OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[john dew]

45 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Thanks John, it’s being backdated to 1945 condition when still in wartime black.

Of course…..silly of me.   Now you are tempting me again….how difficult will it be to remove the lining?

[longchap]

2 hours ago, john dew said:

Hi Robin

 

I do agree with you about the service from DCC supplies. They were equally efficient when I ordered a plain door for myDapol Mogul.

 

Your large prairie looks great in that transition livery………I am seriously tempted…. but how many large prairies can one buy before it looks like an obsession?

 

I have to ask the reason for a plain door….I understood the smokebox numberplates were installed  at the sametime asthe paint job……is it to match a photo you have seen?

 

Best wishes

John, you know how many GWR railcars I have and I would never call it an obsession. Addiction needs to be fed, so just roll with it, as Granby can easily swallow up another prairie.

 

Bill

 

PS Rats! Heljan have just announced the parcels version.

[gwrrob]

2 hours ago, john dew said:

….how difficult will it be to remove the lining?

 

Good question.

[7007GreatWestern]

On 12/12/2021 at 11:42, Oldddudders said:

As modellers we have a fascination with crawling. On the real railway, real railwaymen don't want to crawl, they want to get the job done. The video showed a loco moving at less speed than it might, frankly. 

Buffering up to both carriages and wagons was and is always done at a crawl and requires great concentration and skill from the driver. Also, it should be remembered that goods trains in the steam era spent large amounts of time held at signals in running loops or refuges. Re-starting a heavy unfitted freight from a standing start demands a chassis capable of slow running, if you want your models to replicate reality. Whether the railwaymen 'wanted it' or not was irrelevant - it was determined by the signals and track occupancy.

 

Any cheap nasty 'toy train' can zoom around a layout at full pelt. The ability to run smoothly at low speed is the hallmark of a well designed and assembled chassis. That's why we 'have a fascination' with crawling....

[JST]

1 hour ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

Buffering up to both carriages and wagons was and is always done at a crawl and requires great concentration and skill from the driver. Also, it should be remembered that goods trains in the steam era spent large amounts of time held at signals in running loops or refuges. Re-starting a heavy unfitted freight from a standing start demands a chassis capable of slow running, if you want your models to replicate reality. Whether the railwaymen 'wanted it' or not was irrelevant - it was determined by the signals and track occupancy.

 

Any cheap nasty 'toy train' can zoom around a layout at full pelt. The ability to run smoothly at low speed is the hallmark of a well designed and assembled chassis. That's why we 'have a fascination' with crawling....

 

One particular bit of running trains I enjoy is coupling a loco up to a train without moving the coaches. If a loco can do that, it passes the "crawl" test.

[Coppercap]

1 hour ago, JST said:

 

One particular bit of running trains I enjoy is coupling a loco up to a train without moving the coaches. If a loco can do that, it passes the "crawl" test.

A certain previously mentioned YouTube reviewer commends locos that will crawl, then slams them back into coaches (or wagons), often moving them a scale couple of yards, then has it racing off at an unrealistic rate of acceleration...  

[boxbrownie]

12 hours ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

Buffering up to both carriages and wagons was and is always done at a crawl and requires great concentration and skill from the driver. Also, it should be remembered that goods trains in the steam era spent large amounts of time held at signals in running loops or refuges. Re-starting a heavy unfitted freight from a standing start demands a chassis capable of slow running, if you want your models to replicate reality. Whether the railwaymen 'wanted it' or not was irrelevant - it was determined by the signals and track occupancy.

 

Any cheap nasty 'toy train' can zoom around a layout at full pelt. The ability to run smoothly at low speed is the hallmark of a well designed and assembled chassis. That's why we 'have a fascination' with crawling....

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

[Oldddudders]

Realistic starting and stopping are unconnected with unreliable running through P&C.

[boxbrownie]

21 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Realistic starting and stopping are unconnected with unreliable running through P&C.

I don’t think anyone suggested it did, just the usual thread drift. 

[aaron3820]

On 12/12/2021 at 22:42, Oldddudders said:

As modellers we have a fascination with crawling. On the real railway, real railwaymen don't want to crawl, they want to get the job done. The video showed a loco moving at less speed than it might, frankly. 

