the flexibility to switch things about.

 

The spurious cranks were due to my limited understanding of the back of the Wills packet. Swapping them out for a bit of brass rod isn’t a big issue, but it’s sure not going to be more Wills rodding!

Quite understood. I've not seen the back of a Wills packet (I assume we're not talking about Woodbines :-) ), but I can imagine that it might well be misleading for the uninitiated. And trying to get compensators in the 'right' place is an art in itself. But it's always good to see those who make an effort with rodding etc rather than simply ignore it as 'all too difficult'. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to take a break from the point rodding.  Well, I'm a bit stuck until the Wills SS91 ground frame kits turn up, so I decided to do a bit of photography instead.  Unfortunately with most of the photos, something was out of focus, but I did manage to get this one which seemed alright.

 

1762846257_64xxv2.jpg.93ba86914c3f3cc5cb359f89339383c4.jpg

 

Edited by Chris Chewter
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, Chris Chewter said:

but I did manage to get this one which seemed alright.

That's a really nice pic.  I like the shadow of the station building canopy.  Looks like a sunny day.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a little bit dissatisfied with the weathering of 6417 when I took it down from the shelf yesterday, but it seems to look alright in the photos.

 

C571C0E8-97BF-4484-9B7C-71FE064BF719.jpeg.aa2626a9b0a581a2dc3b16197e739d01.jpeg

 

However it appears that some of the point rodding is floating, which is a tad irritating. Looks like I need to glue and weigh it down again!

 

5D668D6D-49DB-4A57-8D98-21A819FC0DDB.jpeg.853b6a4fb4c6fe3d01239c451a3eaa43.jpeg

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was experimenting with the layout lighting last night. The area above the goods shed is always been a bit gloomy and I think I need to move the lights to the front of the layout, rather than being fitted to the wall behind.

 

This is with the lighting as it is

 

046641D5-BF04-44B5-9812-37E02962F23A.jpeg.5ace0d9f46504c10c55013c64a8b3bf3.jpeg

 

And with the lighting moved to the front.

 

40D7AE6E-35C4-4395-8D3B-399540E12E1B.jpeg.56fda42cd47a9cfdd9925b739b235ae4.jpeg
 

Looks like I better get drilling!

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground frames corrected (after a visit to Starbucks to pick up some coffee stirrers)

 

North

 

4999D818-B90B-46B4-ABC6-6D5FF2991FD8.jpeg.76996f6cb8f5cabe38562535189f2f6f.jpeg

 

Station

 

C87F811F-37F1-41BB-8FC4-26D92EED9B6A.jpeg.541e5313e71ec2ca65e9612e7d023966.jpeg

 

And south

 

839364A0-57B5-40D6-A594-78D9C49CA58B.jpeg.d3b67c63cb136c50f8472ba18a98ee65.jpeg

 

(I know South isn’t a precise match against the photo, and the coffee stirrers are a bit thick, but it’s closer than what was there previously!)

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking a lot less 'shiny' now - what would we do without coffee-stirrers?   Certainly "looks the part" much more now IMHO  :-)

 

Not quite sure though what is going on here:-

 

the main part of the rod run heading towards point 4 should be continuous at the same level. Only the link piece to the crank should drop down to the lower level.

C87F811F-37F1-41BB-8FC4-26D92EED9B6A.jpeg.541e5313e71ec2ca65e9612e7d023966.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been a voyage of discovery! The Wills instructions don’t even touch details like this so it’s all valuable stuff.

 

However, is it worth my sanity to adjust it? Perhaps a job for a day when I’m feeling very patient!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.52f9e437004c75e7547a1993f3c5e7f4.png

Not quite the ideal image, but the nearest I could find without a vast amount of searching. You will have to try and 'flip' it in your mind!

Clearly with the run starting at a ground-level frame much closer to the point there would be no lead-away crank and probably only the one compensator.

Fortunately, being a GF rather than a SB installation, there is no need for lockbars on the FPLs, just a direct connection to the lock plunger (as you have at the moment).

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

Looks like I will have a lot to learn when I fit the point rodding runs to my layout. :D

 

If you can source a copy of The 2mm Scale Association Point Rodding book its an invaluable help ( usual disclaimers ).

 

G

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @bgman I do have a copy of that somewhere. I will have to dig it out and have another read. The engineering is easy enough, standard mechanical movement, but the way railway companies actually set everything out on the ground is what I need to understand.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.