Wright writes.....

[micknich2003]

1 hour ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Mick,

 

I think you missed my point.  Mechanical locking is only as good as the Signalman throwing the levers.  If a lever can be put back in the frame, before the correct moment, the locking is released.  Especially if there are no mechanical train detection bars on the approaches to the pointwork involved.  If the requirement to leave the Levers alone had been followed, the incident may not have happened.

 

Graham,

 

I believe it is correct.  In fact somewhere in the Sectional Appendix for Grantham, (back in steam days), there was an instruction that the Station Pilot could only assist a departing passenger train within the platform length.  I would suspect the restoring of the Signal to Danger before the train had completely passed the signal to prevent an Assisting Locomotive, entering the section, would have been in the Signalbox Instructions and Footplate Staff and Guards would be made aware as well, to prevent complaints being made.  Different times to now.

 

Paul

 

[robertcwp]

48 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Some of the cab control switching was not really intuitive. You throw some crossovers but you needed to learn which bits of track end up on which controller.

 

The twin moves you suggest would not be able to happen together as you are quite right, they would both need the Down Slow controller.

 

Platform 1 had a manual switch to select either the main or slow controller but Platform 3 didn't have the same facility.

 

Anybody who wants to start modifying the wiring to allow the move is much braver than me. Roy explained to me how he did it once and his idea of logic and mine are quite different!

 

There is still plenty of scope for simultaneous movements. One good one was through Pl 1 to the GC plus one on the the up main. We called that the "Red Arrows" move due to the way the trains would split away from each other, with the locos side by side through the platforms. Or there was my favourite, putting a goods on the down slow and running an express past it and bringing the goods back out behind it without stopping the goods. That requires great teamwork from South Box, North Box and Babworth and good speed judgement from the drivers but when it went right, it was superb to watch.

 

Another one was something coming round Whisker Hill curve onto the up main while another train went into Platform 1.

 

 

 

  

Thanks, Sandra and I pretty much managed a 'Red Arrows' move when we tried out the sequence with a freight going from the Queen's Boards to the up GC whilst being overtaken by a train on the up main. It did look good.

 

My own layout is analogue and any one of the six controllers can drive anywhere so the constraints of which controller does what on Retford are somewhat different. However, it's compensated for by not having to worry too much about section switches and it mostly works fine. I don't think anyone will be in a hurry to modify the wiring.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Some of the cab control switching was not really intuitive. You throw some crossovers but you needed to learn which bits of track end up on which controller.

 

The twin moves you suggest would not be able to happen together as you are quite right, they would both need the Down Slow controller.

 

Platform 1 had a manual switch to select either the main or slow controller but Platform 3 didn't have the same facility.

 

Anybody who wants to start modifying the wiring to allow the move is much braver than me. Roy explained to me how he did it once and his idea of logic and mine are quite different!

 

There is still plenty of scope for simultaneous movements. One good one was through Pl 1 to the GC plus one on the the up main. We called that the "Red Arrows" move due to the way the trains would split away from each other, with the locos side by side through the platforms. Or there was my favourite, putting a goods on the down slow and running an express past it and bringing the goods back out behind it without stopping the goods. That requires great teamwork from South Box, North Box and Babworth and good speed judgement from the drivers but when it went right, it was superb to watch.

 

Another one was something coming round Whisker Hill curve onto the up main while another train went into Platform 1.

 

 

 

  

Good afternoon Tony,

 

In all my many, many hours of trainspotting at the real Retford, I never witnessed the three different simultaneous moves you mention. In fact, it was quite rare for two trains (of any type) to be present in the station's precincts at the same time (there were respective Up and Down Leeds stoppers in the station at 4.30 in the afternoon, always both A1-hauled; and I did take a picture of a pair of Deltics passing each other at the north end, in 1965). In fact I never saw a train come off the GC and then take the Up fast. It must have happened, for the track layout allowed it and it was signalled, but all passenger trains from Whisker Hill stopped at Platform 1, even 'The Master Cutler'. It would be a freight then, but I know of none. 