How to say you’re not a driver without saying you’re not a driver 

[Oldddudders]

1 minute ago, aaron3820 said:

How to say you’re not a driver without saying you’re not a driver 

No, I was never a driver, but I did spend 38 years in the industry, at all levels. 

[7007GreatWestern]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Realistic starting and stopping are unconnected with unreliable running through P&C.

At the risk of sounding like Monty Python's fames 'Argument Sketch', the following is provided in a spirit of information sharing and friendly collaboration rather than contradicting Olddudders for contradiction's sake.....

 

I would argue that the ability to run at very slow speeds through pointwork is absolutely essential if model locomotives are to resemble real practise in the steam era.

 

Attached is a page from the Plymouth Division 'Appendices to the Service Timetable' for 1945. I thought it might be useful to select the sections pertaining to two of my favourite post-war GW layouts, Granby and 'A Nod to Brent' but sadly I couldn't find the information for Granby! So, attached is the relevant information for Brent. 

 

A perusal of the header of this document reveals the following instruction:-

 

"The speed of light engines or trains entering or leaving all Bay, Engine, Carriage, Avoiding Lines and Goods Loop Junctions must not exceed 10 miles per hour except where restricted to a lower speed in the following list or elsewhere."

 

I haven't seen too many model railways that don't have at least one Bay siding, Engine shed, Crossover or Goods Siding, so I respectfully stand by and expand upon my original point; The negotiation of pretty much all steam-era pointwork (excepting high speed Mainline junctions) requires slow, stable running and excellent electrical continuity.

 

Looking at the original video shared by Jenks465 of this parish his model is probably, if anything, exceeding that speed limit!

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by 7007GreatWestern
Change to attachment format

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

At the risk of sounding like Monty Python's fames 'Argument Sketch', the following is provided in a spirit of information sharing and friendly collaboration rather than contradicting Olddudders for contradiction's sake.....

 

I would argue that the ability to run at very slow speeds through pointwork is absolutely essential if model locomotives are to resemble real practise in the steam era.

 

Attached is a page from the Plymouth Division 'Appendices to the Service Timetable' for 1945. I thought it might be useful to select the sections pertaining to two of my favourite post-war GW layouts, Granby and 'A Nod to Brent' but sadly I couldn't find the information for Granby! So, attached is the relevant information for Brent. 

 

A perusal of the header of this document reveals the following instruction:-

 

"The speed of light engines or trains entering or leaving all Bay, Engine, Carriage, Avoiding Lines and Goods Loop Junctions must not exceed 10 miles per hour except where restricted to a lower speed in the following list or elsewhere."

 

I haven't seen too many model railways that don't have at least one Bay siding, Engine shed, Crossover or Goods Siding, so I respectfully stand by and expand upon my original point; The negotiation of pretty much all steam-era pointwork (excepting high speed Mainline junctions) requires slow, stable running and excellent electrical continuity.

 

Looking at the original video shared by Jenks465 of this parish his model is probably, if anything, exceeding that speed limit!

 

 

 

Fair comment but in 4mm scale 10mph converts to an actual speed of about 60mm/sec or nearly one 4-wheeled wagon per second, which I would not regard as a crawl.

[Jenks465]

10 hours ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

At the risk of sounding like Monty Python's fames 'Argument Sketch', the following is provided in a spirit of information sharing and friendly collaboration rather than contradicting Olddudders for contradiction's sake.....

 

I would argue that the ability to run at very slow speeds through pointwork is absolutely essential if model locomotives are to resemble real practise in the steam era.

 

Attached is a page from the Plymouth Division 'Appendices to the Service Timetable' for 1945. I thought it might be useful to select the sections pertaining to two of my favourite post-war GW layouts, Granby and 'A Nod to Brent' but sadly I couldn't find the information for Granby! So, attached is the relevant information for Brent. 

 

A perusal of the header of this document reveals the following instruction:-

 

"The speed of light engines or trains entering or leaving all Bay, Engine, Carriage, Avoiding Lines and Goods Loop Junctions must not exceed 10 miles per hour except where restricted to a lower speed in the following list or elsewhere."

