Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Having now sent off the application form, I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss the planning process for Wheal Imogen, carrying on from my initial blog post here.  Anyway I will launch this thread with an extract of the key details from the entry form.

 

Layout Name: Wheal Imogen

 

Location: Cornwall

 

Period: 1987

 

Scale: 4mm / P4

 

Size: Approximately 5ft by 2ft scenic wedge, with

 

Inspiration: The layout is inspired by the smaller china clay branches which survived in operation until the end of the 1980s.  In particular the branch to Ponts Mill, with a flavouring of Carbis Wharf thrown in. 

 

Track: Will be fully hand built using a mixture of plastic and ply sleepers along with Exactoscale chairs.  All track will be designed in Templot.

 

Stock: Is a mixture of DCC fitted RTR locos (Bachmann Class 37s and Peaks, Hornby Class 08s and 50s) along with a mix of detailed RTR and kit built freight stock.  All of which appropriate for the modelled year.  There will be a capability to eventually expand the running stock to operate in 1984, 1987 and 1996 due to the relatively minor differences in the structures between these dates.)

 

Details: The centre piece of the layout will be the clay driers, incorporating an automated top loader for loading hopper wagons and an area intended for loading bagged clay into vans.  To maximise the operating capabilities a second structure containing a clay slurry loading pump will form an additional spur.  Other ancillary buildings will complete the scene, along with a canal running along the front of the layout between the siding / through line and the yard.

 

Presentation: While the final form of how best to present the layout is still rather up in the air (pending the final decision on the track plan and its associated impact on the shape of the boards).  The intention is to use an integrated curved front fascia matching  the curve of the canal / branch track.  This in turn would also support the lighting rig.  The back scene will feature a sweeping curve blending in the corners and the transition into the wedge shape. 

 

Rough Sketch of the track plan

post-54-0-17383200-1492850707.png  

This is not to scale, and the alignment between the yard and the through line needs a lot of work.  I think this is more of an ideal situation which will need to be adjusted due to the constraints of space.  The site is intended to be located at the bottom of a valley (again following the prototype of Ponts Mill) thus explaining the compact nature of the works. 

 

On Monday I fly out to Sevilla for the week.  I will be bringing the Templot laptop will be coming with me, with the intention of trying out a few options of different track plans in the evenings after work.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks a great project and something I will keep an eye on

 

As for plastic or ply timbers, with a small layout I would advise using one or another but not a mixture

 

The best results in my opinion is for stained ply timbers and chairs with keys in them, however I have seen excellent results where plastic sleepers and chairs have been wonderfully painted, and the joints between plastic chairs and Plastic sleepers/timbers are far stronger that plastic to ply

 

If you are thinking along the plastic sleeper/timber route if you keep your turnouts to a standard design then you could use the Exactoscale turnout bases, which do actually save a lot of time. The same can also be said of ply turnout frets if going down the ply sleepers/timbers route, so a bit of food for thought whilst planning

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Rather than make the long walk into central Sevilla, this evening I have stayed in the hotel with a copy of Templot for company.   The result: four different iterations of my track plan to mull over, and a few issues identified in terms of the layout size.

 

Starting with the issues, the problem (as I had anticipated) is fitting in a satisfactory track plan without too much compression.  In short there is no way I can achieve what I want to model in 4ft of length without completely loosing the connection between the branch and the works, and also probably having to loose the bridge over the river as well.  As a result I think I will need to increase the length by between 12 and 18inches (depending on which is the final option chosen.  Now this is fractionally too long for my car (but looking at the internet it will fit in what is most likely to be my next car due later in the year).  

 

The bigger issue is storage, Brent is designed with support legs with a 4ft spacing between them to maximise storage under the layout.  The plan was that this layout would be stored in one of those 4ft gaps, increasing the length then causes real headaches as to how to store the layout.  One possibility might be rejigging the rest of the storage units, along with thinning the board for Wheal Imogen.  This will mean that the layout can be slid under Brent end on through the garage door.  The other option is to split the layout into two halfs (circa 3ft each) and store in the currently identified location.  The latter is probably the better option, but it will require the purchase of a laser cut baseboard kit which will be a lot of added expense that I havent budgeted for.  (I am lousy at woodwork, and the idea of making the layout fascia span a baseboard joint is just too big an issue.)

