Dungrange

True. I think it's highly unlikely that Great Northern Gunpowder Van no 13207 found it's way down the W&U Tramway, but that hasn't stopped me ordering the Rapido model. However, I know I need to avoid running it too often - I can guarantee that it was not a regular visitor (if indeed it ever got there). I agree that proving whether something ran or didn't run in any given year is probably next to impossible to determine. I don't even know what colour each tram engine and each coach was around 1921. Obviously GER wagons were in the majority throughout the pre-grouping period, but how likely foreign wagons were to appear is partly related to the type of traffic on the line and the balance between inbound and outbound loaded vehicles as well as the size and breakdown of each companies wagon fleet and the foreign companies proximity to the W&U Tramway. Midland, Great Northern and LNWR wagons would probably have been the most common foreign company wagons. I note that the National Library of Scotland has a copy of the Wild Swan (Hawkins and Reeve) book, so I'll put in a request to have a look at it the next time I'm free to take a trip. Peter Paye's book does give a breakdown of revenue by type of traffic in 1914, but converting that to an estimate of each type of goods wagon means understanding the costs of transporting each type of goods. Maybe I should be looking for a copy of the Great Eastern Railway accounts.

That terminology makes sense in the context of a mainline railway, where passenger trains normally travelled at a higher speed and therefore all vehicles in the passenger train would have to be suitable for that higher speed running, which would necessitate them being fitted vehicles. However, on the W&U Tramway, all trams (passenger and goods) were limited to a maximum speed of 8 mph (later increased to 12 mph). My line of thinking is that a passenger tram can have up to nine fitted vehicles (of which two may not be passenger coaches), whereas a mixed train can be ten vehicles (ie one extra vehicle, which means more weight), yet this can have unfitted vehicles. That seems counter-intuitive. However, if the passenger trams only had the one brake coach (No 16), which, as far as I can tell always seems to have been marshalled at the Upwell end, and the mixed trams conveyed a second goods brake van as well, then I suppose that does provide additional braking and therefore explains why a longer train was permitted. Unfortunately, I'm still looking for a picture of a Mixed Tram on the W&U, but I suspect that these only operated in the initial years and by the dawn of the 20th century, all of the trams were either Passenger or Goods and the reference to Mixed Trams was just a historic reference. As such, I think I'm just looking for pictures of fitted tail traffic in a passenger train.

https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/page/retailers - use the map to see Bachmann stockists all over the world. There are a few in the EU and Switzerland, but they will only stock what they think they can sell, so may not carry the full range. However, they could probably order whatever you want.

That appears to be the Diagram 72 vans that were constructed from 1911 and I understand that these were all unfitted. It's the same van that Oxford Rail recently produced a model of in 4mm scale. I understand that it was just the earlier Diagram 46 vans that were built between 1903 and 1911, which were a mix of fitted and unfitted and also ventilated and non-ventilated. These were very similar, but 3" longer, being 19' 3" overhead stocks rather than 19'. As for the livery, it would have been around in @Penlan's time period of 1910, but I understand that this livery was discontinued in 1912, with a large V on the bodyside rather than the red ends becoming the standard from that date.

Can you clarify why your livery cut off dates (1890 and 1905) don't align with the Brighton Circle website (https://www.lbscr.org/Rolling-Stock/Liveries/index.html#WagonsEarly) which quotes dates of 1895, 1903 and 1911? It's definitely not a wagon on my must have list, but I could probably justify a single post-1911 liveried van to add to my collection of foreign company wagons. Your picture of 8091 looks like the post-1911 livery.

