Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in 00

[St Enodoc]

22 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

The comments on carriage siding spacing set me thinking - when I was drawing up layout ideas years ago I’d have tried to squeeze in the extra siding, whereas now I’d want the extra space (I see from above you’ve entertained both options this weekend).  The difference may only be 5mm between each track, but I expect the effect may well be quite noticeable when looking across the whole yard - I’d agree laying out both options full-size (with coaches?) may be well worth the time.

 

Operationally, the 9-track yard increases the possibility of a snarl up when there are too many coaches at the terminus - that kind of shunting puzzle may or may not be an ‘operating feature’ you want your team to have to deal with.

 

If I’m doing the maths right, the total track centres (middle of first siding to middle of last one) with 10 tracks is 9 x 50 = 450mm, while nine sidings as planned need 8 x 55 = 440mm.  10mm is not a lot in the context of a large layout, but gives a little bit extra wiggle room, which is so often useful.  

 

Just a few thoughts, Keith.

You've summed it up very nicely, Keith - thanks.

 

In fact, if I do end up with the 9-siding option I might well alternate the spacing between 50mm and 60mm and, one fine day, put some water standpipes or even raised walkways in the wider gaps. I don't think the real Newquay had any but Pentowan is not the real Newquay, of course...

[The Stationmaster]

On 13/03/2022 at 11:06, St Enodoc said:

When in doubt, look for a primary source...

 

John Vaughan's "The Newquay Branch and its Branches" has a photo (Plate 156) taken between Goonbarrow Junction and Bugle, looking in the Down direction, by C H A Townley in June 1958.

 

Bugle signal box is on the Down side on the far side of the level crossing.The trailing crossover is on the near side of the level crossing so is well out of the way. However, the box appears to be right next to the level crossing, as you would expect, and so does the toe of the facing point from the Down line to the Loop. On that basis I'll move St Enodoc box slightly closer to the station than in the photos above. I'll fix the exact position based on minimum clearance at the front and room for a narrow walkway behind.

In many respects it doesn't matter too much because wherever you put it at least two things out of 21/22/24 will have to be served by a short length of rodding run and quite likely all three.   

[Chamby]

If the trains are going to be handled in the sidings, I would suggest going for 55mm.  I have 52mm spacing in mine, it’s a tad tight when you want to lift a coach, and that’s with lean fingers!

 

If you are going to have multiple trains parked up in some of the sidings at the same time, it will very much depend upon how you run the sequence as to whether having nine or ten sidings will make much of a difference.

 

You might find that adding a couple of ‘kick-back’ sidings for the shorter trains will dramatically improve things, operationally.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Chamby said:

If the trains are going to be handled in the sidings, I would suggest going for 55mm.  I have 52mm spacing in mine, it’s a tad tight when you want to lift a coach, and that’s with lean fingers!

 

If you are going to have multiple trains parked up in some of the sidings at the same time, it will very much depend upon how you run the sequence as to whether having nine or ten sidings will make much of a difference.

 

You might find that adding a couple of ‘kick-back’ sidings for the shorter trains will dramatically improve things, operationally.

Thanks Phil. The carriage sidings are all in the scenic area so handling will (should!) be rare.

 

Yes, some of the sidings will hold two or more shorter sets. An exercise I haven't done yet is to work out the occupancy in more detail on paper. I'll do that once I've marked the boards at full size, to confirm whether nine sidings are enough or not.

 

There will actually be two kick-back goods sidings in the corner, outside the approach curve. On Saturdays these might get used for passenger stock, and spare locos, too.

[St Enodoc]

On 15/03/2022 at 12:19, St Enodoc said:

Thanks Phil. The carriage sidings are all in the scenic area so handling will (should!) be rare.

 

Yes, some of the sidings will hold two or more shorter sets. An exercise I haven't done yet is to work out the occupancy in more detail on paper. I'll do that once I've marked the boards at full size, to confirm whether nine sidings are enough or not.

 

There will actually be two kick-back goods sidings in the corner, outside the approach curve. On Saturdays these might get used for passenger stock, and spare locos, too.