 

Similarly, though I saw slower freights take the Down avoiding line, every one stopped, either at the station or at Babworth. Though the move, as you say, might be able to be done on the model, in real practice I'd think it would be next to impossible? Why? Almost by definition, the Down avoiding line would be used by a goods trains being put 'inside'. Any train overtaking it would be a faster service. Thus, for safety's sake, it would have to be way behind the slower service descending Gamston; meaning, by the time it arrived at Retford, the goods on the Down avoiding line would have to stop (unless it proceeded at walking pace on the avoiding line?). 

 

I must admit on none of the many occasions when I visited Roy's Retford did I ever operate it (I still don't; as you know, model railway operation holds little appeal to me). At times when just a few were visiting, the operation was sporadic, often running visiting locos (mine included). Roy rarely seemed to participate much. Even when there were 'open days', he didn't seem to bother, leaving its operation to others. Now, you'll probably think I'm having another 'pop' at Retford, but during all the 'open days' when I visited, Retford's operation was nothing I'd have tolerated, were I involved. There seemed to by fewer things happening than at the real place (and Retford had at least one 'dead hour' in its day). Observers would look, wait, turn away, then chat to each other or watch Blakeney or Black Lion (where things were happening). Even when things did run, there were often major clangers (sorry Andrew). On one occasion, an Up express was going full bore when it came to a dead stand on the crossing. The last movement had been a train on the GC and someone (everyone?) had forgotten to throw the appropriate switch. The express almost had enough momentum to just skid across. Roy's comments were unrepeatable! 

 

Though I know it goes against the principles of 'real' operation, why on such occasions were not a procession (a succession) of those wonderful trains just allowed to go round once, one after the other, all to delight viewers? Some operators (and I'm naming no names, but it's not you) didn't seem to have a clue.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[MJI]

Just running trains, is this different to operating?

 

I just like to watch them go by.

[Roger Sunderland]

Tony

I hope you will forgive me if I ask , through this thread, for some information on K3’s and their tenders.

I purchased an old Wills kit on EBay some time ago. Now it has needed a great deal of work to get it to anything like a K3, and I’m sure it still wouldn’t pass muster on here but it will be, to use your phrase, “ a layout loco” and, so far, I’m pleased with it. It will run on an LRM chassis that was originally under a K2. - much modified it runs well.

my home layout is set in West Yorks, early 60’s. K3’s were frequent visitors to the area.

I have purchased a new SEF 4200 gallon tender kit to go with the loco - frankly the old Wills one is pretty much unusable. Now both straight sides and flared sides are  provided. 
Question is which K3’s ran with a flared tender? Or did they swop tenders frequently?

Does anyone know which K3’s had flared tenders around the early 60’s?

I just need numbers as I have fairly comprehensive info on which locos appeared in the area at that time.

sorry, should have said, reason for preferring a flared tender is because the castings in the kit are far crisper than the straight sided ones.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

Just running trains, is this different to operating?

 

YES!

 

(but some extent it does depend on the layout )

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

Just running trains, is this different to operating?

 

I just like to watch them go by.

Yes, I think it is different. I see operating as working to a sequence and trying to be prototypical. Just running trains round, say on request, is something different. In my limited exposure to operating the layout so far, I have done both on Retford, as well as the third aspect, which is test running things. After altering trains, I normally give them several circuits to see if they remain on the track and run OK.  Perhaps a fourth angle is operating for video purposes, which was the reason for about six Tees-Tyne Pullmans in succession and a similar number of Talismans last Sunday on Retford.

[Andy Hayter]

I am not sure that it needs to b to a sequence - although clearly on layouts like these big ECML ones that makes sense - but it is important that each train is run with a purpose rather than just run because it looks nice/ I like the loco/ we haven't had a freight for a while.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

In all my many, many hours of trainspotting at the real Retford, I never witnessed the three different simultaneous moves you mention. In fact, it was quite rare for two trains (of any type) to be present in the station's precincts at the same time (there were respective Up and Down Leeds stoppers in the station at 4.30 in the afternoon, always both A1-hauled; and I did take a picture of a pair of Deltics passing each other at the north end, in 1965). In fact I never saw a train come off the GC and then take the Up fast. It must have happened, for the track layout allowed it and it was signalled, but all passenger trains from Whisker Hill stopped at Platform 1, even 'The Master Cutler'. It would be a freight then, but I know of none. 

