Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Yikes - I hope that last prototype picture in post #2872 was taken after the station was closed (looks like the platforms have gone). That signal in the background looks to be a replacement for the one I'm making and is of a different design!

 

The telegraph pole looks magnificent (if such a structure can possibly be given such an epithet?) and a timely reminder that proprietary products that should be approached with caution...

Don't worry Graham, it was. It was taken in 1972, after most of the connecting trackwork had been removed - slows to fasts, slips to the goods yard, etc. 

 

I think the Down slow splitter was replaced after the station was closed in 1959. The one you're making was there at least until the summer of 1959, but pictures I've got taken post-'60 show the plate and angle replacement, rather than the lattice bracket of your construction. Unfortunately, because of copyright, I cannot post those Noel Ingram pictures. The very tall Up home repeaters on the fast and slow lines also went at about the same time, to be replaced by a short semaphore and colour light. Both the very tall Down home and Up starter on the fasts were removed by 1963, after the MR/M&GNR overbridge had gone. 

[Grovenor]

 

If I'd made it in the 'conventional' way, would it have looked 'right'? I doubt it.

No, but no less wrong than it looks now! Unfortunately no-one makes any models of terminal insulators on their brackets so far as I know and making them in bulk would be a nightmare job.

Regards

Keith

[Mallard60022]

Don't worry Graham, it was. It was taken in 1972, after most of the connecting trackwork had been removed - slows to fasts, slips to the goods yard, etc. 

 

I think the Down slow splitter was replaced after the station was closed in 1959. The one you're making was there at least until the summer of 1959, but pictures I've got taken post-'60 show the plate and angle replacement, rather than the lattice bracket of your construction. Unfortunately, because of copyright, I cannot post those Noel Ingram pictures. The very tall Up home repeaters on the fast and slow lines also went at about the same time, to be replaced by a short semaphore and colour light. Both the very tall Down home and Up starter on the fasts were removed by 1963, after the MR/M&GNR overbridge had gone. 

Oh yes, the nightmare that is/can be signal 'alterations'. I have recently discovered this 'entertaining' activity that is designed to catch us out yet again. It is especially annoying if it happens during one's chosen operational period (e.g. 1958 - 1964 in my case). I do hope LB does not have to put up with such nonsense. I think you are modelling a 'short period of time' are you not Tony?

This little 'annoyance' is something I will probably have to live with (that is some lower quads replacing some upper quads and changes in arm design) My OCD gene will be twitching horribly no doubt! 

Phil 

[Tony Wright]

Oh yes, the nightmare that is/can be signal 'alterations'. I have recently discovered this 'entertaining' activity that is designed to catch us out yet again. It is especially annoying if it happens during one's chosen operational period (e.g. 1958 - 1964 in my case). I do hope LB does not have to put up with such nonsense. I think you are modelling a 'short period of time' are you not Tony?

This little 'annoyance' is something I will probably have to live with (that is some lower quads replacing some upper quads and changes in arm design) My OCD gene will be twitching horribly no doubt! 

Phil 

Thanks Phil,

 

Yes, I am (with enormous help) attempting to model Little Bytham in 'a short period of time', the summer of 1958 (the last full year when the station was still open and so was the MR/M&GNR) bit. As such, the signal mentioned will be the 'original' style with the lattice bracket. I'm a bit more flexible in terms of time with what I operate on occasions. I run production 'Deltics' sometimes when guests are present, and German-blinkered A3s; because I like them. But, all the layout will be, as far as we can make it, 'correct' for the summer of 1958. 

 

I think you (the generic 'you') can drive yourself nuts in attempting to get everything right. I've always advocated modelling a prototype (always will) and have always been cautious of trying to get too much in to too small a space. The prototype point is especially true of signals. Where should they go? How many? What distance apart? - and so on. Too much selective compression can result in signals placed far too close together. In fact, other than in stations or junctions where there is more than one 'box, I don't believe most model railway layouts should include distant signals. Little Bytham's distants, for instance, are way off scene, on both railways. I've seen some recent model railways in the press where signals are sited without the slightest knowledge of prototype practice. Even the great Allan Downes sited a splitting distant on his layout to stand in front of a brown barn. 'Because the yellow fishtails complemented the barn's colour' I was told. The fact that there was no junction or splitting home signals in the distance, nor two adjacent running lines for there to be a splitting distant was irrelevant!

