Dungrange

10 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Wagons were generally ordered by telegraph message for years, hence the various codes railways used to minimise the length of messages, whilst maintaining clarity. The methods used eventually changed, as did codes as needs changed, but telegraph codes existed well into BR days, hence codes such as Low, Lowfit, Med, Medfit, High, Highfit, Hybarfit, Shock, Cartruck, Carfit, Clay, Pigiron, Salt, Sandwag, Sleep, Sodash in the BR code book for various types of open wagons.

I've seen these codes in reference to British Railways, but were such codes in use in the pre-grouping era?  I think the Great Western Used telegraphic codes from early on, but did the other pre-grouping companies have similar codes?

11 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Surely the important criteria for what wagon was required was the nature of the load? 

Agreed. 

11 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

so the request might be more nuanced than 'we need an 8T wagon'.

Which is why I'm wondering how detailed or specific a request would have been.  For the Midland, it sounds as though it might just have been a request for an open wagon and whatever turned up was then used.  I wonder how many separate consignments are in the wagon below?

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

So any 8-ton wagon will do - at least that seems to have been the Midland's philosophy.

 

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

So the question might become, why was late 19th century development in the direction of higher sides?

It's an interesting question.  I assume that the increase in covered goods wagons over time was essentially a continuation of that same trend.  That is, a covered goods wagon is essentially a c12-plank open wagon that's permanently sheeted.  Presumably, the higher sided open wagons provided better protection for a range of loads than the lower sided opens.  However, they were also presumably more expensive to construct, albeit not as expensive as covered goods wagons.  I guess that it might have come down to economics - was it worth the marginal cost of an additional plank to reduce damage or spoilage by a certain amount.  Over time, it seems like the answer might have been yes.

7 hours ago, Danknight said:

hoping it’s heading in the right direction

I think it is, but there are a few things I don't understand.  To the left of your diagram, you've got an up line (clockwise) and down line (anticlockwise) and then a bidirectional 'loop'.  What is the purpose of the crossover between the anticlockwise circuit and the bidirectional loop?  The real railway never installs points unless they have a clear purpose.  I'm struggling to see why you need these.

Your platforms are very short.  It looks like they won't accommodate more than a 2-car Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) or a one, or possibly two coach train, depending on the coaches.  Are you content with such short trains?  If we assume that you are, then ideally as well as a train stopping and continuing on its way again, it would be good to be able to stop at the platform and then start again in the direction from which it came, crossing over onto the correct track for it's return journey.  This would be best achieved by replacing your facing crossover on the top of your plan with a trailing crossover and adding a trailing crossover on the right of your plan.

Again, what is the purpose of the crossover on the bottom of your plan for.  The only movement I could see that would use this would be to get a train from your maintenance area onto your outer (clockwise circuit), in which case I'd expect it to be further to the right.  The sidings in the maintenance area are very short.  Is this just for locomotive maintenance or does it serve another purpose?

Apart from that, I think the plan is workable.

1 hour ago, Danknight said:

I keep looking at railway plans but I’m struggling to see what I can do to make it more realistic in the space I have. Anything really obvious where I’ve gone wrong?

Which comes back to the fundamental question - do you want a train set or do you want a model railway?  They are not really the same thing and neither answer to that question is wrong.  I would consider a train set as something to be played with.  It should be fun and it should meet that childhood desire to be a train driver when you grow up.  It doesn't matter that you don't fully understand how the real railway works, it's a toy to be played with.  It's like a prop for a story that you're telling through movement.  Thomas, Annie and Claribel are going off on an adventure to... arrive right back where they started from, but hey, you're happy to pretend that it is somewhere new.  As a project that is intended to be for both you and your children, there is nothing wrong with that approach.  I'd say what you now have is a workable train set.

A model railway, or perhaps a model of a railway is more of a desire to portray a particular location or the essence of an area at a particular point or period in time.  It's more of an artform to create a believable scene.  It's a bit more like a three dimensional painting.  The landscape was there long before the railway came, so it needs to be built to look as though the railway has been built later, crossing over rivers, etc that were there long ago.  The railway was built for a reason, so we need to define what that reason was.  Why did your settlement get a railway?  Was it to transport commuters into London or another large city?  Was it to convey agricultural produce from the local farms to distant cities?  Was it to serve workers at a dock, a coal mine or quarry?  Was it built to assist with the distribution of goods from a major manufacturer or brewery?  That of course means that you can't have everything: there is no point in modelling a dock if you want to run express passenger trains.

Ultimately, this is the reason why most people who want a model railway, settle for a branch line and the Great Western Railway tends to be a popular choice.  For me, I'm about to start a layout inspired by Outwell Basin on the Wisbech and Upwell tramway in the pre-grouping period.  I don't need to scour track plan books looking for ideas - I can just copy the track plan that actually existed at Outwell Basin.  However, there is no engine shed.  There is no goods shed.  It was a single track line and there would only have been one tram engine at Outwell Basin at any one time (unless one of the trams broke down and needed to be rescued by another tram).  There wasn't even a platform at Outwell Basin - the passengers climbed up into the coaches from ground level.  There were literally hundreds of stations small stations that you could choose to model and which would fit in your space, but you might find the operation a bit boring.  However, I have to say that I've enjoyed trying to understand how the depot at Outwell basin was operated and to try to find out what sort of goods would have been delivered, and more generally what life was like 50 years before I was born.  Obviously that's not for some, but we're all different.  Ultimately, you need to decide whether the plan that you have meets your objectives.   We're not trying to get to the railway I want - we just want to get to where you want.