 

Similarly, though I saw slower freights take the Down avoiding line, every one stopped, either at the station or at Babworth. Though the move, as you say, might be able to be done on the model, in real practice I'd think it would be next to impossible? Why? Almost by definition, the Down avoiding line would be used by a goods trains being put 'inside'. Any train overtaking it would be a faster service. Thus, for safety's sake, it would have to be way behind the slower service descending Gamston; meaning, by the time it arrived at Retford, the goods on the Down avoiding line would have to stop (unless it proceeded at walking pace on the avoiding line?). 

 

I must admit on none of the many occasions when I visited Roy's Retford did I ever operate it (I still don't; as you know, model railway operation holds little appeal to me). At times when just a few were visiting, the operation was sporadic, often running visiting locos (mine included). Roy rarely seemed to participate much. Even when there were 'open days', he didn't seem to bother, leaving its operation to others. Now, you'll probably think I'm having another 'pop' at Retford, but during all the 'open days' when I visited, Retford's operation was nothing I'd have tolerated, were I involved. There seemed to by fewer things happening than at the real place (and Retford had at least one 'dead hour' in its day). Observers would look, wait, turn away, then chat to each other or watch Blakeney or Black Lion (where things were happening). Even when things did run, there were often major clangers (sorry Andrew). On one occasion, an Up express was going full bore when it came to a dead stand on the crossing. The last movement had been a train on the GC and someone (everyone?) had forgotten to throw the appropriate switch. The express almost had enough momentum to just skid across. Roy's comments were unrepeatable! 

 

Though I know it goes against the principles of 'real' operation, why on such occasions were not a procession (a succession) of those wonderful trains just allowed to go round once, one after the other, all to delight viewers? Some operators (and I'm naming no names, but it's not you) didn't seem to have a clue.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

I agree with all you say Tony.

 

I found the running on Retford hugely frustrating and unsatisfying to the point where I stopped getting involved.

 

Part of the problem is that it is a huge expanse of layout with lots of track, points and sidings, most of which probably never got used. I once worked out that you could rationalise the track layout on the model to how the real thing is today and you could still operate exactly the same sequence as we used apart from the couple of moves on and off shed.

 

You have two options, you can model the procession of trains going round that happened in real life, with the gaps between them so that only one train is seen at a time, or you can try to make it more interesting by incorporating some moves that could have happened but maybe didn't and by having more than one thing happening at a time.

 

Neither approach is ideal but for somebody who likes operating, I much prefer the second option.

 

I tried very hard to have an influence on the way the layout was run but I was banging my head against a brick wall. I suggested practice sessions so that the people running the layout in front of people knew how it all worked but they never happened.

 

After one particularly dire running day, when Roy was very despondent, I ran the entire sequence of over 100 trains with me on North Box and Pete Hill on South Box in 3 hours. It had taken 7 hours on the running day. Pete and I were really on song that day and I don't like blowing my own trumpet (or our own trumpets) but I still think it was the best I ever saw the layout run. It just flowed and each move was ready to go either as, or before the previous one finished. Communication was a nod and a thumbs up and each of us was always ready for what the other was going to do next.

 

If it had run like that on a running day, or in front of you, then you would have a totally different view of how the layout can and does run.

 

That means, on the running day, there were 4 hours of un-necessary "nothing happening". Maybe prototypical but dull as dishwater on a model.

 

I had hoped that some lessons would have been learned but no, next time, the running day was hugely frustrating and took 7 hours with multiple operators having long discussions about what they should do next and how to do it.

 

That was the reason I declined further involvement in the running of the layout. I had tried to improve things and failed miserably!

 

It is a bit like when people come and see Buckingham. I usually let the visitors run the layout under supervision and guidance. The difference between the running in those circumstance and the running when it is me and one or more regular operators is very marked!