 

The final length issue was regarding the point between the branchline and the yard, in that I just couldnt fit it onto the layout without causing too much compression in the yard.   The solution was to chop off 3/4 of the point and only model up to about an inch past the vee.  This had the added benefit of enabling a much tighter vee angle without causing any issues.  the remaining two thirds will be resolved using clever cassette design, with the branch cassette having a different angle to the ones for the yard (essentially having two different straight tracks exiting the board at the same point.)  Im much happier with this work given it can easily be knocked up with the band saw at the club...

 

One of the problems of trying to do this sort of design work in a different country to all of your stock, is you cant pick up a loco to measure it.  After a trawl of the internet I have identified the Class 50 as the longest loco the head shunt needs to accommodate (which according to Wikipedia works out to be around 275mm).  Wagons are a bit more tricky, my plan is for the sidings to be able to accommodate 2 clay tigers or 2 pollybulks, for which I have used a working assumption of 200mm per wagon. 

 

Moving onto the plans:

 

Version 1

post-54-0-23798800-1493067510_thumb.jpg

This is laid out pretty much as I had originally planned.  The biggest downside is the amount of wasted space between the branch and the yard, in turn this leads to a need for a much wider baseboard on the left hand side (at least 2ft6 maybe 3ft).  There is a possibility to reduce the curvature of the branch to mitigate this somewhat.

 

Version 2

post-54-0-79816700-1493067511_thumb.jpg

Takes version 1 and rotates to better fit the baseboard, the branch has a much more pronounced curve.  The biggest drawback here is that the slurry loading shed is now right in the middle of the main loading area, blocking the view. 

 

Version 3

post-54-0-18086500-1493067513_thumb.jpg

One thought with V1 / V2 was that the runaround loop was probably the wrong way round.  Initially I tried to enable the longest area of straight track to be on the side of the drier / loader, but this would mean after running around the whole train would have to back up onto the branch, before shunting back into the loading area.  In this adjustment the wagons will already be in the right place, so just the loco has to shunt back onto the branch.

 

Version 4

post-54-0-63973800-1493067514_thumb.jpg

The final plan aims to resolve the obstruction in  front of the drier by shifting the slurry loading building to the back of the layout.  this does however result in a necessary change to my initial plans for the drier building.  It also leaves a very big gap towards the front of the layout, which would be filled by both a realignment of the curves, coupled with road loading infrastructure (with Ponts Mill again an inspiration).  The concept would work equally well with either formation for the runaround loop.

 

Finally there is Version 5

post-54-0-12645700-1493068598_thumb.jpg

This is more of a very rough concept thought up mid way through writing this post.  As with V4 the slurry loader is relocated to the rear of the layout, but this time I have left the original siding in position as well.  This would either end up being used for loading pallets of clay, or maybe sublet for Calcified Seaweed traffic (I believe there was seaweed traffic very near to one of the works).  I quite like this option, and will be drawing it up properly tomorrow (rather than copy and paste existing curves in paint).  I do wonder if perhaps it will end up looking like there is just a bit too much track however, something to test on a mock up.

 

Running wise, given the passenger service will be very infrequent and the branch is in single loco operation.  I assume that it will be ok (from an opperations perspective) for a loco plus 6 wagons to arrive at the works, uncouple the first two wagons (leaving the rest on the branch) and run  into the works before running around the train and shunting under the loader.  Once loaded, it would deposit the two loaded wagons onto the left hand side of the branch before repeating the process for the rest of the wagons.  It would then couple up to the full rake and head back up the line?

Its a bit of a moot point at the moment as I only have 2 tigers in one livery, and given the price of Bachmann pollybulks (if you can find them) will not be able to fund more than 2 of them.)  but for Slurry I do have a larger number, likewise for hoods / CDAs....

Alternately would they just trip the wagons in quantities up to the limit of the works, and just run multiple trips if the demand is higher than the number of wagons which will fit in the loop at one time? 

