Beginners Timesaver - 1930's Scotland

[aardvark]

I would though suggest that the BR era remains the most achievable.

 

 

I think I agree with Sulzer above, that BR might be more easily acheived.

 

I am beginning to understand the wisdom of this suggestion.

 

For Banff, Ian Futer talks about D40's, D41's and "earlier types" (whatever they are), plus 2MT's in the 1950s.

 

Just before reading your replies, I discovered http://www.brdatabase.info, and was having a look at the depot at Keith, which I am guessing supplied the locos for Banff.   At nationalisation, BRDatabase says Keith also had B12's, a B1 and a G5.  In 1955, this was extended to include McIntosh Standards and 3F's, Gresley K2's and a Reid C15.  Of course, I have no idea which of these would have graced the platform at Banff (actually Banff Harbour until 1964), so further research is required.

 

But I begin to understand that moving the date gives me more options to model.  Currently, the only option for a D41 is a Worsley kit - and I can find nothing for D40's (although to my eye they look remarkably similar to the D41's).  I'm pretty sure that at least some of the other classes of locos are available in RTR, which satisfies my desire to get something moving sometime in 2016.  After that, I can try my hand at a loco kit.

 

Question: is there anywhere on-line to find LNER allocation information?  BRDatabase only has post-nationalisation info.

[uax6]

Nucast used to do a kit for the D41, now although its not available off the shelf any more, if you speak to Dave at South Eastern Finecast, he will spin you the body for it. The moulds may not be brilliant, but he will supply the best castings he can get from them. For the Chassis, have a word with Brian at Branchlines. Again he may not have the whole lot, but he certainly should have the main frames (which are also the same as the HR Small Ben.), I'm not sure if he will have coupling rods, he didn't for my Ben, but he may have had more time to sort though the stuff he and Dave got from Autocomm.

 

Dave at SEF will also spin spare parts for you as well....

 

This whitemetal kit will be easier to put together than a fully etched kit, and you may find that you can fit it to a rtr chassis (if you can find one the right size, although I find if you use a mashima and a Branchlines gearbox (50 or 60:1) with a flywheel, you will get a very nice running chassis quite easily.

 

Doing a quick google image search has given me three photos showing: a D40 or 41, an Ivatt 2-6-0 and an Ivatt 2-6-2T (or could be a 2-6-4T).

 

Andy G

 

Edit the 2-6-0's appear to be 78053 and 78054... see herehttps://www.railscot.co.uk/locationnew.php?photographer=&loc=Banff&offset=0)

[sulzer27jd]

I have no idea which of these would have graced the platform at Banff (actually Banff Harbour until 1964), so further research is required.

 

Currently, the only option for a D41 is a Worsley kit - and I can find nothing for D40's (although to my eye they look remarkably similar to the D41's).  I'm pretty sure that at least some of the other classes of locos are available in RTR, which satisfies my desire to get something moving sometime in 2016.  After that, I can try my hand at a loco kit.

 

 Banff lost the 'Harbour' suffix in 1928. The North Platform road did actually lead all the way down to the harbour quay.

 

There is a PDK kit for the D40 and it does go together very well. If you are considering this, then do ask for the boiler to be pre-rolled as that will make life very much easier. Worsley do kits in 3mm for both the V and the S class (below) but these could potentially be produced in 4mm, however they do come without castings, so might not be an easy option.

 

The D41's were the LNER class from the GNSR S class and T class engines. They were 6'1" 4-4-0's and had an open cab 

The D40's were the GNSR V and F classes, also 6'1" 4-4-0's, with an enclosed cab. 

 

The GNSR classes differentiated between the slight variations in batches and just to confuse matter the boilers from the S,T and V's were all interchangeable. There was also a variation over time in the length of the smokebox, which leads to some identifiable differences between locos within the same class. The main dimensions between all were very similar and these classes were the main power on the GNSR until after grouping when the LNER drafted in the B12's. 

 

Banff was a very quiet branch and it wouldn't take much stock to model it, the 2-6-0's suggested above would be ideal and use could also be made of the 4MT version, or an ex-LMS 2P (Hornby), or ex-Caledonian 0-4-4T (DJH). The main drawback with Banff would however be the lack of run round at the terminus. Gravity shunting being required. An alternative might be Macduff, little more than a stones through across the River Deveron. 

 

Perhaps the best option might be to create a fictitious location in the Aberdeenshire/Moray area and use what you can from the R-T-R options to build a local atmosphere. That's what I did with Claterinbrigg (link below) even though my GNSR stock is not yet available.

[pH]

The main drawback with Banff would however be the lack of run round at the terminus. Gravity shunting being required.

 

Greenock MRC's "Inverboyndie" is based on Banff, and includes gravity shunting -

[aardvark]

Christmas has been and gone, along with family and friends.  Time to respond to people's comments.  Thanks to everyone that has contributed - keep those cards and letters coming

 

I question wether you need to go DCC on this. For a small branch layout I cannot see any reason why you need to go to the expensive of the chips and controllers, when DC will give you all you need...

 

DC or DCC:that is the question.

 

In the beginning, writing software for a living caused me to consider an automated Timesaver, with a computer solving the puzzle, moving the loco around, setting the points, coupling and de-coupling wagon, all through DCC.  A bit of research led me to understand that this would be insanely difficult to achieve, so the rationale for DCC is less clear and the decision yet to be made.  One thing is for sure, I really would prefer to only do one of these.

