Jump to content

Pacific231G

Members
  • Posts

    5,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pacific231G

  1. Interesting With the 1905 OS 25 inch map, this and other images seem to show that working stock from the arrival to departure side involved a shunt into the tunnel. using the trailing crossover (that was half in the tunnel. I don't know how far into the tunnel the steep gradient began. I'm guessing that on busy days a number of trains arrived in the morning and were shunted back to the kickback carriage sidings and then brought out one by one for the evening return. That return would have involved shunting them into the down platform then up into the tunnel and back to the departure platforms.
  2. That's correct. You can see it in this image. Until I saw the OS map I assumed there was a similar safety spur on the "down" side, (That was the arrangement at Sheerness Dockyard, where a type of sector plate at the end of the two platforms was used as a release) but I think you're probably right about the TT being normally locked to the beach side platform with the signals for that platform only released when it was. The interlocking for the cliff side "up" platform presumably required the points on the up side to be normalled to the spur. From the few photos I have of Ramsgate Beach (aka Ramsgate Harbour) It looks as though they did operate it with a departure and arrival side using the bays on each side for shorter trains. With only a barrow crossing between the platforms I think it would have to have been worked that way. The track beside the "up" bay clearly served as a carriage siding at busy times and as a second goods siding (full of coal wagons in the one image I have of it with wagons) at other times leaving just the one track beneath the cliff serving mileage and the goods shed. One photo does though show carriages occupying the centre road so it would be interesting to know how it was operated. Possibly with train engines shunting ECS into the carriage sidings beyond the tunnel at quieter times but use of pilots on the busiest days. It's interesting to consider how the station might have developed in more modern times had it not been closed. A possible subject?
  3. We are OT but I'll finish by saying that I found this particularly entertaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar I've often wanted to start sentences with 'But' but always thought it sloppy so used 'However' instead . It seems I was labouring under a misaprehension.
  4. Yes it saves us from all that tedious modelling business I'm wondering though if we should take this back to the Special, General and Unified Theory of Minories in relationship with Terminus Field Theory thread and, now that it's abuilding, leave this one for William's layout.
  5. As did Birmingham Snow Hill- a turntable serving three roads at the Wolverhampton end. Though a through station, Snow Hill was a terminus for many (most?) services coming up from the south so I assume it served the same purpose that Ranelagh Bridge did at Paddington. There were a lot of odd stabling points just south of the river associated with the London termini that poked into the City like Blackfriars. Ewer Street in Southwark was a well known (and eminently modellable) example. Those sound more like turnaroud engine spurs than refuges for pilots but I accept that my own observations (and access to track plans) are rather GWR/WR biased. Other companies may have provided dedicated spurs for pilot locos but I've not found any on God's Wonderful.
  6. Interesting. I had to trace it out but it does give more simultaneous arrival and departure routes than Minories for intensive commuter working and looks suitably busy. I'm not sure though about having both a pilot spur* and a turnover engine spur, especially as the turnover spur only gives direct access to platform 1. CJF's plan gave equal access to all three platforms which the pilot spur on your plan also does. You can achieve the same result with a simple double crossover throat (sich as Minories) by connecting platform three with the inbound line and that doesn't make the throat for platfoms 1 & 2 any longer than the four point length of Minories or its straight equivalent, *I'm not that convinced about dedicated pilot spurs in general. I think a few large stations had them but, at most that used them, the pilot locos just seemed to find somewhere to lurk.
  7. It was light hearted. I was amused that Regularity pulled William up on alternate and then used different to which the grammar purists generally object to. Actually I strongly agree with you about the attempts of the grammarians to turn our living language into an enormous set of rigid rules that they alone determine. I once had tremendous rows with a bunch of classicists who thought my scripts for spoken English should be in "correct" written English, which would have made them stilted and awkward. The usual one is their rubbish about not using split infinitives which comes down to split infinitives not being possible in Latin. We're writing English not Latin and "to boldly go" works far better than "to go boldly".
  8. Surely "Different from..." I'm sure the Edwardian passengers would have noticed such things. I was going to say those passengers that could read and write, but I looked it up and, in 1900, literacy rates in Britain were 97% for both men and women.