I posted the above during my lunch break at work and didn't have time to look back through the posts for the latest draft layout plan. To save you all the trouble, here it is:

 

 

This shows the possible 10-siding option. Reading from the top at Pentowan are the three platform roads and the loop, with the 10 sidings arranged as pairs below them. The goods yard is drawn in faintly at the bottom right. The key to the design is the 4ft radius outer curve of the approach, through the double slip, to the bottom-most siding, which I intend to be at a slight angle to the backscene. Once the locations of the other sidings and their points are fixed, the reverse curves of the platforms and loops will fall into place. The final constraint is the overall width of the baseboards, not so much from the point of view of reaching the back siding (there won't be a backscene at the buffer-stop end, which will help with that) but to maintain a 600mm gangway between Pentowan and Wheal Veronica and still leave room for the station building and, I hope, a small forecourt for buses and coaches. There'll be more overtime for the eraser before I've sorted that lot out.

Edited April 30, 2022 by St Enodoc
images restored

[Woodcock29]

John please remind me what the overall size of the layout is?

Andrew

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

John please remind me what the overall size of the layout is?

Andrew

7m x 6m, Andrew. The 7m sides are where Porthmellyn Road and Paddington are; the 6m sides are where the lifting flap (and future viaduct) and Penzance are. In other words, on the photo above the width is 7m and the height 6m.

[St Enodoc]

Before tomorrow's running session, I decided to extend the temporary screen in front of Polperran, so that it extends to the wall across the main lines and Chapel Sidings. I also erected a temporary bridge using off-cuts of 64x19 timber. With the piers standing on 3mm cork, this gives the desirable standard clearance of 60mm (15') above rail level.

 

Of course, I couldn't resist...

 

The Up Home (53) signal isn't quite as skew-whiff as it appears in the photo, although I do need to adjust the operating wire slightly so that the arm is horizontal when On.

 

Separately, I've bought some Peco platform edging to start building the platforms at Porthmellyn Road and Indian Queens. I'll probably practice by building the short platform for the halt first.

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by St Enodoc
images restored

[5BarVT]

38 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

The Down Home (53) signal isn't quite as skew-whiff as it appears in the photo, although I do need to adjust the operating wire slightly so that the arm is horizontal when On.

Hmmm . . .  Has anyone from the brethren been in touch about sighting yet?
Doesn’t matter whether it’s horizontal or not - by the time it can be seen from the cab the front of the loco will have passed it.

:-)
If the bridge is a ‘permanent’ fixture where it is, the signal would be better as a wee shortie.  Even a big yin wouldn’t quite work where it is.

Paul.

 

[St Enodoc]

7 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Hmmm . . .  Has anyone from the brethren been in touch about sighting yet?
Doesn’t matter whether it’s horizontal or not - by the time it can be seen from the cab the front of the loco will have passed it.

:-)
If the bridge is a ‘permanent’ fixture where it is, the signal would be better as a wee shortie.  Even a big yin wouldn’t quite work where it is.

Paul.

 

I agree - one fine day I could replace it with a short post but I've used standard Ratio kits at this stage to get things going.

 

If it was on the other side of the bridge it wouldn't be visible to the real drivers. There's an imaginary repeater on the other side but that's as good as it gets.

 

We'll have the same problem at Treloggan Junction eventually - too bad, unfortunately!

Edited March 18, 2022 by St Enodoc

[5BarVT]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

I agree - but if it's on the other side of the bridge it won't be visible to the real drivers. There's an imaginary repeater on the other side but that's as good as it gets.

As you say, if there was a real bridge there then the signal would be on the approach side which wouldn’t look as good.  The perils of altered geography.

Paul.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I agree - one fine day I could replace it with a short post but I've used standard Ratio kits at this stage to get things going.

 

If it was on the other side of the bridge it wouldn't be visible to the real drivers. There's an imaginary repeater on the other side but that's as good as it gets.

 

We'll have the same problem at Treloggan Junction eventually - too bad, unfortunately!