 

Taking the prototype modelling point a little further, may I return to the subject of the prominent telegraph pole? My grateful thanks to all those who've commented, and for the constructive and objective criticisms. I like that - that way I learn. On some threads, all I seem to find is swooning and fawning at the latest piece of jaw-dropping wonderment. It's as is if any 'constructive criticism' is seen as heresy, sending the builder/s into a right state. I invite constructive criticism, and I encourage it. With great help I'm getting nearer to making Little Bytham as 'realistic' as I (we) can possibly achieve, but it's still compromised. On Wednesday, Roy Jackson visited with his grandson and 'Buccaneer' John. Someone once cited Little Bytham in the same breath as Reford. That is palpable nonsense in my view. Though Roy has more help now, that fantastic railway in its earlier stages was all his own work. Mine is much more the work of others. So much so that, because I've knackered the switches on one of the Fulgarex motors (drilling holes for THAT telegraph pole) and can't fix it myself (even though I did most of the general wiring), it's going to need a return visit from Mr Solomon to sort it out. I've looked, but it's beyond me. Mistakes can be costly! Seriously, this is where the modeller who can really do things for himself/herself is much more to be congratulated in my view. It's too much of a hostage-to-fortune situation otherwise, though the stock is not a problem for me.

 

To return to THAT pole........... Apologies for including the picture immediately below again, but it does look as if the insulators are below the cross rails.

 

 

 

Though I can't replicate exactly the same view (note how much closer the trees are on the model), the pole gives a 'nearer' look to the real thing than if I'd mounted the insulators above the rails, or at least it does to me. Of course, by making dozens of swan-neck fittings it might be dead on, but it's one of so many yet to be made.

 

 

Whether it's right or wrong, it's big, as illustrated by this view of 60533 HAPPY KNIGHT bowling by on a Down fast freight.

 

 

 

It's also prominent in this shot of 60506 WOLF OF BADENOCH heading a Down express. Yes, my attempt at this pole is compromised and probably inaccurate. But it does look a bit more like the real thing, to me, than if the insulators were on top. 

 

But, that's for others to decide. Constructive criticisms awaited, please. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Paul Cram]

Whilst I agree with you that the insulators appear to be below the cross pieces the ones on the model look too large and prominent. I think it is this that makes it look wrong. Could they be filed down which may be better than making the correct swan necks?

[Andy Y]

 

To return to THAT pole........... Apologies for including the picture immediately below again, but it does look as if the insulators are below the cross rails.

 

 

Now I've had chance to look up a reference site what I think you're seeing is a view from below (on the blind-side) of the arrangement shown in the 4th and 5th pictures on this page - http://teleramics.com/inuse/inuse2005.html - where the insulators are mounted away from the pole on a U-shaped bracket.

[The Stationmaster]

I think that what is going on is what can be seen on the right hand end of a couple of the cross arms (2nd -5th down from the top) where the 'U' shape can be clearly seen.  I think that the insulators on the other side of the pole are similarly mounted and the angle of view causes the bottom of the insulators to be visible as well as the 'U' shaped brackets.

 

The brackets are actually called 'J' bolts and are illustrated below although a version was also available which could be bolted directly to the wooden cross arm

 

 

 

[stewartingram]

Surely the insulators are designed, to be just that? Turn them upside down, and rainwater would collect, with the electrical consequences to follow. They must be on brackets.

 

Stewart

Edited October 31, 2014 by stewartingram

[Tony Wright]

Surely the insulators are designed, to be just that? Turn them upside down, and rainwater would collect, with the electrical consequences to follow. They must be on brackets.

 

Stewart

I'm sure you're right, and my conclusion that the insulators were fitted upside down was fatuous to say the least. However, the effect, though they are a bit over-scale looks more like the prototype picture to me, so I'll live with it for now. Unless I live long enough to make all those 'U'-shaped brackets!