 

 

Nucast used to do a kit for the D41, now although its not available off the shelf any more, if you speak to Dave at South Eastern Finecast, he will spin you the body for it. The moulds may not be brilliant, but he will supply the best castings he can get from them. For the Chassis, have a word with Brian at Branchlines. Again he may not have the whole lot, but he certainly should have the main frames (which are also the same as the HR Small Ben.), I'm not sure if he will have coupling rods, he didn't for my Ben, but he may have had more time to sort though the stuff he and Dave got from Autocomm.

 

Thanks Andy.  I knew about the Nu-cast kit, and that SEF had taken them on, but didn't see this one in the catalog.  I would never have thought about actually talking to them.  What a truly great idea!

 

 

 Banff lost the 'Harbour' suffix in 1928. The North Platform road did actually lead all the way down to the harbour quay.

 

There is a PDK kit for the D40 and it does go together very well. If you are considering this, then do ask for the boiler to be pre-rolled as that will make life very much easier. Worsley do kits in 3mm for both the V and the S class (below) but these could potentially be produced in 4mm, however they do come without castings, so might not be an easy option.

 

The D41's were the LNER class from the GNSR S class and T class engines. They were 6'1" 4-4-0's and had an open cab 

The D40's were the GNSR V and F classes, also 6'1" 4-4-0's, with an enclosed cab. 

 

The GNSR classes differentiated between the slight variations in batches and just to confuse matter the boilers from the S,T and V's were all interchangeable. There was also a variation over time in the length of the smokebox, which leads to some identifiable differences between locos within the same class. The main dimensions between all were very similar and these classes were the main power on the GNSR until after grouping when the LNER drafted in the B12's. 

 

Banff was a very quiet branch and it wouldn't take much stock to model it, the 2-6-0's suggested above would be ideal and use could also be made of the 4MT version, or an ex-LMS 2P (Hornby), or ex-Caledonian 0-4-4T (DJH). The main drawback with Banff would however be the lack of run round at the terminus. Gravity shunting being required. An alternative might be Macduff, little more than a stones through across the River Deveron. 

 

Perhaps the best option might be to create a fictitious location in the Aberdeenshire/Moray area and use what you can from the R-T-R options to build a local atmosphere. That's what I did with Claterinbrigg (link below) even though my GNSR stock is not yet available.

 

Don't know how I got the Banff name change date wrong,  1964 was when it ceased passenger services.  As you say, 1928 is the correct date.

 

I also can't believe that I forgot about the PDK kit (its on the GNSRA list), and I am really happy to take your word that it will go together easily.  Certainly sounds easier for everyone concerned than annoying the fine people at SEF for a one-off special.  I an sure it would be good enough for the likes of me.  Definite plan here.

 

Thanks also for the info about the D40/D41 differences and similarities - this is most helpful.

 

 

Greenock MRC's "Inverboyndie" is based on Banff, and includes gravity shunting -

 

Yes, I read about Inverboyndie and their gravity shunting - impressive stuff, no doubt.  I don't imagine I will be tackling anything quite that adventurous just yet.  One day perhaps, after tackling many of the other issue with this choice of location.  Keep in mind that I've only recently take up this sport, and yet built anything.

 

If I was going to create a fictitious location, as they did with Inverboyndie, then I might just consider adding a run-around to the Banff passenger platform and calling it Banffish  Adding a (non-prototypical) station pilot might be a better solution - at least the layout would be unaffected - presuming I can identify a suitable little loco.  A Pug would probably do - it's just a shame that the Hornby model is such a toy.  Research is obviously required here.

 

If I go with a station pilot, then that would be two locos on the one (small) layout, so maybe DCC would be appropriate after all.  Being able to handle DCC-controlled de-couplers on the locos would be a nice feature to avoid the hand-of-God when shunting.

[Merc435]

Banff did originally have a run round on the Platform road, but it was lifted quite early in the 20th Century. The only other run round loop was in the Goods yard. 

[aardvark]

Banff did originally have a run round on the Platform road, but it was lifted quite early in the 20th Century. The only other run round loop was in the Goods yard. 

 

Awesome - I hadn't heard/read that anywhere.  Can you point me at any maps etc?  If I'm going to cheat by adding a passenger run-around, I might at least cheat accurately

 

Ian Futer notes that they had a small turntable that was removed in the 1900's, but no mention of a passenger run-around.

[sulzer27jd]

Can you point me at any maps etc? 

 

Ian Futer notes that they had a small turntable that was removed in the 1900's, but no mention of a passenger run-around.

 

Likewise I would welcome some evidence of the run-round.

 

There was a major re-design of the layout at the turn of the century, with entrance to the shed being made from the branch side, rather than from the platform. The turntable is still shown of the 1929 mapping. A new signal box, with interlocking, was put in place in 1900. This likely ties in with the relaying of the station.

[Merc435]

Aardvark, I can't find the article I read on Banff having a passenger side run round loop. I did a fair bit of research into the station for the articles on the layout. It may have been the True line that carried the original article.

 

I'll keep looking though.

[aardvark]

Appreciate your efforts, Merc435.

[aardvark]

I've decided to split this thread.

 

Readers will have noted that there has been precious few posts about the Timesaver layout - all the chat is about Banff.  The problem with the Timesaver is that I have elected to use the yet-to-be-release Bachmann J72, and until I get one and some wagons and some Kadee connectors and figure out how long it all is, I can't finalise the trackplan.  So everything has ground to a halt (was that a pun?).

 

It was a definite newbie mistake to believe that it would be available when the manufacturer said. I now see that it hasn't even made CAD yet, so it would seem that there is considerable waiting to come.  I guess I have learnt something already

 

All discussion about Banff can now be found on my new thread: Beginners OO 1950's Banff.

 

Here's hoping that that thread will move at a better pace ...