Pacific231G Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Excellent thread here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112607-bing-table-railway/ Shows what "the trade" was offering in the small scale at the time, or, put another way, what Walkley was bettering. K Edward Beal was using "Bavarian" 0-4-0 electric mechanisms as early as 1925 and cutting them around to produce either 6 or 8 coupled tank locos or 6 or 8 wheel "electric" tenders . I don't know whether "Bavarian" means Bing but he mentions that they were they were the "standard electric mechanism designed to suit the 4mm scale which Mr. Greenly has championed from the beginning" (supplied by Basset Lowke for 5 shillings and 6 pence. At that time Beal was working in 3.5mm scale but designing locos to the maximum loading gauge to enable the standard mechs. to fit. His locos did look pretty good from the start. The differenc in loading gauge between Britain and Germany wouldn't have been enough to account for a scale difference of 3.5 to 4 so if they were using a scale for their non British products I doubt if it was really 1:87; 1:80 seems far more likely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Sounds as if he was using Bing mechanisms, because they were made in Bavaria (sounded better than "Germany" to post WW1 ears) and the British outline parts were indeed designed by Greenly. The loco in that other thread has Greenly written all over it, and it is worth comparing with a later BL 0 gauge Standard 0-6-0T from the same drawing board, and several of his small live-steam designs; a very clear set of design-signatures, built around using the loading gauge to the full. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Sounds as if he was using Bing mechanisms, because they were made in Bavaria (sounded better than "Germany" to post WW1 ears) and the British outline parts were indeed designed by Greenly. The loco in that other thread has Greenly written all over it, and it is worth comparing with a later BL 0 gauge Standard 0-6-0T from the same drawing board, and several of his small live-steam designs; a very clear set of design-signatures, built around using the loading gauge to the full. Kevin Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately, in Greenly's case it was the 4mm/ft loading gauge he was using to the full. Beal appears to have been using the British loading gauge scaled to 3.5mm/ft and it's interesting that he was using tender drives very early on to avoid the problem of cramming the Bing/Basset Lowke mechs into the smaller space of a non-tank loco. He did use a standard six and eight wheel tender with a range of locos and also had clockwork tenders of the same design to substitute for the electric ones "when necessary". Beal does talk in his articles about the greater ease of simply halving O gauge plans for OO though he did later, and apparently rather reluctantly, abandon 3.5mm for 4mm/ft when that became the de facto British standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 It's probably a good thing the internet didn't exist in the 1920s. I imagine the arguments could have outdone almost anything that present day members can manage . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Anyway, with all this discussion, who is actually building one right now? And who has already finished one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 No one by the look of it, unless you're all too shy. Oh well, if you won't show me yours, I won't show you mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Anyway, with all this discussion, who is actually building one right now? And who has already finished one? That will be you I think. I think there may have been one or two versions of the Portable Goods Yard but versions of Alan Wright's Inglenook Sidings seem far more common. I think that's partly because Inglenook is rather smaller and comes with a shunting puzzle but also because Walkley's pioneering work had rather disappeared into the mists of time until comparatively recently. I certainly haven't noticed any back references to it in post war magazines until after Alan Wright revealed his layout . The basic concept was in any cae reinvented - I think genuinely without prior knowledge- a couple of times including a Christmas "game for your party" described by W. Hardin Osbourne in the December 1962 Railway Modeller. That was five feet long on two 2ft 6in by 6 in boards and the puzzle was simply to reverse a five wagon plus brake van goods train train in as few moves as possible so less sophisticated than Inglenook. Walkley's layout of course includes a loco shed and while that probably didn't add much in terms of operatiion it would have added to the visual appeal of what was really a demonstration layout. I think your layout will therefore be a genuine and long overdue tribute to A.R. Walkley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 That will be you I think. I think there may have been one or two versions of the Portable Goods Yard but versions of Alan Wright's Inglenook Sidings seem far more common. I think that's partly because Inglenook is rather smaller and comes with a shunting puzzle but also because Walkley's pioneering work had rather disappeared into the mists of time until comparatively recently. I certainly haven't noticed any back references to it in post war magazines until after Alan Wright revealed his layout . The basic concept was in any cae reinvented - I think genuinely without prior knowledge- a couple of times including a Christmas "game for your party" described by W. Hardin Osbourne in the December 1962 Railway Modeller. That was five feet long on two 2ft 6in by 6 in boards and the puzzle was simply to reverse a five wagon plus brake van goods train train in as few moves as possible so less sophisticated than Inglenook. Walkley's layout of course includes a loco shed and while that probably didn't add much in terms of operatiion it would have added to the visual appeal of what was really a demonstration layout. I think your layout will therefore be a genuine and long overdue tribute to A.R. Walkley. Now you've let the cat out of the bag! I can't spend a lot of time on it, as I've got too much else on, but it's a good way to clear out much of the surplus modelling materials I've got, and help me to get better organised. I'm having to buy a few things, but not very much. The time consuming bit is building the points. I've had to combine the two straight ones into what I think is a single slip, to get a larger radius for EM gauge. The original seems to have used something close to Peco small radius. The plain track is very close in position and length to the original, and the sidings hold about 7, 6 and 5 wagons. A 7-6-5 inglenook could be an interesting, and mind boggling, challenge! The layout plan is blown up to full size from the small one in the article, and comes out surprisingly well. It's different to what was actually built in places, so I've drawn on the changes as closely as possible to fit with the existing buildings I'm using. I've overlaid it with the Templot plan I'm working from. I'm having to alter all my old buildings in some way. The ones along the backscene need to be low-relief, some some serious violence is involved. My plan for operation is to use it like an inglenook, but with shunting disrupted by light engines and loco coal wagons needing to go back and forth between the shed and the tunnel. For anyone else having a go, don't forget that the original was 3.5mm scale, and scaling up to 4mm would make it 10in longer and 1.5in wider. What I'm building is effectively smaller than the original, and needs much gentler curves! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Whoa! Looking very good so far. I don't think you have made a single slip (its a bit unclear in the photo), just two points toe-to-toe, which is the sort of horrible dodge that industrial railways use, to fit into tight spots, but main line ones don't, because it makes maintaining gauge very difficult. A real set-up like this would probably need tie-bars to prevent the stock-rails getting shoved out of gauge by the force of locos graunching round the corner. What crossing angle have you adopted? My gut feeling is that you could get away with 1:5 or even 1:4 for a line like this. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Certainly not toe to toe! I started with a Peco large radius OO Templot template, and fiddled around to convert it to EM. It's a 1:35 switch, a 1 in 5.93 crossing, and has a minimum radius of 43.9". I overlapped a left and a right until nothing important conflicted, then printed it without sleepers, as I haven't got onto messing around with sleepers in Templot yet. Then I drew in the breaks and check rails for that bit in the middle by hand. I thought it was going to be a Barry Slip before I started, but it's not. I think I've only ever seen slips based on a diamond crossing, but it kind of works like a single slip, I think! The Y started as a Peco straight long radius as well, and ended up with a 1:35 switch, 1 in 4 crossing, and has a minimum radius of 37.9". It's a finescale train set, so if it works that's good enough! It's looking promising so far, but I've still got the fiddly bits to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Ooh er! No wonder I couldn't work it out; there's a lot missing in the photo. I think it is an outside single-slip, but it doesn't "leap out" as being one, because we all get used to seeing model-railway ones, which are, as you say, based around diamond-crossing geometry. But, I'm not totally confident! Whatever it is, it's a powerful old demonstration of your skill. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 There's nothing missing from the photo! It just doesn't exist yet! It could yet turn out to be a powerful old demonstration of my incompetence . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted July 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 12, 2016 It's not an outside slip -- the switches are inside the crossings. Essentially it is simply a curved single slip. But the difference in this case is that the switch deflections (and therefore the speed restrictions on a running line) are towards the diamond roads, rather than towards the slip road. In other words the switches are of the opposite hand to what would be the case in a conventional single slip. I don't believe it has a specific name -- there are a great many formations like that. That's why prototype pointwork is known as S&C, Switch & Crossing work. Those are basic units on the prototype from which all pointwork is built. Everything else is simply a combination of those according to the needs of the site. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 The layout could be almost finished by now if I was doing it in OO with Peco small radius points. But this is fun anyway. Whether it's a good idea for a shunting layout, where every movement has to run over it, will be found out eventually! This bit still needs a bit of tweaking before I do similar on the other side. But it does give other people a chance to catch up with me with their build. Has anyone else started yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Is everyone buying up magazines with the article in? I ordered the MTI reprint, only to get a refund because it had sold out just before my order arrived. So I found a reasonably priced complete 1926 volume of MRN and ordered it. And guess what. I got a refund because it had been sold! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 It's just sophisticated software subroutines. Tomorrow "new" copies will come onto the market at ten times the price of the "old". Like buying tickets on easy jet, or holidays from those "only one place left" websites. Amazing that they're being applied to the sale of yellowing old railway mags, though. K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 It's just sophisticated software subroutines. Tomorrow "new" copies will come onto the market at ten times the price of the "old". Like buying tickets on easy jet, or holidays from those "only one place left" websites. Amazing that they're being applied to the sale of yellowing old railway mags, though. K I think it's the opposite. Small traders with primitive manually updated web sites, that they're slow updating! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePurplePrimer Posted July 14, 2016 Author Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hi John Your version is looking great so far I have the 1926 original mag and the MTi mag too so if you PM me your address I will post you my issue of the MTi mag ( foc ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 The layout could be almost finished by now if I was doing it in OO with Peco small radius points. But this is fun anyway. Whether it's a good idea for a shunting layout, where every movement has to run over it, will be found out eventually! This bit still needs a bit of tweaking before I do similar on the other side. But it does give other people a chance to catch up with me with their build. Has anyone else started yet? DSCF8068.JPG DSCF8069.JPG BG John Looks very neat and tidy and makes a change of seeing rails tacked into place whilst fettling occurs. Also good practice making the isolation breaks in the sleepers, prior to soldering. One thing is foe a wagon to go through smoothly, quite another