 

But, many thanks for your observations, and to everyone else. 

[Tony Wright]

Whilst I agree with you that the insulators appear to be below the cross pieces the ones on the model look too large and prominent. I think it is this that makes it look wrong. Could they be filed down which may be better than making the correct swan necks?

Paul,

 

Thanks - it's a possibility.......................

[bluebottle]

. . . . . . . . . . 

I've seen some recent model railways in the press where signals are sited without the slightest knowledge of prototype practice. Even the great Allan Downes sited a splitting distant on his layout stand in front of a brown barn. 'Because the yellow fishtails complemented the barn's colour' I was told. The fact that there was no junction or splitting home signals in the distance, nor two adjacent running lines for there to be a splitting distant was irrelevant!

. . . . . . . . . .

 

This kind of “off the wall” stuff is a large part of the charm of Allan's writings. One is reminded of “The Hitch Hiker's guide to the Galaxy”: 'Though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong.'

[raymw]

So, you don't use photoshop as a tool? Why all the frothing when you can see what's what? (post #2880). It would be easy, if you were bothered to make up some swan-necks and insulators to represent the real thing. Now you know it's wrong, you'll have to do something  

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[DougN]

Crazy question here, did the pole have a guy wire? I recall in the deep recesses of my mind, that there is a fair bit of tension and weight in all those wires hence a guy wire to balance the load on the pole. (Umm. Second year uni '94, cable stayed structures)

 

TW I think you pole looks like it matches the photos. Be happy with it and run some more trains!

[Donington Road]

Now I've had chance to look up a reference site what I think you're seeing is a view from below (on the blind-side) of the arrangement shown in the 4th and 5th pictures on this page - http://teleramics.com/inuse/inuse2005.html - where the insulators are mounted away from the pole on a U-shaped bracket.

 

Spot on Andy.  It is a terminal pole where the wires are all brought down to the signal box.  The insulators are indeed on 'J' brackets.  The photographer's position of being behind and looking up renders the insulators as partially hidden by the cross rails.

[raymw]

There is a stay wire, visible in the image shown. Wake up at the back, there.

[DougN]

Fair call Ray, it is early on a Saturday morning here!

[Tony Wright]

So, you don't use photoshop as a tool? Why all the frothing when you can see what's what? (post #2880). It would be easy, if you were bothered to make up some swan-necks and insulators to represent the real thing. Now you know it's wrong, you'll have to do something

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Thanks Ray,

 

Your mastery of Photoshop is far more than mine, and I thus don't have the ability to do what you do. I love your use of 'It would be easy, if you were bothered to make up some swan-necks to represent the real thing'. I count over 70 swan-necks on that pole, and the one the other side is probably fitted with close to a hundred. Easy? perhaps if I were to make just one, but over 170, not to mention the dozen other poles? Yes, I now know it's wrong, but I'm not sure what the something is I'll do about it. Putting the insulators the right way up won't work visually either, because they'll be above the cross rails, rather than, apparently, below.

Run more trains, as suggested by one wise poster, and live with the discrepancy. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Tony. 

[raymw]

Hi Tony,

 

Not much mastery required, Irfan view will do the job. Just a quick selection, zoom, and fiddle with the contrast, gamma, whatever, until you can see the details a bit clearer. You can use it  to see underframe detail, and other dark areas, even in poor quality images scanned in from a book, or the 'Oxford rails advert thing'. You're not after a quality to print, you are after enhancing a local area to see what is going on.

 

To make the swan necks, I think I'd start with plastic cross-arms. Then, use a round rod, or one to a better shape, and wrap a close 'spring' of wire around it. Cut the wires with a fine saw along the length of the former, or just grind away one side, to give a number of loops. Use a soldering iron, or other heat source to melt the loops into the cross-arms. For insulators, either push on short lengths of fine plastic tube, or a dab of glue. If steel wire was used, and white plastic tube, it would not need painting. Thin piano wire - once heated, will cool to a rusty black colour. It will take time, but you'll be pleased you've done it.  After you've made one or two, you'll design a machine to do it for you!

