Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Once more some splendid observations and comments. My many thanks. Why aren't some of you chaps writing for the magazines? Or are you, and I just don't know who you are? There's been far more sense and good quality posted here than a good deal of the stuff that's been in the general model railway press of late. I'll let observers make their own minds up as to what I'm referring to. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

Kits versus RTR? I don't really thinks it's a competition as such (unless it's a trial of strength), more an attitude of mind. I've said it many times (like a stuck record?), but may I reiterate my belief that the greatest satisfaction to be gained from the hobby is in making things for yourself, even though, as has been perfectly cited, the finished thing might not be as 'perfect' as an off-the-shelf alternative? I accept that some modellers (or owners of model railways perhaps is a better description) cannot do things for themselves, and no one should deny them the right to gain satisfaction from their possessions. But, that's it, they're 'just' possessions - the product of earning enough money to be able to indulge in their hobby. It might be that the 'just purchasers' are in a majority, and that the hobby would not exist without them. These are the type of folk who'll (probably) buy a red engine one week and a green one the next! We should realise their importance to the RTR/RTP market. Those who commission models (individually and/or as part of a whole) are obviously more discerning (or should be), but, though the results might be 'impressive', it only really works if a degree of knowledge is present. Two large layouts I've recently observed are full of anomalies. However, if they bring the owner/spectators pleasure, does it matter? After all, enjoyment should be a vital part of the equation. Where someone has tried to 'oversee' a project with knowledge, then that's (in my opinion) much better, but if the work is mainly that of others, it will never have the same 'value' (as far as I'm concerned) as a more modest creation; that's why Bacup (in my view) is head and shoulders above some far more 'expensive' creations on this site or in the press, including mine. 

 

Scratch-building - been there, seen it, done it. Great satisfaction of course; like when, years ago, someone asked about my A1/1's provenance and I just answered 'mine' - smart-a**e! I only possess two scratch-built locos now (though one is beyond saving - see many pages back about my  dropped-on-the-floor K4). Things like the A1/1, A2/2s, A2/3s, K1, K1/1 and so on have long gone, to be replaced, in the main, by much better kit-built alternatives. My 40-year old O1 still gets used occasionally, but compared with the current Hornby one is very poor in comparison. 

 

Space and compromise? As mentioned, I'm lucky to have enough space to give an 'open' aspect to Little Bytham. However, that's more down to the skills of others (though I still get great satisfaction from seeing the locos I built hauling the carriages I made through it - even though a lot of the painting isn't mine). As I've said, without enough space to achieve scale-length trains in a scale-length environment, I wouldn't have contemplated representing a bit of the ECML. In conversation with good friends recently, we all agreed that if we were still 'unsullied by knowledge', given over 380 square feet to play with, we'd have termini, junctions, loco sheds, flyovers, several through stations, marshalling yards and so on. But, I just have a modest station with fewer than 30 points/crossings on the scenic section and lots of 'empty' space. 

 

Relatively small layouts can still give the impression of a main line if done properly. David Jenkinson's Garsdale Road was quite modest, but it still oozed Settle & Carlisle in abundance. Perhaps it's because it was all curved, with the tighter radii out of sight at the ends. On Little Bytham, the ECML running lines go dead straight under bridges at both ends, only curving round when out of sight (on Stoke Summit, WMRC achieved this at the north end, but I wasn't so happy with the south-end exit/entrance to the fiddle yard - see pictures). The M&GNR bit on LB doesn't 'work' quite so well. Where scenic sections curve tightly to go off-stage, the effect is far less convincing (as on my M&GNR section), especially with scale-length trains in operation, because the whole rake can be on the curve, going through 90 degees or more. On Roy Jackson's magnificent Retford, this occurs on the road to/from Sheffield, but that must have been one of the tightest curves on any prototype many line with a very low speed restriction and continuous check-rail. Even then, a scale-length Sheffield-Cleethorpes express only goes through 90 degrees in its length, not more. Even at places like York, the loco was never 'chasing its tail'. A bridge at 45 degrees can disguise some of the anomaly, effectively splitting the scene in two. Though not a layout with an on/off, entrance/exit to a fiddle yard as such, Bredon used this 'dodge' brilliantly, and that was only a 6' x 4' layout. Where folk have tried to cram too much in, the effect is often disappointing, especially if running is compromised or too much has to be taken off locos/stock so that they can negotiate tight radii. Less is more, as they say, or is in my opinion. But, each to their own.

