Jamie Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Culreoch: a slice of Galloway in 4mm/EM History Culreoch was built by Ken Gibbons and friends in the Hull locality back in 2006-7, prior to making a debut at the Glasgow show. At this time, other layouts associated with the group were being sold off. Idly I thought "if Culreoch goes similar way, I'll need to think hard and fast"... Oh fickle fate! 2009 saw a post appear in the Classifieds of this site, and a couple of weeks later I was heading North up the A1 with a car full of layout. You used to be able to find the build documented here on the forum but it's gone, lost to time. Present My interest has always been the GSW in the 1960s, and the layout needed very little modification to suit. Backdate the road vehicles, bring the water towers back into use, take the hi-vis off the little people and job done. What I intend to do on this thread, is outline the more interesting pieces of work that surround the layout: an occasional scenic piece, some efforts towards changing my stock to EM and some prototype information that I might unearth. I work to a loose timetable, but the intention is that the layout will be available to make limited exhibition appearances from the middle of this year. It's not as daunting a prospect as it was a couple of months ago. So while it's perhaps not a pure layout thread, I hope it will all form a layout-centred, coherent topic which I can't see a better location for. I'll use the blog to document my work-in-progress as it happens, when it happens, if it happens! (pics in abeyance - being transferred to Flickr 7/12) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 It looks better with green and steam than it did with blue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 It looks better with green and steam than it did with blue. Don't let Ken hear you? :icon_wink:? Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 Blue will return, I just can't afford it for a couple of years though if steam conversions don't get easier, could be quicker than that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr45144 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Blue will return, I just can't afford it for a couple of years though if steam conversions don't get easier, could be quicker than that Looks great with either - how would it look with some proper GSW locos and stock (I've got an 0-6-2T somewhere) Kev Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerhillboy Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Love the green 27's and another favourite of mine a grotty black 5 as well. Lovely looking pictures as well and the trackwork in the first picture looks great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brunel Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Is this the Culreoch that was once featured in Model Rail? Either way, very nice layout you've got there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Don't let Ken hear you? :icon_wink:? He knows The blue stock was mainly a matter of expediency, particularly with the first show deadline looming. It was always the long term intention to go back to at least green/blue, if not earlier (and I do have a shot of an LMS Jube on it B) ). However, after some initial enthusiasm it soon ended up with only two of us being genuinely 'into' the ethos of the layout, and being motivated to providing sufficient reliable stock to develop the blue theme, and I doubt that the earlier period could have been supported in any coherent manner either. All in all, the layout is much more likely to realise its true potential in Jamie's hands Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted January 7, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 7, 2010 Although my loyalties lie firmly with BR Blue...those green sulzers do look good. A testament to an excellent layout which is providing the backdrop for rolling stock regardless of era... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
invercloy Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 The Black 5 looks great on it! Jamie, you need more steam locos on here, the 27s are just about acceptable though Look forward to seeing the thread develop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERS Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Although I follow the blue era myself, I have to say this looks the part in it's green and steam guise. In truth, like many layouts representing this era, they can work just as well with very little changed. A good number of locations changed little from early sixties/ Beeching through to the seventies and even into the eighties when lines such as this were still very much steam railways worked by diesels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 Singed fingers and the lingering smell of burning wood suggests that I've found the solution to the autocoupling conundrum that's foxed me for a while. Having been impressed with seeing the DG (IIRC) couplings on Hewisbridge, but being worried they were a bit too complicated to build for my hamfistedness, I opted for the Spratt and Winkle design. The 3mm:ft pattern looks neat, works well in trials and keeps the wagons about as close together as 3-links. I'll have a think about the modifications that a couple of blog authors have written about on this site, but even as-is all seems