  9. Though there's a significant overlap I agree that there is a difference between a layout optimised for viewing at an exhibition and one designed primarily to entertain the operator(s). For the former, the operator doesn't really need any suspension of disbelief (though it does make operating more engaging) and you can have "bitsa" stations where some of the operation involves sleight of hand off-stage. For the latter though you ideally want to be able to set up the fiddle yard, for the next few trains at least, and then do no more than select the road for the next movement in or out with as few visits "backstage" as possible. I'm curious about what a "half-minories" might be but on my own layout at home, so long as some of the train stays in my sight, I don't find running into the fiddle yard a problem in terms of my own suspension of belief. I operate the layout from the front (not ideal for exhibition but better at home) and the empty road in the fiddle yard just becomes, in my imagination, the running line as far as the limit of shunt. I did actually design the layout for all the shunting moves for a normal train to be carried out on the station board so that it could be used without the fiddle yard as a shunting layout. In practice though I found that I wanted the train to arrive from and return to somewhere else even if that was just a single track "fiddle-stick". I've also found that running goods trains with too many wagons for the run round loop makes the operation far more of a challenge and that does require trains to shunt into the FY. At home I now even attach the screen that hides the fiddle yard even though that was only intended for the occasions when I take it out.
  10. That's not necessarily so Mike. Ramsgate Sands was a busy passenger terminus. especially for holiday and tripper traffic but it had a very small two road goods yard tucked between the terminus and the cliffs behind that I assume served just the harbour and beachfront area. I thnk there was a small goods shed and it also seems to have handled coal, possibly for the fishing fleet and local guest houses etc. The main goods depot of a mainline railway associated with its major terminus would indeed be large, as at Paddington or Bishopsgate (Liverpool St), and probably separated somewhat from the passenger terminus. However, a fairly large terminus could ocassionally have a relatively small goods yard serving just the local needs of the district the terminus happened to be in while the passenger terminus served the whole city. Though it's not in Britain, there was a particularly good example of this at the St. Paul station in Lyon where a busy five platform passenger terminus handled mainly commuter traffic but with a relatively small goods shed and yard alongside it even though the city's main (and very large) goods yards were elsewhere. I think that in a large city, and possibly also at Ramsgate Sands, such a local yard would probably be served by trip workings rather than being a destination/origin of longer distance goods trains. Alternative approaches are to use a kickback goods yard but assume that it's one end of a much larger yard stretching back alongside the main line or to make the goods sidings not a goods yard as such but rather the exchange sidings for a line serving docks or local industries.
  11. If you look at the original Minories plan, it was a foldover baseboard, so compact for storage and transport, but the throat half was tapered. An entirely tapered baseboard can also be folded horizontally to produce a rectangular box that, when opened, gives greater width at the terminus end where you generally need it and less at the throat where you generally don't (My own current layout is built that way and it has a number of advantages). In the case of Minories the tapered throat would also make that part of the layout lighter, Since it includes all the pointwork and associated motors, linkages and wiring, that would make it easier to fold over to work on the wiring etc. under the baseboard. Though I think the first goods version of Minories may have been a bit of an afterthought, the actual passenger Minories was obviously extremely well thought through in every aspect. Having come up with the ingenious arrangement of points that characterises it, Cyril Freezer clearly put a lot of extra time and effort into perfecting the plan. From the design of the overall roof and the road bridge that hides the hinge towers and disguises just how short for a "mainline" terminus it really is, to the projection he used for the plan to make it easier to visualise, that original article is well worth studying.