 

Tony

 

 

[stewartingram]

This was hinted at but not explained earlier in the context of signals back to danger - LC's at the end of platforms. I have never seen a crossing NOT closed to road traffic before a train comes into the station even if it stopping. And indeed, in some cases, terminating, when I have seen the gates closed, the train pull in (to a signal at danger anyway), then the gates opened to the road. Was there a rule, just in case there was a SPAD?

 

Stewart

[micknich2003]

Stewart, for Block Working, a level crossing is not an obstruction and a train may be brought to a stand at a protecting signal with the gates open  to road traffic. Conversely, a broken down road vehicle stood on the crossing becomes an obstruction. 

[stewartingram]

Thanks for that explanation. But, like I said, round our way in E.Anglia there are many LC at platform ends, and in my time since the 50s, I have never seen a train come into the platform without the gates being closed to road traffic - including terminating trains. I admit that I had assumed this a safety clause just in case of a SPAD.

 

Stewart

[Theakerr]

First, many thanks for all the responses to my signalling question.  Second, an even bigger thanks because it was actually the answer I was hoping for.   A little background, I have a DC automated fiddle yard built so that I can watch trains go by and want to synchronize my signals with the trains as they come into the layout room.   It will be relatively easy with this information because I will not have to set up new protocols associated with my Arduino controlled automatic station stop modules.   I know I can do all this with DCC but a) it would be a very expensive proposition, b) DC does everything I want it to and c) I like the challenge finding it keeps my brain active in my dotage.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Tony

I hope you will forgive me if I ask , through this thread, for some information on K3’s and their tenders.

I purchased an old Wills kit on EBay some time ago. Now it has needed a great deal of work to get it to anything like a K3, and I’m sure it still wouldn’t pass muster on here but it will be, to use your phrase, “ a layout loco” and, so far, I’m pleased with it. It will run on an LRM chassis that was originally under a K2. - much modified it runs well.

my home layout is set in West Yorks, early 60’s. K3’s were frequent visitors to the area.

I have purchased a new SEF 4200 gallon tender kit to go with the loco - frankly the old Wills one is pretty much unusable. Now both straight sides and flared sides are  provided. 
Question is which K3’s ran with a flared tender? Or did they swop tenders frequently?

Does anyone know which K3’s had flared tenders around the early 60’s?

I just need numbers as I have fairly comprehensive info on which locos appeared in the area at that time.

sorry, should have said, reason for preferring a flared tender is because the castings in the kit are far crisper than the straight sided ones.

Roger,

 

Like most classes with multiple members, K3s would have swopped tenders. 

 

Do you not have access to Yeadon's Volume Eight or the RCTS Part 6A in the green series? Though individual tenders are listed in neither, there are plenty of pictures. 

 

A brief glance through both shows numbers 61808, 61832, 61820, 61845 (RCTS), 61817, 61802, 61804, 61867, 61846, 61800, 61840, 61850 and 61823, all running with 4,200 GS flared tenders. Look at pictorial volumes and I'm sure you'll find others.

 

As yet there is no Book of the K3s from Irwell, but it's sure to be on the radar.

 

 

Here's one of my K3s (Anchorage), with a flared tender, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary. It was shedded at Gorton in 1959.

 

 

And a real 61835, at March, its home depot, in 1958. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Regarding sequence/timetable running on a model railway, in the case of Little Bytham it's a sequence. A sequence based on the appropriate PTTs and WTTs of the day. 

 

Many trains have been modelled (though probably less than a quarter of what actually ran) and each one runs once in the sequence. Obviously, many trains are missing (I don't have the space nor the time to build, say, two non-stop rakes, two 'Flying Scotsmans', two 'Queens of Scots', two 'Hearts of Midlothian' and so on....................)

 

In all there are about 60 train movements, and the whole thing takes about two and a half hours of great fun to complete. The nature of the line and the status of the station mean that most trains just fizz through at high speed (as I say, great fun), but that's what I prefer, anyway. 

 

Some time ago, I illustrated the complete sequence on here........................