fine. All good then, and another thing off the list. Just need to consider how to uncouple on the mainline selectively - not every time the train stops in the loop. Cheaply, simply and reliably. Can't be that hard. Freights will be formed with a couple of autocoupling fitted wagons at the East end, so that on occasion one or two wagons may be dropped off into the siding - or indeed picked up. It'll also aid things off-scene, changing ends etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozzer models Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Singed fingers and the lingering smell of burning wood suggests that I've found the solution to the autocoupling conundrum that's foxed me for a while. Having been impressed with seeing the DG (IIRC) couplings on Hewisbridge, but being worried they were a bit too complicated to build for my hamfistedness, I opted for the Spratt and Winkle design. The 3mm:ft pattern looks neat, works well in trials and keeps the wagons about as close together as 3-links. I'll have a think about the modifications that a couple of blog authors have written about on this site, but even as-is all seems fine. All good then, and another thing off the list. Just need to consider how to uncouple on the mainline selectively - not every time the train stops in the loop. Cheaply, simply and reliably. Can't be that hard. Freights will be formed with a couple of autocoupling fitted wagons at the East end, so that on occasion one or two wagons may be dropped off into the siding - or indeed picked up. It'll also aid things off-scene, changing ends etc. a eletro magnet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted January 16, 2010 Author Share Posted January 16, 2010 That'd do the trick Moz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 Okay, I said I'd put some notes together on my plans towards prototypical operation. Please feel free to correct, influence, comment as you wish. If nothing else, it proves I'm not talking to myself. :icon_confused: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - One of the things I've had in mind whilst planning the new fiddle yards and (potentially) electrical arrangement is operation of the layout. The trackplan is very simple, and lends itself to a couple of scenarios: 1. A passing loop. Here I've postulated the off-scene end of the loop, the sketch draws heavily from what I've read and looked at on the signalbox.org site. I see two things as central to figuring out the operation of the layout: [a] exchange of single-line tablets, and proving the train is complete and out of the single-line sections. Both of these are influenced by the position of the signal box, which at Culreoch is adjacent to the eastern loop entry points. I presume that (with no track-circuiting) the signalman will be relying on sight of the tail lamp on the end of the train to ensure the train is complete and out of section. So - I can let either train into the loop first. However, only the east-bound train can leave first, as the signalman can only confirm the completeness of the westbound train that has passed him. Once that east-bound train is into the single-line section, past the signal box, then the signalman has seen the tail lamp (hopefully!) and can then confirm the train is complete and out of the preceding single-line section, and can let the other train leave (assuming acceptance at the other end of the single line sections). If I've got that more-or-less correct, then that would be one set of basic rules which I could operate the layout to. Yeah, I haven't mentioned tablets have I. I'll come back and edit them in. However I have to admit to not liking this scenario. The signal box doesn't quite sit comfortably at the end of the loop - the second scenario that I'm working on will address this by considering the end of a dual track section, where the positioning "feels" better. Scenario 2, as noted in preparation, later this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted February 1, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2010 The signal box doesn't quite sit comfortably at the end of the loop - the second scenario that I'm working on will address this by considering the end of a dual track section, where the positioning "feels" better. From what I was watching when I saw the layout at Normanton & Pontefract this was the scenario (I think?) that was portrayed then, a east bound train would wait, whilst the westbound swept through, judging by the speed of the deltic hauled train if there had been points to negotiate at the Gatehouse end it would have ended up in a similar predicament to that pic of the 'crab' down the embankment you sent me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 From what I was watching when I saw the layout at Normanton & Pontefract this was the scenario (I think?) that was portrayed then, a east bound train would wait, whilst the westbound swept through... Yep, this is the scenario that I'm happier with. I'll expand more some other time but the concept I have in mind is Loch Skerrow forms one end of the loop, and Culreoch sits (in a spliced-in bit of upland before New Galloway) at the other end. If I appear to be reinventing the wheel, it's through a combination of not knowing precisely the original "potted history" and also wanting the setting to be feasible in my own mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I