 

 

Just out of sight in Stoke tunnel, the lines turn quite sharply through more than 90 degrees to enter the fiddle yard, but they're not in view.

 

 

At the south end, the effect is far less convincing. Even though the visible curve is a greater radius than that which finally enters the fiddle yard, the effect is still faintly absurd. This Pullman rake is long enough not to be all visible on this curve - by some margin. Not only have I built-in super-elevation (which is even more absurd), but a curve this tight on the prototype would have a continuous check-rail. In some ways, the bridge might have been better on the straight, which it should really be. 

 

 

The kit-building imperative, as I continue constructing Tom Foster's B16/1 from a PDK kit. I doubt if a B16 of any sub-division is on any RTR manufacturer's radar, so this is the way to go, or scratch-build. He'll see it running tomorrow.

 

I should also be able to put a 'Railroad' P2 through its paces, along with several other items. Please watch this space.

 

 

[coachmann]

If one reduces a scale express from 11 coaches to 5, what then happen to the five coach semi-fast? Does this become 3 coaches, then the 3-coach inter-district becomes one coach? I'll bet most modellers run scale length local and semi-fast trains and shorten the expresses. I do.

[manna]

G'Day Gents

 

I, like many others, wanted a mainline, but space stopped that, 13'x8' just wasn't big enough for 'Holme' on the ECML and trying to fit in the branch to Ramsey, didn't help either, so I had to step back and look again at what, I 'could' build and not what I would 'Like' to build, so I ripped it all up, and started again, this time it's Edgware (GN) now I Can fit in a six coach train, and it looks right (instead of two Quad-Arts) and there is the space to have that openness that we all desire.

 

So what is the point of trying to run scale length trains when you don't have to room for it in the first place.................I'll now go and hide under the stairs.

 

manna

[stewartingram]

I'm hoping that I have one possible answer to short trains ?

Take Hunstanton. A terminus station, on a branch line from Kings Lynn, only accesible by a reversal at Kings Lynn. It had through services to London. My model is NOT Hunstanton, but inspired by it (how mant times have we heard that before..?). A fairly faithful copy of the trackplan, an off-scene scenario where the M&GN gets involved (common in North Norfolk), and the reason to run "bigger" trains but shorter? And of course rename from Hunstanton to Hunst'on, the way it is pronounced!

Now, the conundrum. I'm of the belief that the GE area in general used lets say a 9-coach train from Liverpool Street, with a brake at either end, common practise elsewhere too. At Kings Lynn or Norwich termini, the train would divide, with portions continuing, with a reversal, on to various branches. My memory of the Fenman is indeed 9 coaches, brakes either end, buffet car in the centre. If this was divided, then that is a 4-car with brake (if the buffet continues), or a 3-car with brake. Either way, only 1 brake, and in one direction on the branch, at the wrong end. My ad-hoc solution is to add a parcels brake, but is this right? Or am I thinking of an earlier period where brakes would be included within the formation of the 9 cars as well?

 

Stewart

[unclebobkt]

  ... .

As for compromise, of course, that's always going to be necessary in any model railway. It's really a matter of degree and opinion. I'm delighted Barry Ten can get his Arthurs round tightish curves (are they RTR or kit?) but with the one I made there was no chance, and the loco looked wrong because of it. I'm lucky to have a 32' x 12' room (but the linear dimension is still too short). However, without at least 30', I don't think I'd bother to model a section of the ECML. Why? because with less than 30' you break the 'rule of thirds'. That's to say no train should be longer than a third of the layout length. The 'average' ECML express is 10' long with loco, so it doesn't look too long on a 30' stretch. That 30' has to accommodate the bends at the ends, remember, so it's nearer only 26' of 'straight'. Less than that and the trains look too long, in extreme cases filling the visible space. I suppose one can compromise by making trains shorter, but 'The Flying Scotsman', 'Queen of Scots', 'Heart of Midlothian', 'Northumbrian' and all the crack ECML sets don't look right shortened or on too-small layouts. My opinion, anyway. 

  ... .

 

 

  -- Right, I know that I'm cherry-picking, as it were as to what follows,  but didn't the SR's. ACE., (Atlantic Coast Express.),  conclude its journey with one of Mr. Bulleid's 'Spam cans.' hauling a mere five or so carriages - the other half-a-dozen or so having been dropped-off along the way to go to different and thier own destinations?