[Barry Ten]

I've made a bit more progress on my S&D six-wheeled stock:

 

 

I haven't fitted the roof castings to the second vehicle, pending a rethink on which ones I should use for the full brake. The kit includes bits for both day and night running but I need to get my head around which part is appropriate for which. Although in general I'm very impressed by these kits, this is one area where a diagram would have been very helpful!

 

I've got two more to build, so I have to make a decision as to whether to press on while I've got all the tools out, and the assembly sequence is fresh in my mind, or take a break. So far they seem to take about a week of evenings to get to this stage.

 

Al

 

 

 

[richard i]

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Thanks for that explanation. But, like I said, round our way in E.Anglia there are many LC at platform ends, and in my time since the 50s, I have never seen a train come into the platform without the gates being closed to road traffic - including terminating trains. I admit that I had assumed this a safety clause just in case of a SPAD.

 

Stewart

Red cow crossing at Exeter st David’s, is open with trains in the platforms,  otherwise it would be permanently closed as there is always something in the station.

richard 

[Northmoor]

7 minutes ago, richard i said:

Red cow crossing at Exeter st David’s, is open with trains in the platforms,  otherwise it would be permanently closed as there is always something in the station.

richard 

If nothing is moving towards or approaching the crossing, there is no reason for the crossing to be closed to traffic.

 

Local to me is North Camp station which has a crossing at the end of the Northbound (Reading) platform.  If a train approaches in this direction (which all stop), the crossing is closed until the train has stopped.  Barriers then rise and those late for the train rush across from the other side.  Once the train is ready to leave, the barriers go down a second time for the train to pass before lifting again, so they close twice for a Northbound service.  This is probably why in the early 90s, the crossing was by-passed by a bridge!

[65179]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Roger,

 

Like most classes with multiple members, K3s would have swopped tenders. 

 

Do you not have access to Yeadon's Volume Eight or the RCTS Part 6A in the green series? Though individual tenders are listed in neither, there are plenty of pictures. 

 

A brief glance through both shows numbers 61808, 61832, 61820, 61845 (RCTS), 61817, 61802, 61804, 61867, 61846, 61800, 61840, 61850 and 61823, all running with 4,200 GS flared tenders. Look at pictorial volumes and I'm sure you'll find others.

 

As yet there is no Book of the K3s from Irwell, but it's sure to be on the radar.

 

 

Here's one of my K3s (Anchorage), with a flared tender, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary. It was shedded at Gorton in 1959.

 

 

And a real 61835, at March, its home depot, in 1958. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

If I read it correctly the RCTS Book suggests all or most of 61800-869 were built with flared tenders or received them as replacements for GN ones. There were swaps subsequently though, including with later numbered locos. In addition to the book approach suggested by Tony, websites such as Rail Online, Railphotoprints, Colour Rail, Transport Library etc are a good way of double-checking which tender the locos you know worked in W Yorks have the right combination of features at the right time.

 

61808 looks like a decent option for example:

 

https://railphotoprints.uk/p83237652/hC08E648

 

Simon

Edited June 5, 2021 by 65179

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, MJI said:

Just running trains, is this different to operating?

 

I just like to watch them go by.

 

7 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

YES!

 

(but some extent it does depend on the layout )

They are certainly different but neither is inherently "better" than the other. It's purely a matter of preference.

[Tony Wright]

Operation of model railways?

 

I don't think there's a 'right' way, though whichever is chosen, the layout must physically 'work'. By that I mean no derailments, no stuttering, no jerking, no dry joints, no trains separating when they should stay together, no shorts, etc, etc, etc............. Add on to that the fact that all operators (especially at exhibitions - remember those?) must know what they're doing, and one has enjoyment - both as an operator and/or as a spectator. 

 

A sequence usually means things are kept running continuously. This is 'impossible' with a timetable (run to actual time) because, even on busy main lines, there are 'gaps' between the trains. If these gaps are ignored, then it becomes more of a sequence. 

 

Though, in my experience, shunting takes place far too slowly on some layouts (the 'Jinties' at the real Chester didn't muck about crawling through the yards adjacent to Lightfoot Street), where buffering-up and coupling-up takes place, time has to be allowed for the wee shunter to perform his tasks. This slows things down. To the extent that, on large layouts, where a shunting move 'blocks' the through traffic, spectators (at a show) distant from what's happening, walk away. 'Nothing happening here!'. That's one of the reasons why the ironstone interchanges were abandoned on Charwelton.  