You could always fit a tall post, with arms high and low, working in unison. 

[St Enodoc]

18 minutes ago, Regularity said:

You could always fit a tall post, with arms high and low, working in unison. 

True, although they weren't common on the Western.

 

The two long-term options are either to move the signal in rear of the bridge (which won't happen as it would be off-stage) or replace it with a short post.

[Regularity]

19 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

True, although they weren't common on the Western.

Serves you right for modelling the Weird Region…

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

True, although they weren't common on the Western in the era in which St Enodoc is set.

 

The two long-term options are either to move the signal in rear of the bridge (which won't happen as it would be off-stage) or replace it with a short post.

There - duly corrected for you.  Stop signal s with arms around 40ft+ above rail level could be found in plenty of places on the Western but 60 footers were pretty rare - although i did see one of the (the?) last survivor(s) in the early 1960s in West Wales.  What really did for them was the changeover to tubular steel posts (with the adoption of a limited range of 'standard' heights), the use of banner repeaters, plus - presumably - thoughts about difficulties lamping very tall signals.

 

Thus tall straight post signal with tubular steel posts were virtually unknown although some of the early ones  might well have exceeded 30ft  but there were a few taller than usual  tubular steel bracket structures such as Didcot West End's Up Main splitting Home which replaced a tall timber post signal in the early 1960s.  It was arranged like that to allow the signal to be sited over the Foxhall Road overbridge that (still) stands between Didcot West End and Foxhall Jcn. 

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There - duly corrected for you.  Stop signal s with arms around 40ft+ above rail level could be found in plenty of places on the Western but 60 footers were pretty rare - although i did see one of the (the?) last survivor(s) in the early 1960s in West Wales.  What really did for them was the changeover to tubular steel posts (with the adoption of a limited range of 'standard' heights), the use of banner repeaters, plus - presumably - thoughts about difficulties lamping very tall signals.

 

Thus tall straight post signal with tubular steel posts were virtually unknown although some of the early ones  might well have exceeded 30ft  but there were a few taller than usual  tubular steel bracket structures such as Didcot West End's Up Main splitting Home which replaced a tall timber post signal in the early 1960s.  It was arranged like that to allow the signal to be sited over the Foxhall Road overbridge that (still) stands between Didcot West End and Foxhall Jcn. 

Thanks Mike. I think that Simon was suggesting co-acting arms though - according to Vaughan they weren't common, hence my comment. The only one I recall seeing a photo of was in Vaughan, at Norton Fitzwarren.

[Barry O]

Hope the session has gone well today. Perhaps we could do a zoom link sometime??

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

On 19/03/2022 at 18:23, Barry O said:

Hope the session has gone well today. Perhaps we could do a zoom link sometime??

 

Baz

Yes, today's session went very well. Guest operator Jacques @Sharky from Melbourne took control of Porthmellyn Road signal box calmly and competently (which is no surprise as he is a real signalman in his day job). Jacques kindly donated a nice ex-SR van that appears to have got lost on its way home to Tidmouth on the North Western Region. Thanks!

 

There were 11 of us today and the good news is that, with the running of train 666, the 1930 Penzance - Plymouth class D freight, we finally completed the Saturday part of the sequence.

 

Although Train 1 of this session ran in January 2020 (when Baz @Barry O was last here) we have only had four more sessions since then so in fact at an average of over 30 trains per session we haven't done badly at all.

 

The better news is that David's DCC system behaved faultlessly. This confirms to me that my command station is Donalded, so I'll be arranging for it to be repaired soon.

 

The even better news is that one of the team, most generously and unexpectedly, gave me a gift of a lovely scratch-built goods shed, made from plans in the Model Railway News back in 1953.

 

 

Here it is in place temporarily (with the NWR van in the adjacent siding) at St Enodoc.

 

Thanks, Bill, and I hope I will be able to have it to installed and bedded in by our next session in May.

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by St Enodoc
images restored

[Andrew P]

I do like that new Goods Shed, it would sit well on my new project, very nice indeed.