Yes, I can understand that in relation to passenger services for the reasons you highlight, but it's less clear why coal wagons weren't supposed to be in scheduled goods services, because the same goods stock would operate together elsewhere on other branch lines. I'm also not clear if it was just loaded coal wagons that were supposed to be transported at night, or all coal wagons (laden and unladen) and whether this instruction might have been largely ignored in later years. There is a photograph in Peter Paye's book with the caption "On the final day of passenger train operation 31 December 1927 'Y6' class 0-4-0 tram locomotive No 7133 passes the snow-clad Boyce's Bridge depot with a down freight train. In the formation are Coote and Warren and Clay Cross private owner coal wagons". If I understand this correctly, the down direction would be towards Upwell and the wagons should therefore be loaded with imported coal and therefore shouldn't be in that goods train, since it's clearly a daytime service. It's possible that the caption is incorrect and the wagons are outbound empties, which may have been allowed in scheduled goods services, but the position of the fence in the picture leads me to believe that the tram was bound for Upwell and the caption is correct. Both these wagons are at the front of the train immediately behind the tram locomotive. The same photograph appears in The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway Centenary Album, by Andrew C Ingram, which has the caption "Coal was the main incoming traffic. LNER Y6 7133 with wagons from Coote and Warren and Clay Cross on the passing loop at Boyce's Bridge Depot in 1927". That caption doesn't state the direction of tram, but reference to incoming traffic also suggests a tram heading to upwell that clearly has coal wagons in a scheduled service despite the Working Instructions stating that this wasn't allowed. Perhaps it wasn't allowed in GER days, but reviewed by the LNER as no longer relevant with the ending of passenger services, which could have made the photographed service one of the first to have coal wagons. A footnote in the 1927 Working Timetable states "No coal trucks are to be worked by any of the above tram-car trains. A special trip is to be run for the working of such traffic". However, there appears to be no such footnote on the 1928 working timetable.

Peter Paye's book doesn't definitively answer that question. It states that "The Regulations under which the tramway was to operate were laid down by the Board of Trade and were very specific on certain points of safety", but the Working Instructions are clearly separate from what the Board of Trade stipulated. The book goes on to state that "The GER and later LNER also issued Working Instructions for the tramway in addition to the Regulations and Bye-Laws". I would therefore read this as having been something instituted by the GER. However, the author notes that the Working Instructions changed over time with many of the instructions being "superseded or modified by the LNER and in 1942, the Regulations, Bye-Laws and Local Instructions were a shadow of the former instructions". It then notes that "By 1956 BR had further reduced these instructions, which......remained in force until the closure of the tramway in May 1966". By then it appears that all that was left by way of operating instructions was the paragraphs about crossing stations, the need to convey lamps after dusk, during foggy weather or falling snow, and the need for the guard to proceed ahead of either an assisting engine (ie in the event of an engine failure) or a Tram proceeding beyond the crossing station for any other reason. Given that this instruction survived through to 1966 it must have been felt necessary to retain it, or it had been included in the Instructions prepared by the GER at the request of another body, who didn't want BR to change it. As for weight of trains, I note that the Working Instructions also state that "No coal or Dead Buffer trucks are to be worked by any of the booked Tram Car trains, but a special trip must be run during the night for the working of such traffic". There isn't an explanation as to why this was necessary, but presumably weight may have been one factor. There also isn't any indication of how often these 'specials' were run. I would assume that they were reasonably frequent, as I think coal was one of the main imported commodities. Unfortunately, reading the Working Instructions leaves me with many questions. The version from the GER Appendix to Working Timetables 1910 stated: "Not exceeding 2 through trucks from Wisbech to Upwell and from Upwell to Wisbech may be worked in the rear of a Passenger Tram. The Maximum loads of the Trams are as under: - Passenger Trams - 9 vehicles Mixed Trams - 10 vehicles, 4 of which may be loaded Goods trucks Coal Trams - 4 loaded trucks in winter and 5 in summer. Note: Tram Cars No 7 and 8 to be counted as 2 vehicles each". Coal Trams are presumably the 'specials' that operated at night, with weather being the obvious difference between summer and winter - presumably it was precipitation rather than temperature that would have affected haulage / braking. I'm not sure of the difference between Mixed Trams (of which four could be goods wagons) and Passenger Trams with a 'tail load', (which were restricted to two trucks). There is no mention as to whether these need to be Westinghouse Brake fitted or whether unfitted wagons and vans were acceptable tail traffic. The only timetable reference to Mixed Trams is in the one for 1885, which lists both Passenger and Mixed Trams, and only one Fruit/Goods service, but these were early days. It is an interesting book, and does contain a lot of information. Unfortunately, there is always a desire to understand more and the more you seem to find, the more questions seem to be generated.