 

 

 

Edited by The Fatadder
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be a FY at each end for the branch ?

If so, by separating the two tracks exiting to the right, you could employ a shuttle unit to run the branch passenger train , leaving the clay sidings to be manually controlled.

This also allows the branch trackbed to be slightly lower, if desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

AT the moment the intention is that both lines on the right hand side exit at the same point (if the layout was another foot in length that point would be modelled) so as attractive as it sounds to get that shuttle running, at present it would clash with the yard exit.

 

If the operation mentioned above for dealing with longer trains is not prototypicaly plausable it's certainly an idea I will revisit.

 

Likewise given the increase in length over the original plan, if I go down the route of having a split in the middle, a further length increase to 6ft 6 wouldn't be an issue. This could then get the branch point included. (That said, for now I am still tending to the 5 ft option.)

 

One other consideration is playing with the canal location to see if I can move the bridge slightly to the left (and also move the road bridge over the first yard point rather than the branch point) thus reducing the length and introducing full separation between yard and branch.

I think versions 6 and 7 are coming tomorrow...

Link to post
Share on other sites

V1 & 2 allow wagons to be left being loaded whilst the empties are removed.

 

Start: wagons in dryer siding

Train of empties arrives in loop, loco detatches, reverses , then pulls full wagons from siding and pushes into headshunt.

Empties are the pulled out of loop and pushed into dryer sidings, loco then collects full wagons and departs.

 

V3 etc prevent this as the h/shunt is also the dryer siding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At a cursory glance V4 looks "railway", though the extra siding in V5 could be handy for storing loaded wagons in, prior to departure as part of a full load.

Edited by LBRJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that there is anything wrong with having the slurry filler blocking the view. Having it doing so will open up focused viewing opportunities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I don't think that there is anything wrong with having the slurry filler blocking the view. Having it doing so will open up focused viewing opportunities.

My other thought I'd I go with option 5 is adding a second covered loading dock over the lower siding (no sides)

 

I will also look at editing v2/3 to see if I can shift the shed further towards the right hand end of the drier

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm, have you ever thought of a double slip for the point at leading to the siding at the very top of the layout diagram?  That way, on arrival you could propell a couple of wagons into that upon arrival?  Plus you could hold a shunter on site too, if required.  There was a clay terminal with a similar set up, but with normal points (not possible in your area).

 

Regards,

 

C.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

It has been a while since I had a proper look at the challenge, but with a weekend away stopping me from working on Brent (along with a spike of interest in "modern image" has got me thinking again.

 

I have come up with 3 more potential options which have been roughly sketched out in Templot today. 

 

post-54-0-11259800-1508607115_thumb.png

V7 

 

post-54-0-49853400-1508607119_thumb.png

V8

 

Both work on the same principle, switching the order of buildings around and loosing the canal which was requiring significant extra length and width.  V7 attempts to stick to my initial 5ft length (with V7-b shrinking it further by only modelling the first 2 inches of the covered area and hence shifting 1ft of runaround loop off scene.  

 

V8 extends the length to 6ft (the absolute maximum I can work on) and also increases the width to 2ft at one end (again the maximum I can fit).   Again there are two variants V8-a (shown) which includes a double slip and a headshunt (which given the fun I have had with OO slips scares the hell out of me) and V8-b which looses the headshunt and replaces the slip with a normal point.  The slip is intended to give space to shunt from the yard into the slurry shed, and also give the potential to have a works shunter (all be it far fetched).

 

The idea in both is that the area behind the works is long enough to hide a DMU (either a pacer in the 80s or various 15x in the 190s).  I am also thinking that there would be an increasing incline across the whole branch (with an increasing embankment).  Thinking similar to the entrance to the Ponts Mill branch. 

 

I have an 8ft by 2ft baseboard in the loft which will be chopped to size and reformed to get a 6ft length.  I am going to be short of track and rail (which will need some loco sales to fund without impacting Brent) so need to be 100% sure before I get going.  So the plan is going to be printing off some of the track plans and then doing some paper trainset running (with the paper either set up on the workbench in the house or on Brent's fiddleyard.  The other key task is to clear enough room under Brent for it to live...