  12. Hi Barry. It's looking great and I wouldn't worry too much about the identity of the train. If the overnight le Train Bleu and Côte d'Azure Express could have Calais portions I don't see why Le Mistral couldn't be improved with a Lille or Bruxelle section. There were also other trains only slightly less prestigious than Le Mistral that included 1st Class DEV Inoxes, and a CIWL Wagon Restaurant next to a Pullman car. The usual arrangement seems to have been a CIWL Pullman at one end of the train next to the restaurant car which serviced it as well as providing a meal service for the rest of the train. ISTR that, if there was more than one Pullman, one of them would be the type with its own small kitchen. Your train could simply be one that required a reversal necessitated by an unusual inter-regional routing or it could be working from some kind of annexe terminus like Bercy or those that were a little way down the line from Montparnasse. Unfortunately, though Loco-Revue have published 60 ans de Compositions de Trains de Nuit Français (1950-2010) there is no sign of an equivalent volume for daytime trains. It would though be a formidable undertaking. Unusually composed trains were not that rare. Though it was pre-SNCF, the Etat ran a train in the 1930s from St. Lazare to Deauville that included CIWL sleeping cars. Not obviously unusual except that it was a daytime train! You may well wonder why anyone travelling during the day to a fashionable resort would want to do so in a private sleeping/day comparment but I couldn't possibly speculate!
  13. I've long suspected that the goods version of CJF's original April 1957 design was a very last minute addition to the basic commuter terminus that I think he'd been working up for a while. Minories was published primarily as a folding five foot long TT-3 plan the month after Tri-ang 's launch of the new scale and the goods version enabled the wagons in the initital very limited range to be used alongside the suburban coaches. The two problems with it were first that access to the goods shed involved an awkward zig zag from platform three, which effectively became the goods reception road, and second that the goods warehouse completely hid the passenger platforms under the train shed. You could get round the latter problem by either shortening both the train shed and the goods shed to give the impression that they go back further or by making the goods sidings into mileage sidings without a shed though the latter does seem less likely for such a terminus in reality. I personally favour the kickback arrangement and have seen it used on a number of Minories based layouts. CJF used it in all later versions of Minories that included a goods yard and it does have advantages. It doesn't hide the trains in the platforms. it uses the otherwise dead triangle in front of the throat* so doesn't require a much wider baseboard at the terminus end. The goods warehouse can act as a view blocker for the main line entry to the fiddle yard. That also makes CJF's suggested road bridge between the throat and the main platforms, which I think is important in disguising the shortness of the station, far more credible. The disadvantages are that a kickback is a less typical arrangement for a goods yard and, unless a run round is contrived, would need two locos to handle a goods train (though so does the original scheme) *In the original Minories, CJF used a tapered board for the throat end. That always seemed a very neat way of avoiding the dead space in front of the throat but I've not seen anybody else use it- we do seem unduly addicted to rectangular baseboards.
  14. Not at all unusual. I agree completely that it was the norm rather than the exception so, unless one is happy to shunt into the fiddle yard, that makes a full scale model with an adequate approach even longer. That being so then selective compression becomes even more necessary. My real point though is that even if you could reproduce every inch of the prototype to strict scale I think the result would give less sense of actually being there than a suitably condensed interpretation. What constitutes suitably is of course for the artist (i.e. modeller) to determine and most of us probably end up compressing reality a bit too far.
  15. That's true, but how much longer does it need to be to give that impression of space? For example, taking three examples from Paul Karau's book, Tetbury - a good example of a small GW branch terminus- was about 20 chains or 1200ft long so, in 4mm scale, would require a length of about sixteeen feet just to model the station. Lambourn was about 14 chains long and even Watlington, one of the smallest of BLTs, was 10 chains long and at both termini you'd need to use the main line to shunt the goods yard. So, for a scale model of even Watlington, you'd be looking at perhaps eleven feet plus a fiddle yard. Local goods trains seem to have been between about eight and thirty wagons long (probably on the high end of that in pre-grouping times when everythng that went anywhere did so by rail) and local goods sidings could certainly hold twenty or more wagons but, if you reduced that by say a third would you lose any of the impression of a well spread out country goods yard? Of course, there may be great satisfaction in modelling a complete location to exact scale and running trains with completely authentic formations but I'd argue that, to recreate that location as a scene, judicious editing is generally preferable.
  16. I'm afraid that I've yet to see a layout that isn't selectively compressed that has, to my mind at least, actually benefitted from it. Even Plumpton Green, a layout that I admire greatly, just seems longer than it needs to be for the operations carried out. I can see the attraction of knowing that you'd modelled everything exactly to scale but I don't think it's ideal for a model railway. I think this is partly to do with perception and the the way we view a model scene compared to how we view the equivalent scene in reality but it does perhaps also relate to Alfred Hitchcock's (validated) quote “What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out.” In a sense, what we are doing with a working model railway is dramatising a real working railway so perhaps we also need to cut out most of the long boring bits. If you make a film about an operating railway you'd never leave in the majority of the time when nothing was happening and I think that sort of compression in time also applies, though perhaps to a smaller extent, to compression of distance and even the length of trains.