presume that (with no track-circuiting) the signalman will be relying on sight of the tail lamp on the end of the train to ensure the train is complete and out of section. The signalman has to 'ascertain that the whole of the train has arrived' (1972 wording), he does not necessarily have to wait until he can see the tail lamp as the last vehicle passes him. There could be a phone at the far end of the loop but I've no direct evidence for such phones on the PP&W (although having said that I don't have many photos of the ends of the loops !), it could also be done by the guard hanging out of his van and either waving to the signalman, or after dark removing the lamp and waving it at him. Have a look at that pic of The Mad McCann on 80119 at Creetown in 'On G&SW Lines' - there's a goods in the up loop, the signal is off for McCann's down train and the 'box is well to the rear of the photographer - somehow the signalman has ascertained the up goods is complete with its tail lamp still a hundred yards or so towards Stranraer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 Thanks Stuart, I wondered about something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 If you can get hold of Beast, Stationmaster or Flyingsignalman, they've probably forgotten more about Electric Token Block than I bothered to learn in the first place . Interestingly there was a set of box instructions for Gatehouse on Ebay last week which might have shed more light on this, it certainly included the long/short section token working arrangements from the little bit I could see. Unfortunately I was outbid. Now I think of it, apologies if it was you I was bidding against ! I wouldn't worry about the position of the box, token working inevitably means a bit of walking for the signalman on occasions. Even where most exchanges take place outside the box with the train moving, at some point you're going to finish up with a loco at the far end of a loop waiting for a token which can't be released until something else has arrived. Where the box is in the middle of the loop he has to walk for trains in both directions. The only restriction the current position places on you is that it limits the length of the loop to 350 yards - the limit for manually worked points. The 1972 Signalling Regs were easily to hand (I'm in the middle of clearing out the study), but somewhere in the loft there's a 1972 Rule Book and I think I've got a set of LMS Signalling Regs - let me know if you want the relevant bits shoving in the scanner, it's no trouble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 ... apologies if it was you I was bidding against ! Sadly not, I'm not much of an ebay-user (one sale, one purchase in 5 yrs) which means I miss such opportunities. ..let me know if you want the relevant bits shoving in the scanner, it's no trouble. only if you fall over it - layout's a fair way from being operational a.t.m. but yes, would make interesting reading. The other thing I'm considering is access to the siding - this would require setting forward into the single-line section, prior to backing into the siding. There's no provision in the fixed signalling to allow this move AFAIK - I've been expecting a hand-signal from the 'box to be used. Exit is covered by the ground disc, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 The other thing I'm considering is access to the siding - this would require setting forward into the single-line section, prior to backing into the siding. There's no provision in the fixed signalling to allow this move AFAIK - I've been expecting a hand-signal from the 'box to be used. Exit is covered by the ground disc, of course. Correct, with the appropriate token withdrawn to permit occupation of the single line. The lack of subsidiary signalling would be consistent with the rest of the PP&W, half the moves on Newton Stewart would have to be done on handsignals ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 From what I was watching when I saw the layout at Normanton & Pontefract this was the scenario (I think?) that was portrayed then, a east bound train would wait, whilst the westbound swept through, FWIW, that was the usual routine we settled into, with the eastbound/up operator effectively being subservient to the down man. It was admittedly based more on its being comfortable to work that way, rather than any great thoughts of adherence to prototype Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 16, 2010 Author Share Posted February 16, 2010 I just opt in and out of pedantry as it suits me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted April 2, 2010 Author Share Posted April 2, 2010 Is it time to wake this thread up from sleep? Work continues over on the blog, for those who don't read it, here's a couple of (slightly fuzzy) shots of the first steam loco I've got successfully converted to EM: As is my style, it's a compromise. I know there's a yawning gap between bogie wheels and frame, and I know the bufferbeam's too shallow... but all that'll have to wait for a while, it doesn't bother me too much. A rough, first-pass weathering coat has been applied and she'll do for now. Ayr's 44977, waits on the paint on her footsteps drying (!) at the time of photography. (pics in abeyance - being transferred to Flickr 7/12) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.