 

I have also dug out some photos of potential buildings, 

post-54-0-32607300-1508607124.jpg

Ignoring the awful colour (it never did get the bricks painting properly) the idea is that I will build the other half of this building and then reclad it in SE Finecast random stone.  Along with adding the covered shed over the far end (length one VDA) and a second cover (as per Ponts Mill) which covers a top loader for Tigers / Polybulks.  

 

I also have these two buildings (again in part relief) post-54-0-73260800-1508607109.jpg,

With the latest V7/V8 these will not work (even if I was to make them full depth I think they would be too large to fit between the yard track and the branchline.  That said, there is potential to use one of them (again with additional detail) in the foreground as a partial scenic brake (maybe on the left hand side instead of the road bridge).  Something else to play with on the baseboard with the print outs. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

A slight follow up to the last post re the Slip. I didn't realise that the latest version of Templot is able to produce slips at a touch of a button (which is brilliant!)  So it didn't take very long to get V8 redrawn with the slip drawn into place (using the diamond on intersection command as a start point and then convert to double slip.)

 

The only slight down side is it looks like it requires even more length to really pull it off (as the headshunt would need to be reasonably long).  It leaves two options, the first is to have the headshunt pass under the bridge and have most of it off scene, while the second is to increase the length to the full 2m limit.  If I was building the layout with no limitations, I would be inclined to go with the latter (though if I was doing that I would go to 10ft and start the layout 1ft before the point between yard and branch).   But Given the conditions of the competition, coupled with the need to keep this project small and relatively simple, I think its probably time to consign the slip idea to the bin and go back to a simpler design.  

 

 

There is a potential V9 in the works as well, which does away with the run around in the yard (either moving it onto the approach off scene or going to a full Ponts Mill style propelling move with brake van).   This should enable the layout to get back down to something resembling the original 4ft by 18inch specification, all be it at a cost of operational interest..... now added below

 

post-54-0-77856700-1508621255_thumb.png

 

Preferences / feedback is much welcomed...

Edited by The Fatadder
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

So after printing out the V8 Templot plan I have been completing a bit of testing to see how it looks.  The first option places the works in the initial planned location, along with a large box which is approximately the footprint of the slurry shed and another box in the place of the bridge.  I think it works quite well, although there is not nearly enough space between the yard and the branch line.   The test shows that there is plenty of room for a 2 car 158 to be completely hidden behind the works (which is one of the big plus points), but it would need the curve deepening to give the visual impression that the line is disappearing behind the works (rather than crashing through the middle of it).  To aid this impression I mocked up a second building to the right of the loading area (so you only see the branch for a short length) giving a glimpse of a unit passing through  the gaps between buildings.    Although not shown in the photos this can also be partially achieved by moving the branch back by 1 inch and adding an additional siding with the slurry loader at the back of the layout (and having the front siding for storage or loading vans).   The mug on the lower left hand side is a place holder for the large hopper building (Ponts Mill)

 

post-54-0-41329700-1508708663_thumb.jpg

post-54-0-03483100-1508708667_thumb.jpg

post-54-0-51146400-1508708669_thumb.jpg

One of the key tests was the run around loop and works, the latter will take 2 clay tigers for loading at one time, while the run around loop will take 3 tigers (needing some shunting to do the final wagon, or to take a slurry tank to the loader)

post-54-0-64387900-1508708672_thumb.jpg

 

The other option not shown here is to return to the original concept, bringing the branch line back to the front of the baseboard.  This was simply achieved by flipping the works over to the other side of the tracks (although in practice I would also probably alter the facing of the crossover).   The now rear siding was shortened and has the slurry shed, while there is also space between the branch and the works into which the river could be added or alternatively so could the additional siding.  

post-54-0-17738300-1508708676_thumb.jpg

post-54-0-84781100-1508708678_thumb.jpg

 

In all the cases I have been playing with the length.  I have roughly drawn up the plan to cover the whole area from the branch line into the works, the idea being that should it be finished and exhibited there is some scope for the layout to develop over time to include an extension to cover the rest of the works.  I have currently three length options in place at circa 4ft, 5ft and 6ft in length.   With each step change reducing length, another point is removed and replaced with an off scene traverser / cassette fiddleyard.  Again there could be a good call to go with the 4ft version as phase one, potentially following up with a 2ft initial expansion and then in the long term then adding the remaining 2ft to get to the branch..... 