 

I haven't seen too many model railways that don't have at least one Bay siding, Engine shed, Crossover or Goods Siding, so I respectfully stand by and expand upon my original point; The negotiation of pretty much all steam-era pointwork (excepting high speed Mainline junctions) requires slow, stable running and excellent electrical continuity.

 

Looking at the original video shared by Jenks465 of this parish his model is probably, if anything, exceeding that speed limit!

 

 

 

From the video I've got the loco covering the length of 2 medium radius points, 438mm, in roughly 8 seconds which by my calculation is a scale speed of around 9mph and it goes considerably slower than that if required.

[JST]

I have some fairly tortuous point work on my layout so am looking forward to testing all this out when my factory fitted sound version arrives. Sadly this does not like it will be before Xmas. Maybe Santa thinks I have been bad - fat judgemental barsteward!!!

[7007GreatWestern]

9 hours ago, Jenks465 said:

From the video I've got the loco covering the length of 2 medium radius points, 438mm, in roughly 8 seconds which by my calculation is a scale speed of around 9mph and it goes considerably slower than that if required.

My apologies Jenks465 for doubting your adherence to Company Regulations! 

 

On a serious note, the extract from the Working Timetable I uploaded implores "Inspectors, Signalmen and Others" to report any observed speeding though paintwork to their Divisional Superintendent or District Traffic Manager. Clearly the GWR took this very seriously indeed!!

 

I apologise for the thread drift and hope this was interesting and informative rather than inappropriate.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, 7007GreatWestern said:

My apologies Jenks465 for doubting your adherence to Company Regulations! 

 

On a serious note, the extract from the Working Timetable I uploaded implores "Inspectors, Signalmen and Others" to report any observed speeding though paintwork to their Divisional Superintendent or District Traffic Manager. Clearly the GWR took this very seriously indeed!!

 

I apologise for the thread drift and hope this was interesting and informative rather than inappropriate.

Meanwhile in the real world.  The 10mph was a standard restriction of speed through pointwork where a higher speed was not permitted but in the real world I bet it was observed as frequently, if not more so, in the breach than it was observed as it should have been because that was what I can remember seeing happening.  and why do you think the GWR wrote that?  - Simples because the important time for applying it would have been after something went wrong.

 

In the real world shunting was almost invariably carried out far more quickly than many modellers seem to think it was and in slow shunting only took place where particular restrictions such as short sifdings and entering buldings or places where men were working were involved.   The pace of most shunting would stagger anybody who never saw it happening - albeit in the diesel age my Shunters in one yard where I worked would shunt 70 wagons into several dozen different cuts over a dozen or so sidings without the movement ever coming to a stand until the whole lot had been knocked off; that was how shunting was done.   equally on occasion I had to pull one of my Shunters when I caught him loose shunting a coach - he was the unlucky one in some resects because I don't doubt that he had learnt the trick from his mates.  

 

As for buffering up against a train when attaching there were definitely some pretty hard thumps at times and of course on a model it is totally different because in most cases the vehicles the engine is attaching to are not being held in position so the attaching situation is rather different anyway (and needs a lot of care to do it without a thump or moving the unbraked vehicles.).   But attaching was in any case another area where the Rules tended to be observed in the breach in order to save time.  

 

BTW I'm not against really good slow running but don't run away with the idea that was what happened all the time in the real world because it didn't.

[Oldddudders]

On 11/01/2021 at 12:28, Oldddudders said:

I am baffled by the reports I have read on here. The Bachmann decoder for my 6364 finally arrived today, and I plugged it straight in. Concerned by tales of jack-rabbit starting, I altered no CVs, to see how it fared. On my DT602DE throttle at a setting of 5, it took 56 seconds to cover 12". Is that really so bad? 

I'm with Mike. As I posted earlier in this thread (above) re the 43xx I am happy to see that a loco can crawl, but there needs to be a reason for it to do so. Yes, stopping  20 feet or whatever from the stock before the shunter motions it forward to attach is prototypical, but it is a long time since I found an RTR DCC-fitted loco that wouldn't do that sort of move fairly well. And being of a Southern persuasion, I am also aware that when attaching EMUs the smaller portion is always attached to the larger, e.g. 4 onto 8, irrespective of which arrived in the platform first. 