[Clive Mortimore]

On 18/03/2022 at 06:46, St Enodoc said:

Before tomorrow's running session, I decided to extend the temporary screen in front of Polperran, so that it extends to the wall across the main lines and Chapel Sidings. I also erected a temporary bridge using off-cuts of 64x19 timber. With the piers standing on 3mm cork, this gives the desirable standard clearance of 60mm (15') above rail level.

 

Of course, I couldn't resist...

 

The Up Home (53) signal isn't quite as skew-whiff as it appears in the photo, although I do need to adjust the operating wire slightly so that the arm is horizontal when On.

 

Separately, I've bought some Peco platform edging to start building the platforms at Porthmellyn Road and Indian Queens. I'll probably practice by building the short platform for the halt first.

Wonderful a LD and a MW, well done.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Wonderful a LD and a MW, well done.

There's more!

[Clive Mortimore]

37 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

There's more!

Now that is something to look forward to.

[Tallpaul69]

Sounds like you all had a great time!

In comparison, hot off the press so to speak I offer my first thoughts on my visit to Ally Pally today!

I'll say more in my Lower Thames Yard thread, but the day went well, the 12ins to a foot trains more or less behaved themselves, and the models didn't do bad either. So my first trip to London for two years was a great success, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

However, while the nice wide gangways made it easier to get around and avoid too much close contact, the low (maybe5%) wearing of masks was a worry.

This was even more worrying on the tube where most Londoners seem to be totally ignoring the requests on every train and at every station to wear masks. On the way there I could identify those going to the show, as much by their mask wearing as by their age profile!

Sadly, us mask wearers were in the minority once we got there.

 

Still, it was great to look over London from outside the Palace and see such detail so far away due to the cloudless blue sky.

 

Best regards All,

Keep Modelling,

Paul

[St Enodoc]

Here we are again, happy as can be. All good friends and jolly good company (well, on this topic anyway). I add my thanks to those of the other 40,000+ RMwebbers to Andy @AY Mod for his perseverance.

 

As we now know, everything is (or will be) back except photos from the last twelve months or so. I posted about 350 over the past year and I'm not sure that I will have the will to put them all back up, unless there is an overwhelming demand to do so from you lot.

 

In the meantime, what has been going on in the last ten days when I was forced to do some actual modelling (sort of, as you'll see) instead of messing about on here?

 

Well, after remarshalling everything on the layout, by hand, ready for the start of the next cycle with Train 1, I had a look at 3862 which had refused to go at all during the session.

 

I took out the decoder and fitted a blanking plug and it still wouldn't go. After removing the motor, that ran fine on its own and the rolling chassis did, indeed, roll. A closer look revealed the well-known Hornby problem of a split gear, which was jamming the whole gear train.

 

My good friend Andrew @Woodcock29 knows a few tricks to fix this problem so I'll pick his brain first. Failing that, Peter's Spares (usual disclaimer) sell replacement gears but shipping will have to be in two stages via family or friends in the UK as the postage charges are disproportionately high for small orders. Nothing I can do about any of that for the time being, so 3862 will be replaced by a Hall for the moment.

 

Earlier I mentioned a change on the layout that I wondered whether anyone would spot. Before the March running session I removed the front couplings from all the locos that don't need them. I also fitted the detailing packs to some of these, such as the Hornby Britannia and the Bachmann Warship. Did anyone notice? No. Did anyone care? Apparently not...

 

Finally for now, as it's coming up to noon here, let me reassure you that no poissons d'Avril were harmed during the composition of this post.

[Bogie]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Earlier I mentioned a change on the layout that I wondered whether anyone would spot. Before the March running session I removed the front couplings from all the locos that don't need them. I also fitted the detailing packs to some of these, such as the Hornby Britannia and the Bachmann Warship. Did anyone notice? No. Did anyone care? Apparently not...

 

Without the photos, it's just your word against ours.

 

 

 

 

 

Alright I admit that I did not notice, which does not mean that I do not care.