for a loco to do likewise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 BG John Looks very neat and tidy and makes a change of seeing rails tacked into place whilst fettling occurs. Also good practice making the isolation breaks in the sleepers, prior to soldering. One thing is foe a wagon to go through smoothly, quite another for a loco to do likewise I've had to do a bit of adjustment in places where the rails are tacked, so it was a good thing I did. I must admit that I didn't make the breaks first on other track I've made recently, and it's a real pain trying to find the one/s with the microscopic bit of copper I missed! I'm testing it with a wagon, but it's difficult as there never seems to be a rail where I need one to give it a good run! Fingers crossed, all the pointwork I've built in the past has worked nicely, so I'm hoping locos won't be a problem. This is my first slip, and an odd one, but I've built things like mixed gauge three way points to P4 standards in the past, so this course in comparison EM one shouldn't be a problem. If I stop posting you'll know I've failed!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I'm thinking up a plan to build it using my surplus stock, buildings and scenic materials. It's better than dumping it all, or leaving it cluttering up the drawers and boxes where I keep the stuff I need for my other layouts. It would be in EM, as that's what almost all the stock is, which seems fine to me, as EM is pretty much the 4mm scale equivalent of HO, and was being used in the 1930s I think, if not earlier. Hi John This is the layout I always come back to and still plan to do it. I am in the middle of moving right now ( nightmare ) and don't have the space for a big layout so this looks even more attractive than ever. As an upside in a few weeks I should be able to walk 200 yards from my front door to watch some GWR locos going over a Brunel viaduct Reading this post is a bit like where I am, we moved to a new house at the end of March supposedly downsizing. There is no garage (where my work/railway was in the last house so the initial plan was to buy a shed and place it at the side of the house. Owing to the cost of a fully insulated shed we decided to bite the bullet and incorporate the railway room into a new extension across the back of the house (so much for downsizing). After various ideas have been put into the mixer and contrary to my wife's initial must not's it looks like we will have a very open-plan downstairs except for the railway room which whilst being a bit on the narrow side narrow side may well end up 17' long, but the best part of a year away My main interests are model making so the idea of Bodmin General came to mind as I could model it as a preserved railway, this allows me to have far more locos on the layout from various companies and liveries. To start the ball rolling I thought I could model the engine shed area with its strange turnout with slips in, at worst it would end up as a Cameo. Initial thoughts was to use Exactoscale plastic sleepers to 00SF gauge. After seeing what Mikkel had done with the trackwork of his latest model my thoughts were to change to ply sleepers and timbers and use the chairs with their keys on the plain track (I have plenty of GWR chairs and EM Gauge Society ply sleepers), thinking further if I was going to hand build the plain track why not do it to EM gauge as I use Romford wheels anyway. Sadly I live the other side of the country to the GWR empire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I'm doing this one in EM because that's what I started my serious modelling in 40 years ago. It has the big advantage that you can use re-gauged OO wheels. I'm actually testing this layout with a Bachmann wagon where I slid the wheels out on the axles. As the flanges are a bit courser, it makes sure I haven't made anything too tight. I'm working on a number of small layouts at the moment. The main objective is to achieve my four teenage modelling ambitions on a modest scale. Rather than one big layout, it looks as though I will end up with seven small/smallish ones. This seems mad, but I'm getting more modelling done at the moment than I've ever done. It's also more flexible than building one, as I can juggle them around to fit whatever space they end up in. For someone who likes modelling, rather than having a specific aim, it seems an ideal approach, as you can build a small layout and a small amount of suitable stock, then build something totally different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePurplePrimer Posted July 14, 2016 Author Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hi John Been to the post office - posted it off for you first class Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hi John Been to the post office - posted it off for you first class Thanks Rob. I'm hoping to make some progress with something other than the points this weekend, so it will useful to see if the published photos show anything that's not clear in my scanned versions. Although I'm not making an exact copy, I'm trying to follow the original where I can, and as I said earlier, the plan is different to the photos. The photo that was published separately also seems to have differences to the ones in the article, so I think he made changes to it anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I'm doing this one in EM because that's what I started my serious modelling in 40 years ago. It has the big advantage that you can use re-gauged OO wheels. I'm actually testing this layout with a Bachmann wagon where I slid the wheels out on the axles. As the flanges are a bit courser, it makes sure I haven't made anything too tight. I'm working on a number of small layouts at the moment. The main objective is to achieve my four teenage modelling ambitions on a modest scale. Rather than one big layout, it looks as though I will end up with seven small/smallish ones. This seems mad, but I'm getting more modelling done at the moment than I've ever done. It's also more flexible than building one, as I can juggle them around to fit whatever space they end up in. For someone who likes modelling, rather than having a specific aim, it seems an ideal approach, as you can build a small layout and a small amount of suitable stock, then build something totally different. What I meant is and forgot to add is I have a box full of EM gauge wagon and coach wheels, as well as etched chassis with both 00 & EM frame spacers so as well as the track parts I have wheels chassis and Wills engine shed sides and roof. So in that way like you I am using up parts I have in boxes, but this will be my first EM layout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.