The Wisbech & Upwell Tramway, by Peter Paye has the answer to all your questions. It has working timetables from a number of years including 1897, 1916 and 1927 which all cover the period when both goods and passenger services were working and both the passenger and goods trains are shown in the timetables. It also has working timetables for 1928, 1937, 1944, 1952 and 1961 which cover the freight only period. These are all in Chapter 9. Chapter 7 covers the operating instructions, which stated that "This Tramway has passing Loops and Goods Depots at Elm Depot, Boyce's Depot, Outwell Basin, Outwell Village and Upwell, but the crossing stations are Wisbech, Boyce's Bridge and Upwell only". That is these would be the only three locations where you would have seen more than one tram locomotive under normal operating conditions. The operating instructions go on to state that "The Trams, which are to cross at Boyce's Bridge are so noted in the Working Timetables and these Booked Crossings must be strictly observed, except as provided for in the last paragraph of this instruction. The man in charge of Boyce's Bridge Depot will be held responsible for unlocking and locking the Points to allow the trams from opposite directions to cross each other." In effect, this means that the man in charge of Boyce's Bridge Depot acted as a token exchange (although there were no physical tokens), so generally there would only be one tram on the section between Wisbech and Boyce's Bridge and one tram in the section between Boyce's Bridge and Upwell. The last paragraph of the operating instructions state that "In the event of a Tram having to proceed beyond it's crossing point owing to the cancellation or stoppage of another Tram, the Guard with Hand and Detonating signals, must proceed 900 yards in advance of his Tram." This was obviously to ensure more than just being able to stop in line of sight. The instructions for working also state that "a telephonic communication is provided between Wisbech and Upwell, with a telephone at Elm Depot, Boyce's Depot, Outwell Basin and Outwell Village". Clearly these would have been used to ascertain why a booked train hadn't arrived at Boyce's Bridge Depot before the Guard was sent off ahead of his Tram with Hand and Detonating signals.

Do any of these cover the pre-grouping period better than the others? I already have the Wisbech & Upwell Tramway by Peter Paye and The Wisbech & Upwell Tramway Centenary Album by Andrew C Ingram. Ideally I'm looking for more photographs from GER days or more facts and figures about the traffic conveyed, wagons etc.

That's what the real railway would do. The signal that controls the junction would be at J and a train would not be able to proceed past J without the correct route being set as far as either D or E. It would never stop at K if there was a movement signalled from M since when the signal at J was cleared, all of the points downstream would be locked. If something was set to leave from M then the signal at J would be locked at danger and couldn't be cleared.

How many of the same loco class is too many? I think that's one of the Ultimate Questions of Life, The Universe, and Everything, to which the answer is 42. Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with four of the one class if they were common at the time and location you are trying to portray. I've got half a dozen Class 66 locomotives in the same EWS livery, plus at least four in other liveries.

I bought the first of these, but wouldn't have said it was that informative. It's got a lot of pictures (102), but not much text. A far more informative book is The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway by Peter Pay, The Oakwood Press, ISBN 978 0 85361 689 4. I've not read your second suggestion, so can't comment on it.

I note that it seems to have trainset curves as well! Both tracks in the foreground appear to have a continuous checkrail. Of course we usually don't bother with these in model form as we're trying to pretend our curves are much more generous than they really are. Do tell us then. It looks Southern to me (but then even Newcastle is south of me) 🤣

I don't really understand your thinking. You either don't need a switch at all (if the DC and DCC systems are NEVER connected to the layout at the same time), or you need a Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switch because your track has two rails. You must switch both from DC to DCC.

Okay - I agree that it looks as though everyone else is sold out. Lendons allows me to add it to my basket, but I note the caveat "Please be aware that some items may have to be ordered from a supplier to finalise an order." Therefore although they might allow you to order it, there in no guarantee that it is in stock. https://www.lendonsmodelshop.co.uk/index.asp?search=Railways-20N-20Gauge&showorder=lowest&check=yes&searchme=Gaugemaster Senics

Is it just that you can't find a small enough quantity. 0.5 Kg bags seem to be on sale at https://www.osbornsmodels.com/gm115gm1901---ballast---n-scale-granite-grey-500g-45160-p.asp, although they seem to have a minimum on-line order value of £10, so you'd need to want to buy something else as well. Looking on Hattons website, GM115 seems to have been replaced by GM1901. https://www.hattons.co.uk/1189843/gaugemaster_gm1901_grey_ballast_0_5kg_replaces_gm115_/stockdetail

