Great Southern Railway (Fictitious) - Signalling the changes...

[Skinnylinny]

The G6 is available to order to some people, yourself included for, ahem, testing.

 

But best to wait until my own and Linny's have arrived before ordering! There's been a few, ahem, issues.

We're also trying the model out in two different materials between us - Sir Eustace is going for the SLS Polyamide (a form of Nylon) while I'm trying the more expensive, but finer Resin (in the hope that it'll require less sanding and finishing!) to see how well the 3D model works in both materials.

[Regularity]

From what I can discern, date played some part in this, as confidence in FPLs and traps grew, both designers and the BoT became more comfortable with facing points used in this way, but some companies were definitely more particular than others.

 

I think date played a massive part. New construction, or reconstruction of an existing layout, required the layout to meet the current regulations and, to some extent, current regulatory thinking/preferences, but otherwise things may appear, at first sight, to be outdated, too simplistic, too restrictive, even too dangerous. The classic example us Ashburton, which had all the parts but not necessarily with the right degree of interconnectedness, but according to the GWR, the layout had not changed, other than the early addition of the siding backwards to Tucker’s Maltings (which provided a safety siding for the goods siding!) since the station was built, so even when they extended the loop as part of “maintaining” the permanent way (replacing bulk road with sleepers and chairs), they didn’t create a signal cabin with a fully interlocked frame.

And do you know what? No one died because of the lack. It simply wasn’t an intensive enough service.

[Nearholmer]

Even the early versions of the BoT Requirements were, I think, open to interpretation.

 

They talk about FPs being avoided ‘as far as possible’, which sounds almost absolute, a very high test, but from what I can work out that form of words was understood to mean something closer to what would be understood from ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ today.

 

The Inspectors seem to have been very commonsensical, so that the bar they set for ‘possible’ was different in different circumstances ...... it was a risk-proportionate approach, although perhaps not overtly declared as such. And, despite the word of the reguirements not changing, they clearly decided that the bar they set on ‘possible’ in this respect could move, because they recognised that trapping and FPLs were largely effective.

 

It would probably take an age of looking through approved layouts to work out how ‘hard’ their attitude was at the outset, and when it ‘softened’. An interesting exercise (for somebody else!) would be to look for instances of Inspectors refusing to give permission for opening of termini due to the presence of excessive deployment of FPs ...... I’d wager that there were very few.

[whart57]

Surely expected speed would have a part to play. Trains coming up to a terminus will have slowed down, the consequences of derailment or incorrect switching would be relatively minor. It's a different case at a passing station where a train at high speed hitting a wobbly facing point would be very serious indeed.

[Nearholmer]

Absolutely. That, I surmise, was part of the "risk proportionality".

 

Here is an interesting one: Eastbourne, in the mid 1870s.

 

This station coped with a lot of 'reversals', often in conjunction with splitting/uniting portions that were terminating from/to portions that were continuing to Hastings.

 

It appears (bit hard on my eyes!) to have facing connection into the goods yard and the ability to run into eith platform from the arrival road, and to depart from either platform.

 

It is very Victorian, with the carriage/run-round roads between the platform roads. As traffic grew, this was all swept away to fit more platforms into the space.

 

There was a nasty incident in 1872, while this layout was being installed, and interlocking was incomplete, where a departing passenger train was sent into the turntable pit. The report is on Railways Archive and has an interesting picture of the signal that was in use on the approach to the station.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Nearholmer

[whart57]

...

Edited March 6, 2018 by whart57

[Regularity]

Even the early versions of the BoT Requirements were, I think, open to interpretation.

They talk about FPs being avoided ‘as far as possible’, which sounds almost absolute, a very high test, but from what I can work out that form of words was understood to mean something closer to what would be understood from ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ today.

The Inspectors seem to have been very commonsensical, so that the bar they set for ‘possible’ was different in different circumstances ...... it was a risk-proportionate approach, although perhaps not overtly declared as such. And, despite the word of the reguirements not changing, they clearly decided that the bar they set on ‘possible’ in this respect could move, because they recognised that trapping and FPLs . were largely effective.