  17. Ugh, almost as bad as Cassandra Crossing. Not this post in particualr but for heaven's sake. Patrick Barkham, a freelance journalists who writes for the The Guardian (normally on natural history) has put together a fairly light-hearted list of twenty films set on trains - presumably his own favourites- and some people here turn it into a culture war. I'm surprised nobody has yet described him as a "woke lefty" for leaving out one or two films. It does seem that The Guardian's very existence is like a red rag to a bull- How dare any newspaper be allowed that doesn't support the present shower in power. I wonder if an equivalent list would have invoked the same response if it had been in the Daily Telegraph? Bhowani Junction wasn't set on a train but it was also, unfortunately, not really very good and certainly not a patch on the book (which is well worth reading).
  18. The Lady Vanishes (1938) and Murder on the Orient Express are in the Guardian's list. I found that seven of their list would be in my own top twenty though I'd have put Silver Streak a lot higher. Those I'd add to my top twenty would include North West Frontier but also- despite its questionable politics- The Dark of the Sun (Jack Cardiff 1968) Rod Taylor, Yvette Mimieux, Jim Brown, The Train. This is probably my no 1 despite the 141Rs clearly visible outside the sheds at Vaires. The Last Train (1973 dir. Pierre Granier-Deferre) , Jean-Louis Trintignant and Romy Schneider meet on a refugee train (hauled, like the train in Murder on the Orient Express, by my favourite steam loco 230G 353) that crosses France while escaping the advancing Germans in 1940. It's based on a short novel by Georges Simenon but, though I'm a fan of Simenon, I thought the film far better than the book) La Bête Humaine (1938 Jean Renoir) Jean Gabin, Simone Simon based on the Victor Hugo novel. Emperor of the North: rather violent but a good insight into American steam era railroading and the depression. Von Ryan's Express - despite the obvious flaw that escaping POWs reaching neutral Switzerland (which thousands did) had to stay there. The reality of the blunder by MI9 when thousands of POWs who, like those in the film, found themsleves in unguarded camps when Italy overthrew Mussolin, were ordered to stay-put and became prisoners of the Germans, seems to have been all but forgotten https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/01/second-world-war-british-pows I'm afraid the Cassandra Crossing wouldn't even make my top hundred films set on trains. More like 126 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Two of my favourite railway based films, La Bataille du Rail (1945 eulogy to Resistance Fer (the railway resistance in occupied France) and Closely Observed Trains, don't count as they're not actually set on trains. The one lost episode I'd love to see again is the Adam Adamant Lives episode "Ticket to Terror" where a train load of commuters, incuding Adamant's manservant Simms disappears from the Waterloo and City Line (in those days B.R.) only to reappear a few days later full of skeletons. Then a second train which Georgina Jones (Juliet Harmer) is travelling on also disappears. Sadly, this episode does seem to be really lost (they sometimes turn up in old film vaults as telerecordings that were sent out tby the BBC to Australian etc. broadcasters)
  19. Agreed I have a Peco Streamline slip in my collection of 2nd hand track (used for trying out designs) and the result was exactly as you say. I also tried it with an SMP slip and it was no better. The other thing was that, when laid this way, the throat simply became too short and lost most of the effect of trains rattling over the approach pointwork between platforms and mains. I found this to also be true at full size with the very short approach pointwork at Lyon St. Paul where the usual minimum of two crossovers is replaced by a scissors crossover (actually in a tunnel) . If trains simply leave the platform and almost immediately disappear it seems rather unsatisfying, at least to me, whereas I find the minimum four point long approach of Minories and other plans with a separate facing and trailing crossover just long enough.