I agree, but the original post refers to the 1950s/60s, so I'm reading that as pre-Beeching and therefore before the rationalisation of the 1970s. Of course not all closures can be attributed to Beeching and there were closures made throughout the 20th Century, with some lines even closing before 1900. I can see the similarity. The difference is that the line through Georgemas Junction isn't and never has been double track. All station approaches are single track lines, which is the reason for the station having only one platform. To use the nomenclature of the plan being discussed, trains approach from A (Inverness), stop at the station platform, proceed to E (Thurso), return to the station platform and continue to F (Wick), return to the station platform, and then head back to A (Inverness). The line in the middle of the above picture is a run-round loop for locomotive hauled services, which these days is just freight. Rule 1 is to do what makes you happy. At one end of the spectrum, there are those who want to make a perfect scale model of location X on a particular date, operated exactly as per the working timetable and sectional appendices. At the other end of the spectrum are those who just want a trainset oval of track with a few sidings, and they don't care too much about how the real railway operates. They run whatever they like in whatever manner they like. There isn't really a right or wrong approach and it's up to you whether your preference is for realism or fun.

By and large, there will be the same number of trains in each direction, so for each E to F service, there would be a corresponding H to E service. If it wasn't that way, then you'd ultimately end up with an imbalance of trains and a lot of passengers unable to get home. I don't see E > B > C > D nor A > B > C > D as being particularly likely. If a train is going to terminate and return in the direction that it came from, the point work would normally be arranged so that the train could make the movement directly from the platform (eg through a trailing crossover at A/D). If these movements have to be made, then they should be E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D. A train can't leave the station, stop in the middle of a junction and change direction. It would be signalled to depart from the platform and would have to traverse all of the point work and continue until it was past the home signal at J. The train could then stop, the driver would change ends and head of towards D. Yes, facing crossovers (as you have at B/C) would generally have been avoided as much as possible in the steam era, but they did exist on some lines. Ultimately you need the facing cross over so that trains approaching from the right can access the single track branch (E). If you were running reasonably long freight trains via this route, it may be that the facing crossover was considered preferable to taking the trains to D then reversing into the platform to continue their journey. The issue is more where the signals are placed. If a train is approaching from A/E then it could sit over point B provided there was no intention to reverse trains at this location (ie E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D are not viable moves and neither would E > B > C > J and A > B > C > J). If that were the case, then the starting signal would be placed just before the point at which F and G diverge, in which case a unit sitting over point B would be okay. However, if you want to be able to make any of the above moves, then the starter signal would be at the toe end of point B and sitting over the point would be less likely (ie the train would have to be cleared for departure before it was able to enter the station. I see no reason why a train couldn't sit on your point connecting A and E as any train at your platform departing to the left must be heading towards E, which means the starting signal could be positioned accordingly. I think it's highly unlikely that such a station would have been constructed in real life. Most stations on a double track line would have at least two platforms, so that they can serve trains in both directions. I also don't think that trains would terminate at such a small station. I think the only justification for the arrangement you have would be that it is only used by services E > B > F and the reverse trip H > C > B > E. Any other passenger services would pass through non-stop. There is little point in letting passengers off, if you can't provide a stopping service in the reverse direction. I'm therefore proposing some long freight trains to/from E justifying the facing crossover, and some short branch line passenger service to/from E stopping at this location to justify the platform, with all other trains in the plan just running through without stopping.

Any use - https://www.macintoshrepository.org/1448-appleworks-6-for-windows - looks like it might be v6.2 (Download link #2 halfway down the page)?