 

All of this has lead me to think about how I will manage the scenic brake.  If going with the flipped plan, there will be a need to disguise the branch disappearing on its own at one end.  Here I think the only option is to play with trees to mask the hole.   At the other end in both options (and all lengths) there are two options, use the stereotypical bridge (either road or rail) or to try and use other buildings.  While  I like the idea of using buildings to obstruct the line of sight, it will be tricky (especially with the 4ft option) as there will be 3 + 1 tracks running off the board.  a 4 inch gap would take some work to hide....  That said, if I do go down the bridge route it would need to be removed should the extension happen as I would want the bridge shifted to the far right of the layout.   One option I have been giving some though is to go down the bridge route, but have it completely on the fiddleyard board (so the scenery continues an inch or two behind the facia panel onto the fiddleyard board). This way I get my bridge but it can be removed without any damage to the main board.   I do quite like the rail bridge idea, especially as there were a few works for which the approach track passed under the mainline.  To explain the lack of movement my thought tends towards either an engineers possession or better still a HST which has failed and a crowd of people surrounding it in high vis vests etc....  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

The last plan in the post above this one works for me - Definitely the through running branch to the front IMO

I am starting to come to the same conclusion, much as I like the idea of the dry hiding the fiddleyard on the alternative option. The front branch gives a better view of the running (whereas the alternate results in only about 18inches of visibility once the buildings for scenic brakes are in place.

 

Tomorrow I hope to get the 4ft baseboard down to see how it looks, more and more I’m tending towards the shorter length... I want to try a few options with different sight lines.

 

I have also loooked at incorporating one of my favourite buildings (pinched from Goonbarrow) I’m not sure what it was for with the two large cylinders out the front, but my modelmjist needs gutters and window frames to finish off (along with weathering). It should fit nicely along the back scene to the side of main dry.

 

Finally I still need to find the basic building for the slurry shed, typically I think it’s at my parents house in Devon... it was originally a pikestuff one road engine shed that has been detailed and rebuilt. It just needs the necessary platforms ansnpipesmadding inside

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you back in the late 80s Cornwall Rich! I've added this to my 'follow' list.

 

One thing I'd add (if you are considering it as an exhibition layout) is consider now how everything will pack up to transport. Two boards that pack together might be better than one?

 

Looking forward to watching your progress.

 

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Good to see you back in the late 80s Cornwall Rich! I've added this to my 'follow' list.

 

One thing I'd add (if you are considering it as an exhibition layout) is consider now how everything will pack up to transport. Two boards that pack together might be better than one?

 

Looking forward to watching your progress.

 

Guy

Thanks for reading

 

The plan at the moment is that the baseboard will be integral with its backscene on 3 sides and its fascia forming a box approximately 4ft by 2ft by 2ft.  For storage and transport the intention is that additional panels will be bolted onto the top and front to get a 4 by 2 crate.  I think this should be manageable by one person, plus has the added benefit that the layout is safe when is stored on the floor under Brent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Last night I made the final changes to the track plan, I have settled on another iteration of the front facing design shown on the 22nd October which adds an additional siding to the lower side of the runaround loop and increases the spacing between the yard and works in order to maintain enough clearance to fit in the river.  

It leaves two questions:

The first is with respect to the points on the run around loop, do you have the head shunt next to the building or away from it (the former means that the empty wagons are in the correct track when the loco runs around, the latter means that a wagon can be left in the works for loading while the loco runs around.