 -- So possibly, with a bit of care in choosing one's location,  one could get-away with what would have started as a long train that finished its journey with a mere handful of carriages behind a powerful & main line engine..

  -- 

[St Enodoc]

If one reduces a scale express from 11 coaches to 5, what then happen to the five coach semi-fast? Does this become 3 coaches, then the 3-coach inter-district becomes one coach? I'll bet most modellers run scale length local and semi-fast trains and shorten the expresses. I do.

I reduce ALL my passenger trains to 60% of the full length, rounded up. On the Cornwall main line in the 1950s the maximum length was 15 coaches so my longest train is 9, and so on down to the Fowey auto which of course remains as one coach. I find that you can usually cut out some SKs without losing the overall look of the train.

[great northern]

I'm hoping that I have one possible answer to short trains ?

Take Hunstanton. A terminus station, on a branch line from Kings Lynn, only accesible by a reversal at Kings Lynn. It had through services to London. My model is NOT Hunstanton, but inspired by it (how mant times have we heard that before..?). A fairly faithful copy of the trackplan, an off-scene scenario where the M&GN gets involved (common in North Norfolk), and the reason to run "bigger" trains but shorter? And of course rename from Hunstanton to Hunst'on, the way it is pronounced!

Now, the conundrum. I'm of the belief that the GE area in general used lets say a 9-coach train from Liverpool Street, with a brake at either end, common practise elsewhere too. At Kings Lynn or Norwich termini, the train would divide, with portions continuing, with a reversal, on to various branches. My memory of the Fenman is indeed 9 coaches, brakes either end, buffet car in the centre. If this was divided, then that is a 4-car with brake (if the buffet continues), or a 3-car with brake. Either way, only 1 brake, and in one direction on the branch, at the wrong end. My ad-hoc solution is to add a parcels brake, but is this right? Or am I thinking of an earlier period where brakes would be included within the formation of the 9 cars as well?

 

Stewart

Ah, portions, one of my current favourite themes. Quite a lot of the 50's ECML expresses split during their journey, resulting in their containing a remarkable number of brakes. There was no consistency of approach either. The 1510 KX- Newcastle had a Sunderland portion, made up of TSO CK BSO, all Mk1's, while there were for some reason three brakes in the Newcastle portion, one at each end, and one in the middle. The 1735, which detached a portion for Saltburn, had brakes at each end of the Newcastle portion, but the Saltburn part was BSO SK CK BSO, so brakes at each end this time. The Leeds/Bradford trains split at Leeds Central, the Bradford portions being anything from two to four coaches, but as far as I can see, only ever one brake. Thus, only one brake, and at the "wrong" end for one leg of its journey was common practice. If one hasn't the space for full trains, a model of a secondary line, Doncaster- Hull for example, will allow short main line trains, even a four car portion of the Yorkshire Pullman.

 

On the subject of the minimum length needed to do an ECML layout, I was a little disappointed when Tony opined that it can't be done properly in less than 30ft, as I "only" have 25ft for Peterborough North. My view is that as usual there are exceptions to the rules. I've developed this theme in an article for BRM which hopefully will be published shortly, my point being that for modellers, cramped locations are good - very good in fact. PN requires just 30ft in 4mm  scale to include everything between Crescent Bridge to the South, and Spital Bridge to the North. Less length in fact than to model a passing station such as Little Bytham to scale. So, while I agree that the rule of thirds is a very good one, and one which I used in my loft layout, it need not always be rigorously applied, if the right prototype location can be found. PN is compressed, particularly at the North end, but eleven coach trains do not, in my opinion anyway, look out of place. That is partly because of the compressed nature of the site, but also because the overall roof ensures that the whole of a long train is rarely in view at the same time. I have a photo of a V2 leaving Platform 6, the loco being almost under Spital Bridge, whilst  the rear coaches of the train are still in the platform, so the real thing supports what I'm saying.

 

The old cliche that there is a prototype for everything is an over generalisation, but research and a bit of lateral thinking can allow main line locations and trains to be modelled in less than scale spaces, and even if that is not possible, those shorter portions on the last leg of their journey are another possibility well worth considering.