 

Stoke Summit just had a sequence. A sequence of 'just watch the trains go by'. They were many and frequent, but in 'real' time it was entirely unrealistic. A slow, unfitted northbound empties would  be allowed on to the main line to pass through Stoke Tunnel. Moments after it was parked in the fiddle yard (after its brake van had just emerged from the north portal), a Down express was roaring past Stoke 'box. What a prang would have ensued at High Dyke! Had the sequence been run to real time, there would have been few, if any, viewers. 

 

Even fewer viewers would have watched Moretonhampstead if a 'real time' timetable had been run. 'That's the 11.00 am service to Newton Abbot. Please return in three and a half hours to see it come back'. 

 

For 'home' operation, frequency of trains is not as important as at shows. Last month, LB was run for the first time since November last year. Yesterday afternoon, I changed most of the locos in readiness for the next session (not because of failures, but to ring the changes). I tested each one on its train and just let them run round, unattended, for several circuits each. I ducked and dived, observing each train from different viewing positions. I went back over 60 years! I wasn't operating, just looking. It was enough for me.  

Edited June 6, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[great central]

9 hours ago, richard i said:

Red cow crossing at Exeter st David’s, is open with trains in the platforms,  otherwise it would be permanently closed as there is always something in the station.

richard 

 

We almost always run into Attenborough station against a red signal with the barriers open, unless something is coming the other way. 

We then have to wait for the route proving to decide that there's enough clear track after the barriers have been lowered which usually means leaving late!

The only time this changes is during leaf fall season when the barriers are lowered and signals cleared before we arrive.

 

[jrg1]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Roger,

 

Like most classes with multiple members, K3s would have swopped tenders. 

 

Do you not have access to Yeadon's Volume Eight or the RCTS Part 6A in the green series? Though individual tenders are listed in neither, there are plenty of pictures. 

 

A brief glance through both shows numbers 61808, 61832, 61820, 61845 (RCTS), 61817, 61802, 61804, 61867, 61846, 61800, 61840, 61850 and 61823, all running with 4,200 GS flared tenders. Look at pictorial volumes and I'm sure you'll find others.

 

As yet there is no Book of the K3s from Irwell, but it's sure to be on the radar.

 

 

Here's one of my K3s (Anchorage), with a flared tender, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary. It was shedded at Gorton in 1959.

 

 

And a real 61835, at March, its home depot, in 1958. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

There were a number of K3s that ran with GNR tenders in BR days

[2750Papyrus]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I went back over 60 years! I wasn't operating, just looking. It was enough for me.  

Watching the trains go by......

 

Did Mo give you a bottle of pop and jam sandwiches?

[t-b-g]

There is certainly a big difference between operating to please a viewer and operating to keep the operator interested.

 

I have always believed that the best layouts satisfy both requirements.

 

It is possible, even with a tiny branch terminus, if you put some thought into it.

 

Train arrives, loco runs round, train leaves is easy but a bit dull.

 

Train arrives, loco runs round, detaches van from rear and puts it in the yard, then picks up horse box from dock and puts it on the front. Then the goods arrives in the loop, clearing the single track section for the passenger to depart.

 

It is those sorts of moves that make even little Leighton Buzzard a joy to watch or to operate. When we took it to shows, when I wasn't operating I would often just watch it to see how the person on the controls did the shunting. When I was operating, I didn't feel that I needed a break but came off so somebody else could have a turn. I never got bored for one moment and I enjoyed exhibiting it probably more than any other layout. Some people would watch it for an hour or more and then come back for a second look.

 

When I went out a few times with Gresley Beat, we had huge crowds round and it was a real show stopper but I found it boring to operate. Send one round. Send another one round. Repeat.

 

It is up to each of us to decide what gives us pleasure in the hobby and the variety is what makes it so fascinating to me. What people have chosen to build and why can be just as interesting as what techniques they have used.