 

The second question is with respect to the slurry loading point.  Again there are multiple options here, both in location (between the two sidings) and in method, either an old style uncovered point (examples at Parr and the original at Blackpool, or in a purpose built shed (the new example at Blackpool.)  I have given some thought to the possibility of making it interchangeable on the same concrete pad so that the revised shed is only used once the modern bulk wagons are introduced.  In reality I think the slurry point is rather overkill for such a small works (unless it evolves into a small section of a larger works), however from an operational point of view it adds to much extra interest to omit.   This is where the card mockups should come into their own, to help work out which option looks better to the viewer.

 

I have also completed an inventory of all the stock available for use on Wheal Imogen, which I will post separately... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Last night I made a start on clearing the workshop to free up bench space in order to start doing some mock ups of the remaining buildings and bridges in order to see how it all fits on the layout.  In particular regarding the slurry loader and the bridge.

 

In order to do this several stock boxes needed to be reorganised, in the process I decided to start an inventory as to exactly what is available for the layout (and more importantly what needs to be done in order to finish it off).

 

Mid 1980s

post-54-0-59845200-1509019651_thumb.jpg

37235: Weathered BR Blue,  Model currently has an OO chassis, requires screwlinks fitting and needs confirmation as to whether it is decoder fitted (my suspicion is that it is not). 

post-54-0-42880900-1509019670_thumb.jpg

37207 William Cooksworthy: Cornish Railways Blue P4, model is fitted with scale couplings and DCC sound (which I am still very undecided about).  It has damage to one buffer at each end which will need to be replaced.

blogentry-54-0-11682900-1524350417_thumb

37196 Tre Pol & Pen: Incomplete detailing job, it still needs to be fitted with new etched nose grills, etched windscreens, P4 wheels and DCC plus respraying into Large Logo grey.  

post-54-0-05116200-1509019659_thumb.jpg

50007 Sir Edward Elgar: In GWR 150 livery, needs DCC and rewheeling (due to failed Gibson wheels) Model is also missing an etched number on one side and needs the damage caused by removing the NRN roof pods touching in / roof weathering.

post-54-0-54089600-1509019679_thumb.jpg

45072: BR Blue livery, Ultrascale P4 conversion, DCC installed, just needs a coupling fitting at one end and weathering.

blogentry-54-0-69910900-1524432579_thumb

50002 Superb: Large Logo Blue (black roof), P4, couplings, needs DCC,  resprayed Hornby / Extreme Etchings 

<Photo tbc>

50037 Implacable: Large Logo Blue (grey roof), P4, couplings, DCC, weathered.

 

Class 142: To be finished in chocolate and cream Skipper, will also need a new chassis building.   It’s the only unit I have suitable for the earliest period having long since sold my old 108 Power twin.  The alternative is to run a DMU substitute loco hauled service…

 

Finally there are a couple more Class 50s in Large Logo in storage in Devon, I just cant remember exactly which 50s I have sold and which I kept hold of.  My hope is the only one I parted with was Hood, but I have a feeling one or other of my weathered ones may have gone as well…

 

Stock

Stock wise there is a box of clay hoods (half of which are finished)  along with a handful of vans, slurry is covered off with a handful of ex Bowaters TTAs as repurposed by ECC / STS (although they all require walkways which still need to be etched!)

 

 

Late 1980s

post-54-0-53621000-1509019653_thumb.jpg

37673 Railfreight Distribution, P4, believed to be DCC fitted, needs a coat of varnish to hide marks from the removal of the old names and scale couplings fitting.

post-54-0-15361100-1509019669_thumb.jpg

37412 Large Logo Blue, P4, again believed to be DCC fitted but needs scale couplings fitting.

post-54-0-25475300-1509019672_thumb.jpg

37675 William Cooksworthy Railfreight Red Stripe  livery, P4, needs to be fitted with DCC, scale couplings plus minor paint repairs / varnish and glazing the front windows.  Now fitted with glazing

post-54-0-38417700-1509019677_thumb.jpg

50149 Defiant  Railfreight General, DCC fitted, P4 (but with poor quality Gibson wheels that have failed on 3 axles).  Need to either re-wheel with Branchlines wheels or consolidate the useable Gibsons from other locos to get one good one. 

 

For Passenger workings on the branch it is again very limited without buying more stock,  I have a Lima 101 in NSE (but I think they were not around until circa ’90) and the potentially rebuilt pacer.  More thought will definitely be needed here, though one option is to just run the branch as freight only when running in 1980s mode.