[coachmann]

Difficulties arise when modelling a short section of a real mainline. The LMR and ER provided stock for the trains over Standedge and the ER trains in particular were a coach enthusiasts delight in the early to mid 1950's with ex GER, NER and GNR coaches in the consists along with standard LNE stock. Shortening trains loses the balance, for example, one each of GER, GNR and NER coaches plus three LNER coaches makes 50% of the train pre-grouping instead of only 25% of it. I would hazard a guess that most model expresses are inaccurately depicted when relying on Bachmann and Hornby coaches anyway. The inclusion of a kit-built coach to fill a gap could make all the difference.

Edited August 31, 2014 by coachmann

[t-b-g]

Difficulties arise when modelling a short section of a real mainline. The LMR and ER provided stock for the trains over Standedge and the ER trains in particular were a coach enthusiasts delight in the early to mid 1950's with ex GER, NER and GNR coaches in the consists along with standard LNE stock. Shortening trains loses the balance, for example, one each of GER, GNR and NER coaches plus three LNER coaches makes 50% of the train pre-grouping instead of only 25% of it. I would hazard a guess that most model expresses are inaccurately depicted when relying on Bachmann and Hornby coaches anyway. The inclusion of a kit-built coach to fill a gap could make all the difference.

 

It is tricky but if you decide that you want to build a model of a real place and you have to compress the model to fit the space available, then such decisions become inevitable.

 

People have different motivations for building a particular layout. If your motivation is to create accurate train formations, then you are pretty much stuck if the trains on the real place were longer than you can have on the layout.

 

It is really a choice between modelling somewhere where trains were shorter (I fully recommend the GCR - in the 50s/60s, many trains were 5 or 6 carriages long) or accepting that the make up of the trains is compromised.

 

A third option would be to look at which shorter trains ran over the line (assuming that there were some) and to just model those.

 

As with all modelling, compromise is the answer.

 

But I do see exactly where you are coming from with the dilemma. It is one that has exercised my brain many a time and is the reason I model the GCR rather than the ECML.

 

Tony

[Mallard60022]

A  --  but didn't the SR's. ACE., (Atlantic Coast Express.),  conclude its journey with one of Mr. Bulleid's 'Spam cans.' hauling a mere five or so carriages - the other half-a-dozen or so having been dropped-off along the way ........

 

 

B -- , with a bit of care in choosing one's location,  one could get-away with what would have started as a long train that finished its journey with a mere handful of carriages behind a powerful & main line engine..

  -- 

A = Not quite that short. The ACE was usually at most 13 coaches out of Waterloo (Summer SO). Some coaches were dropped at Salisbury to be dropped again at Seaton Junction (until end of 1962) !!  However, there were about 6 Large expresses off Waterloo in the mornings on a Saturday in Summer, all bound for ACE destinations.    I think two were 'officially' ACEs and the 'other ACE' dropped coaches off at Sidmouth Junction IIRC. Some of theses expresses arrived at Exeter Central with around 9 coaches left on and had run almost non stop (Salisbury was always a water stop and I believe crew change). Intermediate fast locals catered for the stations like Templecombe, Yeovil Junction, Chard, Axminster, Seaton Junction & Sidmouth Junction.

B = Your point though about expresses arriving with fewer coaches is a valid one. It also worked the other way of course on parts of longer cross country workings such as the Manchester Plymouth/Penzance.

Phil

Edited August 31, 2014 by Mallard60022

[The Stationmaster]

One thing which might be useful to bear in mind is the relative length of trains - relative that is to the infrastructure, particularly station platforms.  My memories of the Western are pretty straightforward and with a few, almost unusual, exceptions local or stopping trains were shorter than the platforms of most stations at which they called or terminated.  Thus single coach push-pull trains were invariably overshadow by platform length and the same went for 2 or 3 coach stoppers and even for the longer regular formations on London and Birmingham Division stopping trains.

 

So visual trick No.1 is to try to make your station platforms longer than a realistic looking local train formation, especially for many through stations.  Visual trick No.2 is to do exactly the opposite and specifically go for minimum facility short platform prototypes which are shorter than the local train formations (with the exception of single coach push-pu;; trains which might be a fairly exact fit of course - but ver unusual in a terminus.