Okay. As I piece of infrastructure I'm unlikely to use (especially if it terminates at Old Oak Common) I've not followed the development twists of HS2 too closely. However, there were plenty of railway companies in the Victorian Era, which were named as the A B and C Railway Company, which never got as far as C and sometimes never even got as far a B before they ran out of money and the scope was cut. Another company was often then formed to 'extend' the original line to what was originally conceived as the target destination. I suppose my questions would be: Is a new high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds really the best answer to the transport problems in Yorkshire? Is a new high speed line between Birmingham and Manchester really the best answer to the transport problems in South East Lancashire? I believe that the construction of a new line between London and Birmingham is needed and that HS2 is an appropriate / the best solution to the capacity constraints on the southern portion of the current West Coast Mainline (WCML). What are the benefits of continuing construction of the line northwards, where the WCML is less congested? As two of the largest cities in the UK, Leeds and Manchester make sense as end points and with a high speed line all the way to London it would become easier for residents of those two cities to connect to what someone else referred to as 'the shop window of the UK' (ie London), which is where most international business is conducted. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is are those legs of the scheme the best solution to the problems in these areas? My perception (which may be wrong) is that money for 'The North' (which is 200+ miles south of me!) would possibly be better spent on improved east west connectivity rather than a faster trip to London. However, it would have been more difficult to justify a new line solely between London and Birmingham, because more trains are required to use the line to make a business case for the southern section (ie Phase 1), hence the push to take the line further north. That is, because of the appraisal process, which places undue emphasis on travel time savings because they are easier to quantify, it becomes easier to justify high speed rail between London and Birmingham, if the line is also stated as serving X, Y and Z.

Politically yes. However, if the project had started at Leeds / Manchester, then the most appropriate solution to capacity issues in the north may not be a separate high speed railway, or certainly not one running in the direction of London. I think the problem with the HS2 extensions that are under threat is that they are trying to sell the southern solution to the northern problems.

When would you propose freight be allowed to run on the WCML? If all freight traffic had to be conveyed overnight, then when would maintenance work be undertaken? Making the trains run in a different order doesn't solve the capacity issue. If the Government is serious about the decarbonisation of transport and meeting net zero emissions targets then there is a need for more freight to travel by rail (not less). Restricting the times that the rail freight market can operate would be wholly counterproductive to the bigger picture of achieving mode shift. That is an option, which may have been considered long ago, but for those living along the line of HS2 who object to the construction of a new high speed line, are they going to be happier with a freight line? Would they be happy with the construction of a new rail freight terminal near to their homes, since the existing ones near the WCML wouldn't be as well suited to the new freight only alignment if you're banning freight from the WCML? Some might complain about the lack of a station near them on HS2, but they would complain a lot more if they were told that a new rail freight terminal was being built a mile down the road! However the main reason this suggestion doesn't make as much sense as HS2 is that as @Pete the Elaner has highlighted, the way to maximise capacity on any rail line is to reduce the differential in train speeds. Freight and local stopping services can quite happily share the same infrastructure: it's the higher speed limited stop services that cause the capacity problems, so it makes more sense to move the fastest trains somewhere else. Either way, you're still suggesting the construction of a new line between the London area and the Birmingham area, which is what HS2 is. Ultimately, taking fast passenger services off the WCML frees up the existing lines for slow passenger and freight, which is a better option than taking freight services off the WCML so that fast and slow passenger trains can be mixed. That's why HS2 is progressing and a freight only alternative isn't: HS2 is the better option. You ask "How would you get that approved?". Well, to be honest, I think that is part of the problem and it's skewed transport investment for decades, favouring roads over rail and passengers over freight. For publicly funded projects there is a desire to demonstrate 'Value for Money'. The main metric here is the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). In essence it is quite simply a ratio of the monetised benefits of the scheme divided by the cost. If the value is greater than one, then the benefits are worth more than the cost. How do promoters demonstrate this Value for Money? One way is to underestimate the cost at the outset, which makes the scheme appear better value for money than it actually is. I'm not saying that there is a desire to deliberately deceive, but there is a phenomenon known as optimism bias, meaning that those who prepare the initial cost estimates are inclined to underestimate the cost of various unseen risks (eg dealing with objections) and the complexity (and ultimately cost) of some of the engineering works that are ultimately required. However, it's the benefit side of the equation that is perhaps as much at fault here. There are many benefits that arise from a project such as HS2, but the easiest to monetise is travel time savings, which typically make up the majority of the monetised benefits of most transport schemes in the UK. How do you maximise the travel time savings? There are two obvious ways to push this number up. 1) increase the travel time saving per user (which means designing as fast a route as possible) and 2) encourage as many people to use the infrastructure as possible (which is what's driven all the extensions from Birmingham to X, Y and Z). Ultimately, it appears that scope and costs have both spiralled over time. Make the route as straight as possible with as few stops as possible (to increase travel time savings) then add on extra spurs to various places (to increase the number of trains). All of these changes deliver on the desire for more benefits, but of course they also push up the cost, which means that even more benefits need to be generated to justify the higher cost. It becomes a spiral. I'm not saying that it's wrong to extend the project beyond Birmingham, but I suspect that some of the extensions are not necessarily the correct solutions to addressing transport problems in the north. In some respects this is one of the differences between HS1 and HS2. HS1 was never considered to be anything other than a link between London and the Channel Tunnel, whereas HS2 is seen as London to 'The North' with a poorer defined northern end point. The other point though is that many of the benefits of the scheme are not captured in the appraisal process, because there are corresponding costs that are also not included in the current HS2 cost estimates. The biggest benefit to building HS2 is not the travel time savings but the increased number of available paths on the southern section of the WCML. Infrastructure on it's own doesn't have an intrinsic benefit. The benefits arise from it's use and it's not clear exactly what trains will use the additional capacity created on the WCML once HS2 is operational. This means that the economic benefits of additional local passenger transport aren't captured in the appraisal of HS2 because the provision of these services is outside of the scope of HS2. Similarly, the economic benefits of increased rail freight on the WCML are not captured because again these services sit elsewhere in the private sector and not part of the scope of HS2. However, just because these benefits can't be monetised as easily as travel time savings doesn't mean that they are not of value. Unfortunately, a tendency for decision makers to focus on the BCR means that they tend to focus on speed (because it's an easily monetised benefit) and passengers (because it's easier to forecast how many people may use a line in 20 years time than it is to forecast what freight trains are likely to use the network). The appraisal period used for transport projects in the UK is 60 years. What freight services are likely be running on your new freight only line in 2085? It's much easier to state with confidence that HS2 will have a regular non-stop service between London and Birmingham than it is to define what freight trains would use a new freight only route, and therefore even if it were a better option than HS2 (which it isn't), it would be almost impossible to get the Government to commit to funding it because it would be very difficult to demonstrate Value for Money.