 

Dual Period locos: 37196 just about crosses into the earlier part of this period, and 50007 is fully usable.  As I think is the peak.

 

Additional locos currently in storage:

Again there are more Class 50s (including Dauntless in early NSE and Dreadnaught in revised NSE.)   

 

 

 

Stock:

When running in 1980s condition the idea is to have a transition through the day from early to late 80s.  So the ’87 – ’89 period will start with clay hoods and move towards CDAs (I have a copy of a brilliant photo somewhere of a service train of hoods hauled by 37673 in RFD livery).  Slurry wise I need some of the more modern TTA based wagons, along with the interdiction of the bullets.  I also have a pair of 1980s Clay Tigers.  Other than the small slurry tanks, the other omission is the polybulk.  I really need to source a couple of them!

 

Late 1990s

post-54-0-66241400-1509019656_thumb.jpg

37667 Meldon Quarry Centenary EWS, Fitted with DCC, P4 wheels and couplings, it needs repairs to a damaged buffer at one end. 

 

37670 St Blazey Church EWS weathered, P4, DCC fitted  but needs  to be fitted with couplings.

post-54-0-71560600-1509019673_thumb.jpg

37672 Transrail, P4, believe to be DCC fitted but needs couplings

post-54-0-25578600-1518737148_thumb.jpeg

37521 English China Clay, Needs P4/DCC/Couplings + needs to be fitted with nameplates 

 

60026 EW&S, P4, DCC fitted, Couplings fitted.

 

60007 Loadhaul, Needs to have wheels and decoder transferred from 60081 which is out of period and needs to go into the display case.  Also needs bogie repairs after a fall.

post-54-0-58236200-1509019675_thumb.jpg

47709 Fraggonset, ViTrains repaint, P4 fitted with DCC and couplings.  Not the most useful, but a plausible loco hired in at the last minute.

 

Passenger:

Passenger workings for the branch are a lot better served for the late 90s. 

 

Class 150 Regional Railways, The powercar needs converting to P4/DCC (and for that matter needs the huge chassis block removing),  A long time back  I started work improving the detailing of the windows with the Jim Smith-Wright etches and Shawplan Laserglaze.  The window frames were all removed in preparation but the replacements not fitted.  I am hopeful that I have enough etches in a serviceable condition to do one side (they are spread over several scrap boxes) 

post-54-0-51988900-1509019681_thumb.jpg

Class 153 Regional Railways, P4/DCC,  needs a repair to the snow plough at one end.

 

Class 158 I thought I had a Wales and West example, but now thinking I may have sold it due to the prototype being painted too late…  I have enough chassis for 2 sets (at least one of which is P4), a respray or rebody into Regional Railways would be a cheap way to increase the fleet.

 

Class 159 Onto the slightly more far fetched, but a further option is to crack out the SWT branded NSE 159.  There were of course some summer services by SWT into Plymouth (and I think beyond), so not completely implausible.

 

Freight

Again the Hornby CDA should form the bulk of the fleet, I am thinking that a lot will be finished with 1980s logos / OHLE on one side and 1998 on the other.  If I remember rightly it was after 2000 that CDAs started receiving EWS red frames / covers.   Again there are a pair of Clay Tigers in late 90s livery, silver bullets for the slurry and plenty of VGA / Cargowaggons for bagged clay.  Again the only real omission is the Pollybulk.

Edited by The Fatadder
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is great watching this develop :)

 

The SWT class 159s did work all the way through to Penzance on a Saturday evening and then back up to Waterloo at Sunday lunchtime. so not too unfeasible as you say.

 

The CDA did loose the ECC branding in 2000 after the Imerys takeover - Very possibly because Imerys did not want their company logo plastered over such items!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for the 159 confirmation, will definitely be adding those. I’ve now found detail photos of 8 CDAs in 1998 all of which are missing the logos, so I will have one formation in 1988 with light weathering and ECC logos and a second set in 1998 condition with the large grey patches covering the logos.

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.