 

This then leaves the probability on a through station layout of achieving the opposite effect with through passenger trains where they are longer than the station platforms - you thus create a visual differential between different types of passenger train compared with each other and compared with the station platform.  It's why some of the visual aspects of Coachmann's recently departed layout, as seen in his photos, worked rather well despite being built in a small space.

[Mallard60022]

It is tricky but if you decide that you want to build a model of a real place and you have to compress the model to fit the space available, then such decisions become inevitable.

 

People have different motivations for building a particular layout. If your motivation is to create accurate train formations, then you are pretty much stuck if the trains on the real place were longer than you can have on the layout.

 

It is really a choice between modelling somewhere where trains were shorter (I fully recommend the GCR - in the 50s/60s, many trains were 5 or 6 carriages long) or accepting that the make up of the trains is compromised.

 

A third option would be to look at which shorter trains ran over the line (assuming that there were some) and to just model those.

 

As with all modelling, compromise is the answer.

 

But I do see exactly where you are coming from with the dilemma. It is one that has exercised my brain many a time and is the reason I model the GCR rather than the ECML.

 

Tony

I'm creating Seaton Junction(ish)  (SRBR main line west) and the compromise is that only about a third of the Station (which was about 7 coaches max length anyway) will be 'in view' and then only a short length of main line running towards Honiton Incline. This is using a similar 'style' to Stoke Summit but with a 'bit' of station showing at the Tunnel end (instead of a tunnel if you get my mumblings?). This enables long trains on a sweeping curve, in a space only about 16' in viewing length.

As it is a roundy roundy, the 'other side' is going to be just fiddle or maybe the top part of Honiton Incline, in front of a fiddle. I've yet to 'design' that but that's not for discussion here.

Phil

[JeremyC]

Another Scottish prototype for big locos and short trains would be the Waverley route. A pacific and 4 coaches was a common formation (BSK, CK, SK or SO, BSK).

 

On the subject of kit building, I'm currently building a NB Scott from the PDK kit. I have, following Ian Rathbone's suggestion in his book, not fitted the etched boiler bands, but will use the lining transfers to represent them. My next project will be a J36 (also PDK) and I would like some suggestions what to use for the boiler bands on this one as they were unlined.

 

Jeremy

[ianwales]

Hi all

 

Swansea Victoria was the terminus of the Central Wales line which usually saw trains of 3 or 4 coaches hauled by Black 5's and Jubilees.

 

Ian

[BR(W)]

 

...Either way, only 1 brake, and in one direction on the branch, at the wrong end. My ad-hoc solution is to add a parcels brake, but is this right? Or am I thinking of an earlier period where brakes would be included within the formation of the 9 cars as well?

 

Hello, Stewart, all.

 

This has long puzzled me, as well. I can't comment on the GE, but, in "On the Waverley Route" by Robert Rowbotham there is a photo (Sep.1965) of a 'local' from Hawick to Edinburgh Waverley whose formation is as follows: Loco (B1, 61354); BSK; CK; SK; SK; CK. The stock is BR Mk.1 except for the last CK which is a Thompson.

 

And on the 'down' "Cambrian Coast Express" to Aberystwyth in pre-Auto Buffet days (before 1962), the formation after splitting at Machynlleth was generally: Loco (7800 'Manor'); BSK; SK; FK or similar; RU (all Mk.1s). Prior to splitting, this rake had been augmented by the 'Coast' formation to Pwllheli of, generally, CK; SK; BSK (again Mk.1s), so that the formation to Machynlleth had been 'topped and tailed' by a brake coach. Strengtheners regularly gate-crashed this uniformity, of course, and could be anything to hand - preferably Mk.1s, but Hawksworths could be enjoyed, and even a rather bemused Gresley CK was noted rattling along in, I think, 1960.

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

[The Great Bear]

Picking a modellable mainline prototype is covered well in my opinion in Ian Rice's "Mainlines In Modest Spaces" (probably my favourite model railway book, the chapter on Bodmin Road been especially evocative), much of the points above covered. Season of course comes into it too, for many locations modelling out of summer helps a lot.

Edited August 31, 2014 by The Great Bear

[The Stationmaster]

 

...Either way, only 1 brake, and in one direction on the branch, at the wrong end. My ad-hoc solution is to add a parcels brake, but is this right? Or am I thinking of an earlier period where brakes would be included within the formation of the 9 cars as well?

 

Hello, Stewart, all.