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, Jenks465 said:

From the video I've got the loco covering the length of 2 medium radius points, 438mm, in roughly 8 seconds which by my calculation is a scale speed of around 9mph and it goes considerably slower than that if required.

That's fast. How about 103 secs to do that distance?

(My Hornby W1)

Edited December 17, 2021 by melmerby

[Jenks465]

23 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That's fast. How about 103 secs do that distance?

(My Hornby W1)

How about 200 secs? 

Apologies for the dodgy camera work but I lost the will to live after about 45 seconds!

[boxbrownie]

For a model kettle that’s very good, it appears a little coggy but might be eliminated by tuning the decoder, I say “for a model kettle” because none of mine have ever been as smooth at slow movements as any of my diesels, bizarrely that includes a Hornby 08, which is in essence the same chassis as an 0-6-0 kettle, oh tell a lie….just remembered my Rapido pannier is excellent on D.C., waiting for DCC decoder from Charlie at the moment.

[boxbrownie]

I should add really. I don’t think I’d ever try and run one that slow regardless…….I’d get bored too, as would the shunter waiting by the wagons. 

[Jenks465]

20 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I should add really. I don’t think I’d ever try and run one that slow regardless…….I’d get bored too, as would the shunter waiting by the wagons. 

Yeah, once was enough for one lifetime! I'm sure the shunter would have been less than happy that his time in the pub was being eaten into too.....

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

And being of a Southern persuasion, I am also aware that when attaching EMUs the smaller portion is always attached to the larger, e.g. 4 onto 8, irrespective of which arrived in the platform first. 

 I didn't know that! I thought that the rear unit(s) moved up to the front unit(s) because the motorman was already in the right place.

[The Johnster]

On 15/12/2021 at 20:29, 7007GreatWestern said:

Buffering up to both carriages and wagons was and is always done at a crawl and requires great concentration and skill from the driver. Also, it should be remembered that goods trains in the steam era spent large amounts of time held at signals in running loops or refuges. Re-starting a heavy unfitted freight from a standing start demands a chassis capable of slow running, if you want your models to replicate reality. Whether the railwaymen 'wanted it' or not was irrelevant - it was determined by the signals and track occupancy. 

 

Any cheap nasty 'toy train' can zoom around a layout at full pelt. The ability to run smoothly at low speed is the hallmark of a well designed and assembled chassis. That's why we 'have a fascination' with crawling....

 

What he said.

 

Of course, real railwaymen wanted to crack on and finish the job so that they could go home/up the pub/to the match/whatever, but very slow runing had to employed at certain times, for example propelling wagons into goods sheds which the driver could not see inside of and where men might be loading or unloading vehicles, or moving forward when pinning down brakes at the top of an incline.  Pickups shunting small goods yards where only the guard was doing the coupling, uncoupling, and changing the points was done at a speed appropriate to allowing him to get to the next place that he had to couple or uncouple or the next point he had to throw; going any faster was pointless. Another snail-racing situation was drawing up to an adverse signal with a loose-coupled freight; here, the game was to keep the train in motion, even at a very slow speed, and not to actually stop, as this took time and was harder work for the loco, and even at a snail's pace, it is easier to pull away when the signal clears.

 

I'd agree as well that some layouts at exhibitions overdo the crawling element, and I presume this is at least in part to show off the slow running capabilities of the models.  But, even if you don't drive your locos at dead slow speeds, an ability to crawl smoothly, and to start and stop smoothly, tranlates into a smoother and more realistic performance at whatever speed you do operate at.  My view FWIW is that good slow speed performance is A Good Thing under any circumstances, and most current RTR is capable of very good slow speed performance.  Not that it couldn't be improved further, but it is better now than it has ever been when you consider the very jerky and unpredictable performances of my younger days.  Motors, gear ratios, and pickups are all much improved and current RTR on well laid track with a hygiene regime is very reliable and as good as can be reasonably expected from volume produced models at the sort of prices the market will bear.  Modern model are much quieter than they old stagers as well, a sign of a well desigined and built mech.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by The Johnster