 

Start off with just a few poles, where you'll be taking your photos.

 

I'm guessing you'll put in point rods and signal levers, etc., so you'll need to keep a consistent standard, which means can't have an 'in your face' pole incorrectly modelled. You will always see it, you won't see errors in the number of rivets on a moving loco.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[westerner]

As Tony has often said Little Bytham is an amalgam of work from various Modellers. I presume Ray that you could add to Little Bytham and make all the poles and correctly mounted insulators for him?

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Tony,

I like your upside down insulators! I think they look much more approximate than right way up.

In response to your request for (constructive) criticism, I would make your pole more than twice as thick and there really ought to be a end cap on the top to throw off water, preventing it from seeping into the end grain of the wood.

If I wasn't quite so busy right now, I'd be happy to follow Ray's advice and make my contribution in return for say, a pint at the local!!!

Cheers,

John.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

I like your upside down insulators! I think they look much more approximate than right way up.

In response to your request for (constructive) criticism, I would make your pole more than twice as thick and there really ought to be a end cap on the top to throw off water, preventing it from seeping into the end grain of the wood.

If I wasn't quite so busy right now, I'd be happy to follow Ray's advice and make my contribution in return for say, a pint at the local!!!

Cheers,

John.

Thanks John,

 

The end cap is on the 'to do' list. As for making the pole thicker, I did start with a thicker brass piece but it looked too thick. I think the trick will be to wrap some thin paper round it to increase its girth. It will probably give a better impression of 'wood'.

 

I think Ray is being a bit 'optimistic' in his thinking on how to make the swan-necks and insulators. Optimistic in terms of time in my view. Though it's poor form to reiterate, even with my dodgy maths I counted 76 swan-neck insulators on that pole. The other one opposite has at least 90, maybe over 100 (the picture is a bit too blurred to be sure). How long would it take to make all those? Perhaps he could explain how I'd 'design a machine to do it for me'. May I request that he makes a 'prototype' device, showing how he'd do it, takes pictures of the procedures and posts them here? Please don't think me flippant, but I'm sure it would be of interest (it would to me). I've never seen swan-neck insulators modelled before, in any scale. Most layouts, even those built to the finest standards, just sport proprietary telegraph posts, some not even altered. I know one of the Biggleswade crew built a huge telegraph post for that layout, adjacent to the North Box. I don't think it had swan-neck insulators, but it had umpteen cross-rails of different lengths and angles. It tended to get broken during track-cleaning, so it might have been made of plastic. The builder was still twitching months after it was finished!

 

There are at least ten other multi-rail poles with a vast array of differences to contemplate on the west side of the layout. At the moment, these are represented by Ratio poles made into 12-cross rail configurations, but they don't accommodate the rails of different lengths and/or those at different angles (on the same pole). 

 

To reiterate again (my apologies), I still believe my 'upside' down pole is a nearer approximation to the real thing than a 'conventional' arrangement. It's also true that there are 'miles' of point rodding to install, bell-cranks, stools, locking bars/levers, signal wire posts and so on to put in place. They'll be to a consistent standard, but I doubt if they'll all be dead right. Just a 'suggestion' in many cases, as the telegraph poles will be because my future life-span will probably not allow my finishing off things to the most accurate standards, even if I had the skills.

 

As for not seeing the errors in the rivets on a passing loco, that's dead right. I can't always see errors in rivets on a static loco. On the B16/1 I've recently finished, I had to stamp-through the prominent bolts in the front frames beneath the saddle which hold the middle cylinder in place on the real thing (none being provided). I scribed a datum line, marked where the bolts would go and merrily stamped away. But, I only stamped through eight. There should be nine! I had to tell the owner about this, but he didn't give a fig. 'It looks right to me' was his response, especially as another dozen folk hadn't noticed the discrepancy. So, he'll live with that, as I'll live (for the moment) with my 'in your face' pole (because it's the best I can do right now in terms of time). Just as I live with the fact that the gauge of my track is at least 6" narrower than it should be, my 'hand-operated' point levers are static, my signals (though they work in most cases) are not pulled by wires from the 'box and that many of my earlier locos don't have brakes or even lamp-irons. 