 

‘Risk-proportionality’ is the key here. As you say, as far as possible means reasonably practicable.

The proportionality would be relative to the traffic density and the smooth as well as safe operation of the station.

 

I think, though, that on a double track approach to a station, there would either be both facing and trailing crossovers (as a scissors or not) or if only one crossover, it would be trailing to most traffic flows: that is the sort of thing which creates the ‘backstory’.

It would probably take an age of looking through approved layouts to work out how ‘hard’ their attitude was at the outset, and when it ‘softened’. An interesting exercise (for somebody else!) would be to look for instances of Inspectors refusing to give permission for opening of termini due to the presence of excessive deployment of FPs ...... I’d wager that there were very few.

Wasn’t suggesting that track layouts be reviewed for that purpose, just to get a feel for the typical arrangements of the era.

Can’t imagine many instances of over use of FPLs: they add to the cost.

[Skinnylinny]

Ever think you might have bitten off more than you can chew? So I placed an order with Shapeways for a loco kit (of which more later), and as I was already going to be paying the shipping, I added a few extra little bits. Emphasis on the little. I wanted to see how things looked in the finer resolution materials, so what better than... a handful of T-gauge wagons, locos and a signal box in Frosted Ultra Detail!



While in the foreground, in Frosted Extreme Detail is... a model railway. Exquisitely printed, right down to the knobs on the control panel. Even the tunnels are see-through! Painting this, however, is going to be an... interesting challenge...

 

 

The main purpose of the order, however, was this Manning Wardle 2-4-0 from the Millwall Extension Railway, which comes with a lovely, detailed, 3D printed chassis. Printed in Frosted Ultra Detail, I'm delighted with this print as there's almost no fettling to be done to get a finish I'll be happy with. Fitting a motor inside it, however, that'll be a different story!

[Nearholmer]

The ghost of a beautiful engine!

 

Aren't these mega-fragile?

 

And, can the print be ordered in any scale, like 0, for instance?

 

K

Edited March 8, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Skinnylinny]

I've not yet managed to break any Frosted Ultra Detail models, though I have been fairly careful with them. The most vulnerable parts would seem to be the buffers and chimney. If/when necessary, the buffers could be easily snipped off and replaced with brass ones, and the chimney could relatively easily be drilled and re-glued with a bit of brass wire. I've certainly had more delicate models in the past!

[Skinnylinny]

Also, the person who designed this kit has also made it available in 7mm scale, although I believe it's a simple scale-up of the 4mm one, so I don't know if things like axle diameters will be correct. The 7mm version can be found here. 

[Nearholmer]

Thank you.

 

That is soooo tempting, although not exactly cheap in acrylic, which I guess might be needed for robustness.

 

That having been said, tiny locos look a bit weird, heavy-footed, with coarse wheels, so maybe that's how I should dissuade myself.

[Skinnylinny]

You say that, but what of the Bing Table Railway locos? A definite charm to them, even with their terrifyingly coarse wheels! Pic of mine included (with a brand new, Hornby H Class) just to be a bad influence... (Oh, and that's P4 track on my photo plank...)



There will be another few shots of the 2-4-0 (the new one!) later this evening once I've got a light dusting of primer on it to make it show up better...

Edited March 8, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Nearholmer]

Now, that's what you call wheels!

[Skinnylinny]

And also, based on the lettering (specifically the "&" in "L&NER"), not far out of the pre-grouping period for manufacture, either! Mid 1920s, I believe. 

[Nearholmer]

I think the very first ones came out in 1922, with pre-group lettering, but the electric versions came a couple of years later. Brighton Toy museum has what might be called a 'reference collection' of them, which is well worth a look if you are nearby any time.

[Skinnylinny]

It's a bit far from Edinburgh, but it is on my list of things to do when I occasionally venture down south. That and a chance to get into their Collectors' Market!

 

Given how many of the Pre-Grouping section of the forum seem to be down south, might it be worth trying to arrange a group day trip, possibly ending with a few drinks in a local establishment? It's at least right by the station to allow for trains home again!