 

This has long puzzled me, as well. I can't comment on the GE, but, in "On the Waverley Route" by Robert Rowbotham there is a photo (Sep.1965) of a 'local' from Hawick to Edinburgh Waverley whose formation is as follows: Loco (B1, 61354); BSK; CK; SK; SK; CK. The stock is BR Mk.1 except for the last CK which is a Thompson.

 

And on the 'down' "Cambrian Coast Express" to Aberystwyth in pre-Auto Buffet days (before 1962), the formation after splitting at Machynlleth was generally: Loco (7800 'Manor'); BSK; SK; FK or similar; RU (all Mk.1s). Prior to splitting, this rake had been augmented by the 'Coast' formation to Pwllheli of, generally, CK; SK; BSK (again Mk.1s), so that the formation to Machynlleth had been 'topped and tailed' by a brake coach. Strengtheners regularly gate-crashed this uniformity, of course, and could be anything to hand - preferably Mk.1s, but Hawksworths could be enjoyed, and even a rather bemused Gresley CK was noted rattling along in, I think, 1960.

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

 

All very simple but theres a bit of counting involved.  The figures I quote below are GWR and Western Region (unless it says otherwise) but as far as I am aware the basic maths applied nationally as did certain other Instructions relating to the position of brakevans on passenger trains.

 

So first the easy bit - passenger trains were authorised to convey a certain number of vehicles (although not counted in that way!) behind the Guards brakevan and prior to 1966 and dating back to 1936 (without checking back any earlier) the figures were as follows -

 

Gradient no steeper than 1 in 100 rising a maximum of 40 wheels behind the brakevan, passengers may be conveyed in all of them.

Gradient steeper than 1 in 100 rising but no steeper than 1 in 40 rising, a maximum of 40 wheels behind the brakevan but passengers could not be carried on no more than 24 of those wheels.

Gradent steeper than 1 in 40, a maximum of 16 wheels, passengers could only be carried in 1 vehicle.

 

In 1966 the figures were altered  as follows -

On gradients no steeper than 1 in 100 a maximum of 80 wheels behind the brakevan, all of which could convey passengers

On gradients steeper than 1 in 100 but no steeper than 1 in 40 a maximum of 64 wheels behind the brakevan of which passengers were permitted to be carried on a maximum of 48 wheels

On gradients steeper than 1 in 40 a maximum of 32 wheels behind the brakevan of which passengers were permitted to be carried on a maximum of 24 wheels.

 

Note that the figure quoted for 'no steeper than 1 in 100' was the effective maximum as it also applied on level track and falling gradients.  As far as I can trace in a limited amount of time (i.e. I'v only looked in the immediately obvious places) there appears to have been no general limits from 1972 onwards and I can't remember the question ever being asked of me in a Rules Exam after then although plenty of others about brakes were, to equal levels of detail. And I can now confirm from further delving that a new Instruction was applied from March 1971 which simply stated a maximum of 20 vehicles were permitted behind the brakevan on passenger and empty stock trains.

 

[There were also a couple of other relevant Instructions.  First the maximum number of wheels in a passenger train was restricted to 136 while empty stock trains were limited to teh equivalent of 20 eight-wheeled coaches  (the LNER was almost certainly different - even if only during the war).  And loaded passenger trains having more than 96 wheels were required to have two brakevans or brake compartment vehicles.]

 

So that is Part 1, now we come to Part 2

 

This applied from January 1951 until March 1971 (when the following Instructions were completely withdrawn) and concerns the position of brakevans in passenger train formations and the basic Instruction right through to 1972 was that a passenger brakevan (van end leading) should, as far as practicable, be marshalled next to the engine of all trains except (ah, ha) where the formation is otherwise specified in the Carriage Working Instructions or delay would ensue providing and attaching should a vehicle.  Similarly a passenger brakevan (van end trailing) should, as far as practicable, be marshalled at the rear of passenger trains (and, although it wasn't stated in writing again the matter of the Carriage Working Instructions would have applied).

 

So that lot is pretty clear isn't - lots of reasons and a couple of excuses for not having a van at the front, no excuses for not having one on the rear - well not stated in writing anyway.