 

And, best wishes to Ray.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

..........and Tony, at least you actually have a layout! There is a mighty duck that posts on here that only has some bits of wood and a million   far too many boxes of stock/rail/scenic stuff/rubbish/dead rats..........

Cheers 

Phil

[raymw]

Hi Tony,

 

If time is a problem, then you could contact these guys - i think they offer a bespoke service - http://www.expressmodels.co.uk/acatalog/4mm_Scale_Hand_Made_Telegraph_Poles.html  I've no knowledge of them other than by finding them with a web search.

 

If you/some others/not me wanted a diy solution, then I think from my earlier suggestion, use straight wires, (could be handled easier), and bend them afterwards. Afaik, it is only the terminal poles, and the more acute angle poles would have had the 'J' bolt arrangement (from my power engineering background, a swan neck was a slightly different thing - my bad - and then there were 'swan balls').

 

I gave up 4mm about 50 years ago, or more, so a telegraph pole assembly machine is way down on my 'to-do list', about 50 places below my attempts to train cockroaches to operate three link couplings.

 

To cause more aggravation, the pole would be tapered - I can measure one, if you like. I expect the taper would be similar for all, but certainly in power supply (not sure about telephone/telegraph) they would be categorised as stout, medium and light.

 

Best wishes to you, too.

 

Ray

[Judge Dread]

At the risk of starting an "international incident" may I comment on the why's and where-fors of terminating telephone overhead wiring. Although I will confess it's been some 55 years since I climbed poles for British Railways, Signal Engineers Dept. and 33 years since I did the same for Hull Telephones. To start with, the diagram supplied by "The Stationmaster" to my mind shows a set up for wiring which is not as such "terminating" but transposing. That is to say, to avoid "cross talk" caused by induction in overheads, they were changed over. Wire A would change places with it's other leg, wire B. These changes would take place at a rate, backwards and forwards, according to a plan set out in "Wiring procedures". The overhead would be wrapped around one of four standard pots mounted on  "J" brackets, taken through a sleeve and twisted to secure it (previously this would be done by a separate smaller conductor wrapped around, which would be then be soldered) and then one wire would take the upper path to meet, whilst the other took the lower path to cross the formation and they would be sleeved jointed.

Regarding the signal box termination pole. This would be certainly be stayed if the load warranted it. Here the wiring would be wrapped around a pot which had a screw cover on it. This pot was also screwed to a "J" bracket. The wire would go through a sleeve as described before and then pass through a hole in the bottom of the pot into the space covered by a black vitreous lid. Wiring down the pole was usually a rubber insulated twin cable coloured red and black. That conductor would pass through a second hole in the pot and be soldered to the overhead. A putty like substance was pressed into the space and the lid screwed on. The putty's main purpose in life was to fill that space and keep out the spiders etc. Brown glazed pot bobbins were fixed top and bottom of the pole joined by a length of signal wire and all conductor were fixed to it. Conductors could be then be spanned to a cabinet, or a location as we called them, or go directly into the box. That would be to a convenient wall where a box would be fixed to contain lightning blow out glasses. Some signal men found out the hard way to keep that door shut during a storm as these fittings quite often exploded when the overheads were struck.

Finally may I say that I think any modeller is very brave to actually attempt to model the overheads. The prototype is heavy drawn copper which hangs in a catenery and that's the problem.If your wire is of an appropriate diameter then it will be too light to hang correctly.  In any case, please remember copper goes green due to verdigris.        

Edited November 1, 2014 by Judge Dread

[Judge Dread]

Now I've had chance to look up a reference site what I think you're seeing is a view from below (on the blind-side) of the arrangement shown in the 4th and 5th pictures on this page - http://teleramics.com/inuse/inuse2005.html - where the insulators are mounted away from the pole on a U-shaped bracket.

That's a pole you don't climb Andy. They tend to make your eyes light up!