Edited March 8, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Nearholmer]

There are some keen collectors in your neck of the woods, the editor of the TCS magazine, who is an authority on old Hornby, and probably the only person who really understands the history of Scotland's own model train maker, Bar Knight, for one. Don't know whether or not there is a regular 'vintage' event, though.

[Skinnylinny]

I'm not so much of a collector of the vintage Hornby stuff, but I'm starting a small collection of early '00' gauge models - I already have a Bing loco (£6! courtesy of an eBay auction ending at 3am where the seller had no idea what they were selling - it was listed as "toy train - O guage?"), a Trackmaster N2 (similar eBay find) and a few wagons (plus an oval of track), but unfortunately the Dublo clockwork A4 and coaches that I'm wanting are somewhat outside my price range just now!

 

It's certainly interesting putting the older models against new ones, although I have to admit being surprised that the wheels on my Trackmaster N2 run very happily through the 00-SF pointwork of my club's layouts. The flanges are very fine, especially as the wheels appear cast, with no turning at all!

[Skinnylinny]

So, as might have been predictable, I'm going to need some smaller brushes for the T and smaller stock. The Manning Wardle, on the other hand, has had a spray of primer, and is pictured here with a (gasp! Shock, horror! POST-grouping) Terrier for scale. It's only about 3/4 the length of the Terrier, and the boiler is far smaller. There is some evidence of layering, but mainly on the tank sides and bunker sides. The boiler is smooth enough that any ridges will disappear under hand-brushed paint. I'm quite tempted to give this little engine a slightly more ornate lining-out than the two already-complete GSR locos, but that'll have to wait until I've figured out a motor and gearbox to put inside it, and bought some wheels - payday next week! I'm not sure whether or not to retain what appears to be a Westinghouse pump on the right-hand side of the smokebox. Dual-fitting a loco this size seems unusual, but would allow it to work LB&SCR stock where required. Would LB&SCR NPCCS (horse boxes, milk vans and carriage trucks) have been Westinghouse-only, or through-piped if they were expected to run on other lines?

 

 

 

While waiting for primer to dry, I've been busy on the computer. See if anyone can guess what I'm working on to be next on the laser cutter? Here's your clue...

 

[Nearholmer]

That little loco is superb.

 

The whole process is so different, up to the stage you are now at, from conventional modelling, I’m still not quite sure I’ve got my head around the implications for our hobby.

[Skinnylinny]

I wish I could say I'd had anything more to do with it than opening the box and painting it - all the design was done by someone else. I'm assuming they had a motor and gearbox in mind, so have dropped them a message asking.

Meanwhile, this evening's drawing has got to this point, at which point it might be more recognisable...

 

[BlueLightning]

The manning Wardle is looking good! I'm looking forward to you working out what motor fits so I can copy you!!!!!

 

Would it be cheating for me to guess what your drawing is?? :jester:

 

Gary

[Skinnylinny]

After I told you on Twitter? Possibly... Although you did guess the builder and roughly what they were.

I'm drawing up laser-cuttable (and possibly also Silhouette-cutter-able for those who have them) Stroudley coaches. They're not perfect (the beading is a little overscale to stop it falling apart as soon as I lift it out of the laser cutter) but the overall dimensions and windows ought to be within about half-a-millimetre, so better than I could do by hand. I'm still working out ideas for chassis, and how to do the characteristic Stroudley lookout duckets on the D45 brake.

 

 

And here you can see roughly how I expect the bodyshells to go together.

 

 

The Manning Wardle's had its first coat of paint in GSR blue, although another coat is needed to bring out the richness of the blue. That, and 3d-printed bodies always seem to "drink" paint, needing far more than an equivalent injection-moulded piece for adequate coverage.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Nearholmer]

If you want to know how a real one goes together, a forme4 colleague of mine has one in his garden. He moved house, and decided that the tumbledown shed needed attention, and when he started to take it to pieces, it emerged, literally, that the core of it was a Stroudley coach. He and his daughter, with the aid of specialist woodworkers in places, have stabilised and partially restored it. It’s beyond restoration to use, but a remarkable thing nevertheless.

 

View of the inside of the guard’s compartment in here http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=16096

Edited March 10, 2018 by Nearholmer