 

Thus far all fine & dandy and fairly clear.  Now we come to the nitty gritty of everyday incidents - in 1952 a collison on the WR revealed that the rear brake was the wrong way round - resulting in passenger injuries so a stiff reminder about the position of brakevans was issued.  This was followed by adverse comment from the Inspecting Officer who investigated the incident at Welwyn in January 1957 which resulted in a further reminder.  In practice of course I'm sure the purity of the 1951 Instruction was hardly easy to enforce and it is noticeable that it took two incidents to result in reminders - I cannot trace any others being issued on the WR between 1951 and 1960 and clearly the reality was more than recognised when the entire Instruction was withdrawn in 1971.  (BTW there were earlier, vaguely similar Instructions but the 1951 one was - I felt - the most relevant here.

 

Hope it helps and should folk have thought the law was complex or teaching had its problems just imagine trying to keep up with this lot when someone is going to come along every two years and spend half a day grilling you on your knowledge of it (plus an awful lot more for some of us - happy days).

[Ian Hargrave]

Hi all

Swansea Victoria was the terminus of the Central Wales line which usually saw trains of 3 or 4 coaches hauled by Black 5's and Jubilees.

Ian

Hi all

Swansea Victoria was the terminus of the Central Wales line which usually saw trains of 3 or 4 coaches hauled by Black 5's and Jubilees.

Ian

In the 50's,the Central Wales Swansea-Shrewsbury passenger services were largely the province of Shrewsbury's (84G) Fowler tanks.The Swansea-York mail usually produced something grander...a Black 5 or Standard 5, a Caprotti version occasionally.

Jubilees were latecomers on the scene.Barrow Road's allocation...or some of them...found their way to Shrewsbury after being displaced by Peak diesels in the early 60's.

As a boy,the top deck of a Mumbles tram was a great way of spotting the final section of the line as it ran along the beach wall into Swansea Victoria.The only problem was the long hours of inactivity on the line seemed always to coincide with my tram journeys.

My Ian Allan Loco Log Book reveals that on 4//3/1957,I spotted Caprotti Standard 5 73132 (84G) on Paxton Street shed.

Many thanks for your shots of the contemporary scene from Llanelli to Port Talbot.My heavens,what changes there have been since we caught the Vale of Neath train from Aberdare High Level,changed at Neath General onto a Castle-hauled semi fast to Swansea.

The highlight of the journey was to look out of the right hand side of the train as we passed Landore shed.The magic 87E.!

Then a walk to the Mumbles Railway terminus and a ride to Oystermouth,where there was always a short pause for refreshment at Forte's Ice Cream Parlour.The final destination was by South Wales bus...either Rotherslade Bay ( a favourite of my mother's) or Caswell Bay.

The return journey always left an opportunity to spot the evening arrivals at Swansea High Street....Castles with red-backed nameplates and names soon to disappear..."A1 Lloyds" ,"The Somerset Light Infantry,Prince Albert's"...then homewards on "the five to nine" in fading light.

[ianwales]

Hi Ian

 

I dont remember the Mumbles railway, it was 1962 when we moved to Swansea where my dad had a job in Fletchers garage opposite the United Welsh bus station, but, I do remember cycling along the raised pathway opposite St Helens rugby ground by Swansea Cenotaph chasing Standard 4 tanks and Black 5's on their way to and from Swansea Bay, apologies to Tony for tying up his thread with WR reminiscences.

 

Ian

[micklner]

Back to some  ECML models

 

Resin bodied  V2  done

 

 

 

 

113 nearly ready for primer

 

Edited August 31, 2014 by micklner

[Ian Hargrave]

Hi Ian

I dont remember the Mumbles railway, it was 1962 when we moved to Swansea where my dad had a job in Fletchers garage opposite the United Welsh bus station, but, I do remember cycling along the raised pathway opposite St Helens rugby ground by Swansea Cenotaph chasing Standard 4 tanks and Black 5's on their way to and from Swansea Bay, apologies to Tony for tying up his thread with WR reminiscences.

Ian

United Welsh..of course...another name to hit the memory spot.

Regards,Ian.

[60027Merlin]

Another Scottish prototype for big locos and short trains would be the Waverley route. A pacific and 4 coaches was a common formation (BSK, CK, SK or SO, BSK).

 

On the subject of kit building, I'm currently building a NB Scott from the PDK kit. I have, following Ian Rathbone's suggestion in his book, not fitted the etched boiler bands, but will use the lining transfers to represent them. My next project will be a J36 (also PDK) and I would like some suggestions what to use for the boiler bands on this one as they were unlined.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy,

 

Alan Gibson supplies packets of boiler bands.