  20. I have a few Tri-ang TT-3 items left over from my youth and they're definitely not happy with Peco H0m points and even less happy with those from Tillig though old Berliner Bahn stock seems quite happy with both. It seems very unlikely that Peco's new TT points will be coarser in their crossing and flange clearances than their H0m ones- more liikely the opposite I have in front of me the March 1957 Railway Modeller, the month when TT-3 was launched. For their front cover photos they used a couple of permutations of Tri-ang's suburban coaches and wagons with a Tri-ang 0-6-0T - the only loco available in TT-3 at launch- and a Rokal Pacific fitted with Tri-ang tension lock couplings. The diorama that RM used for this also appeared with some of the same stock in Peco's full page advert in the same month for theit spiked TT track. RM's argument was that, by the time modellers adopting TT-3 had completed initial construction of their layouts, a wider range of stock to run on them would be available. I think the first additional rolling stock from Tri-ang appeared in October that year. By then others, such as W&H and Eames, were offering their own locos based on the Tri-ang 0-6-0 chassis but, apart from track, Peco got in early with wheelsets.
  21. Yes: I'm sure he mentioned that in one of his later articles. The key feature of Minories, the use of opposite handed points to form each of the the two crossovers, may well have occured to him earlier but the plan was published in April 1957, the month after the launch of TT-3 which had been planned for months. The fact that the published plan was exactly five feet long in TT but its length for 00 was misquoted as 6ft 6ins length when it was actually 6 ft 8ins (as given in 60 plans) does imply that he first drew it for TT. Tri-ang's own track geography with 12 inch radius "set track" points would give an approach over which trains would lurch rather than flow. Tri-ang's points were 4.5 inches long but if you look at the version with a goods depot you'll see that the right hand board is effectively five points long giving 6 inches for each point. That suggests to me that it was designed - not suprisingly- for Peco's new 19 inch radius TT points which were 5 inches long and slightly more generous than 24 inch radius 16.5mm gauge Streamline points. I've experimented with the Minories pointwork and, even with nominally 2 ft radius Streamline small points, bogie coaches do look a bit silly staggering though the reverse curves. With 3ft radius "medium" points the effect is far more satisfactory so it would be interesting to try equivalent rolling stock in 1:120 scale with Peco's "Medium " TT points.
  22. That was also CJF's advice right from the start of TT-3. "If we look at a minimum-space 00 layout, we find nothing wrong with the arrangement of tracks in themsevles, it is rather that they are too short and the siding space is barely sufficien. In most cases the same layout replanned in TT-3 can be just as large, the reduction in scale ensuring that the facilities for operation are improved." (RM March 1957 p60 "TT is Here!") He then proved the point with a 5ft x 1ft plan for a similar BLT in both scales but looking far less cramped in TT-3.
  23. One thing I like about Peco's approach is that they appear to be focussing on the railway modelling and not the "train set" approach to RTR with the first turnouts at 3ft radius (equivalent to 4ft for 16.5mm gauge) IMHO, what bedevilled 00, TT-3 and British N was the need to produce locos and track that would go round absurdly tight curves and so needed very wide tyres with all the problems of clearances that leads to. Henry Greenly designed 4mm/ft 00 to handle 12 inch radius curves (half the radius used for 0 gauge tinplate) , Hornby Dublo was designed for 15 inch curves, Tri-ang 00 for 13.5 inch and Tri-ang TT (TT-3) for 10 inch curves . I know that many H0 RTR models include compromises to get round not dissimilar fixed radius curves but at least the compromises have been those found necesssary after starting with the correct gauge not baked in from the start. There were a number of TT layouts at the GRS' Globalrail show in Didcot yesterday and more than one builder said that they'd been less than happy with existing TT track so were looking forward to trying out Peco's new range. Interestingly Peco themselves had quite a large stand there. Without knowing Peco's mind, I strongly suspect that the track has been designed with an international-or at least pan European- market in mind and it's fairly straightforward to add buildings and rolling stock for the British outline market. If it's worth their while to produce H0n3 track- mainly for a small section of the US market- then TT should be equally viable. As for rolling stock, it's worth remembering that Tri-ang launched TT-3 im March 1957 with just one 0-6-0T, a brake 2nd and a composite suburban coach, a goods brakevan, a mineral wagon, a box van and a tank wagon (with various markings and ladders for the United Dairies version)
×
×
  • Create New...