If by 'we' you mean you, then why not? Someone has to take the lead. Produce something based on the combination of locomotives and decoders you have, along with your recommended CV settings. See if other people find it useful. If they do, you may get other collaborators. If not, it's an idea that will just die off until someone else asks the same question in a few years time.

Which are largely personal preference. Some people like their locos to respond as they did on DC (ie near instantaneous acceleration and braking), whereas others will prefer long slow acceleration as per the prototype, as though the train was hauling a heavy load. The size of layout will also have a bearing on the values chosen. If you're constrained to a small end to end layout, setting the acceleration at a value where it would take three times the length of your layout to reach running speed wouldn't be particularly useful. If we compress model distances, then we need to adjust CVs to suit our layout. That would probably be your start point. If anything exists, it will be someone like yourself who has has undertaken comparative testing and then posted the result on their blog. Maybe there are only 750 model locomotives, but different generations of the same model will perform differently (so you can probably double that number) and then you have not just different decoder manufacturers, but different decoder versions, with different firmware versions. Multiplying all the various combinations may get you closer to a million than you think. I agree that it would be simpler than mapping the human genome, but what modeller can be bothered to purchase one of every locomotive version and try it with all the main decoder options available in the UK. It would be an expensive, time consuming exercise, which would be of little value to whoever created the database you seek.

And that is why the name "High Speed 2" is misleading: it implies that the railway is being built for speed, whereas in actual fact, it is being built to create additional capacity on the southern sections of the West Coast Mainline (WCML). Taking an existing four track section and expanding that to six tracks to create capacity for additional local and freight services isn't feasible in many locations (unless demolishing thousands of homes) so the solution is to take the new fast tracks and put them somewhere else. Those new tracks are being called HS2. If the people using the trains that will travel on these new fast tracks are making long distance limited stop journeys then they don't really care about the route that they take, so the alignment of HS2 can follow whatever route is cheapest to build / least environmentally destructive between A an B without having to route between smaller settlements to pick up passengers, which is what the WCML does. Improving local services is the ultimate aim of HS2, but you can't increase the frequency of a local service from hourly to half hourly unless you can find train paths for the additional train that you want to run every hour. The way to do that is to reroute some of your existing services, which in this case is onto a new line.