 

 

Eric

[westerner]

Just catching up with this thread after a weekend away.

 

I agree with Tony that a ratio of 3:1 of visible layout to train length is desirable with a through station to give one the feeling  that a train is travelling through the scene. It's what I have done on Wencombe although the layout is only 11ft.6 by 8ft, by using a transition curve for most of the layout it has enabled me to have some 17ft of running line on the scenic part of the layout and my longest train is 6 coaches long. Luckily out of the summer season many of the trains on the Kingswear branch (on which the layout is based) were portions of trains bound for Cornwall and split at Newton Abbot or parts of trains for Paignton. It means the main express is fractionally too long for the platforms, but normal trains from Exeter or Newton (normally 3 or 4 coaches) are shorter than the platforms.I have several photos of Castles, Halls and Westerns pulling  3or 4 coaches on the last leg of their journey to Kingswear.

 I do like short trains accelerating or slowing along the length of a platform. Certainly on Little Bytham the affect is brilliant.

 

However I feel for a terminus one can get just about get the same affect with a ratio of 2:1, obviously 3:1 would be better.

 

On another matter entirely, Ian don't forget South Wales Transport. They seemed to have a different smell to United Welsh., and was there not the odd incursion by Western Welsh as well.

[Tony Wright]

Jeremy,

 

Alan Gibson supplies packets of boiler bands.

 

 

Eric

For boiler bands on locos without lining, I use self-adhesive (black) PVC insulation tape, cut to the required width attached to a flat piece of clean brass using a new scalpel blade. Reject the 'outside' two because they'll usually have whiskery attachments. The can be fitted last, after all soldering has taken place, can be pushed under handrails and are infinitely adjustable. Make them slightly over-long, then leave overnight so that any 'stretching' has finished and the bands have contracted back (this aids their sticking), then trim off with the scalpel. They take paint perfectly. 

 

Now on to train lengths and layouts to accommodate them. Many thanks again for all the comments.

 

I'm slightly surprised that Gilbert is 'disappointed' in my opining that 30' is a minimum for an ECML depiction. I've known him a long time and we're good friends, so he knows my views. I'd have thought that he'd be more 'not surprised', rather than disappointed. I know the picture of the V2 he mentions (at least I think I do), and he's right in a way, but the loco is approaching Spital Bridge almost on the straight, not starting to turn a right-angle bend as is necessary on the model. From my (admittedly ropey) calculations, I'd say on the prototype, one could have the loco just going under Spital Bridge (northbound) with at least nine carriages clear of the platform. I'd say that rather disproves the point. A view of 60006 heading an Up train also suggests almost a full-length express being accommodated between the end of the platforms and Spital Bridge. To do PN 'properly', in my opinion', would need more than 30' because, as has been stated, it's 30' between Spital and Crescent Bridges, so to accommodate the right-angle curves to get to and from the fiddle yards, an extra two to three feet would be needed at each end. I can fit Little Bytham (almost) to scale in my 32' long room - I couldn't fit Peterborough North. There's no doubt than Peterborough North has some outstanding model-making on it and it's with some justification that's it's RMweb's 'most popular' layout. However, with a minimum eight-cars in the ECML crack trains of the day (most 11 or 12), to do the line any real justice with regard to accommodating the trains in a 'realistic' setting and applying the rule of thirds, one needs at least 30', more if possible. My opinion, anyway. That said, Gilbert is entirely happy with what he's got, and it brings substantial pleasure to many viewers. In those respects, it's entirely successful and I would not want to be critical of that. 

 

I admit to being a hypocrite in many ways, especially with regard to condensing length. Stoke Summit, if built to scale between the south portal of Stoke Tunnel and the overbridge near Westby would be 94' long, yet WMRC did it in 30'. But, though the section of line depicted was severely truncated, the trains were not, and they didn't appear to 'fill the layout', and, I hope, looked 'right'. The rule of thirds, as I say. 

Edited August 31, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Arthur]

Sellotape, cut into strips of appropriate width, is all that is required to represent boiler bands, they are, after all, thin strips of steel on the prototype. Apply before priming and they're fixed forever.

 

I'd never use strips of metal, they're far too thick.

 

Edit: post crossed with Tony's.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Arthur