Any news on the long promised firmware update for the ACE-2?

38 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

wonder how many of the bidders knew of the mystery box offer though.

Does it matter?  Like many people, I didn't purchase a mystery box because there was a very high chance it primarily contained models that I wouldn't want.  At least if you are bidding for one specific item on E-bay you know what you are getting.

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

On the Midland, the division was simply low sided and high sided,

 Did that change over time, or was it that way until grouping?

The image below was posted in another thread which I think comes from the LNER wagon books by Peter Tatlow.  I believe that the date of the first Common User Agreement is incorrect and should be 13/12/15.  However, it indicates that the pooling of open wagons at that date only related to Medium and High-sided open wagons.  That implies that Low sided wagons weren't included and therefore to be workable, all the participating companies must have had a common understanding as to whether or not a 2 or 3-plank wagon was classed as Low (not pooled) or medium (pooled).  Interestingly, the three Scottish companies didn't appear to make the same distinction, but the Railway Clearing House scheme of 1917 did, so presumably in 1917, the CR, G&SWR and NBR could all use each other's Low-sided open wagons, but not those belonging to other companies.  It appears that the universal pooling of Low-sided wagons wouldn't have happened until 1918.  Presumably there was a clearer distinction between 'Low' and 'Medium' than there was between 'Medium' and 'High'.

I ask the question because I'm curious how likely a station would be sent, say a 4-plank wagon, when they actually wanted a 7-plank wagon (some of which were in use for general merchandise on the Great Eastern Railway, even if that may not have been a universal use of 7-plank wagons).

When station staff required an empty general merchandise wagon to be sent to their station to convey an outward consignment, what did they ask for?  Would they have specifically asked for a 10 ton seven plank open wagon, or would they simply have asked for a 'high sided open' (ie neither the weight nor the number of planks being defined)?  Assuming the request was for either a High, Medium or Low sided open and nothing more specific, would all pre-grouping companies have used the same definition of these terms, and if so, what defines the breakdown between these categories?  For example, is a 4-plank open regarded as being a Low sided wagon or a Medium sided wagon?

Looking at the statistical returns in the company accounts, open wagons only appear to be disaggregated by weight: under 8 tons; 8 and up to 12 tons; over 12 and up to 20 tons; and over 20 tons.  However for the GER, all opens were in the 8 and up to 12 ton group at the end of 1922, so there must have been greater variation in the number of planks than there was is the weight of goods that a wagon could carry.

1 hour ago, Bishdurham said:

Looks like the Hoppers have got lost enroute?

Probably avoiding the Houthi attacks in the Gulf of Aden.  I think it's two weeks longer going round the Cape of Good Hope, so presumably nearer to six weeks rather than four.

10 hours ago, BrakeCoach said:

but it seems like the wheels are wider than its real-life full scale counterpart.

Correct.  If modelling in 1:87 scale, Proto:87 would be 'scale' option in the same way as P4 is the scale option for those modelling in 00.  The only difference is that H0 and Proto:87 have the same track gauge (unlike the 4mm variations).

The Proto:87 website - https://proto87.org/ highlights that H0 models are "highly accurate except one thing — the wheels".

Since you're designing to accommodate overscale H0 wheels, you'll need to make adjustments elsewhere.  I agree with @Michael Hodgson that a series of small adjustments may be least obvious approach.  It's what all ready-to-run manufacturers have to do when designing their models.

51 minutes ago, Danknight said:

one thing I’m not sure on is how trains leave a siding once they’ve arrived in them? Would there usually be a return for the train to follow once it had dropped freight off?

It depends on the layout of the facility.  In some instances, an arriving locomotive will be trapped at the buffers and a shunter or station pilot will be required to shunt the wagons and release the locomotive.

At other locations, a run-round loop would be provided, so the train arrives in the loop (which has to be as long as the train) and then the locomotive will uncouple, draw forward into a locomotive release, the points behind it would be changed and then it can run to the back of the train and undertake whatever shunting is required.

Obviously the period that you're looking at will require brake vans, so they will have to be shunted into the correct place when marshalling your train ready for departure.

If there is any place in particular that you'd like to draw inspiration from, then the National Library of Scotland have extensive coverage of old maps, which if you look at the 6" to a mile series, you can see the track plan.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/101570878 is an example, of the track layout around March and Whitemoor Yard c1952.

48 minutes ago, Danknight said:

Is this kind of going along the right path? Let me know your thoughts.

As a small child's trainset, it's definitely an improvement, but if you're looking to build a model of a railway, you've still got a long way to go.  What you've drawn up looks nothing like the real railway.

Most railway lines comprise pairs of tracks: an 'up' line and a 'down' line.  In the UK, trains drive on the left.  That means that when creating a model like you're imagining, trains on your outer circuit should travel in a clockwise direction and trains on your inside track should travel in an anti-clockwise direction.  These two tracks are normally separated by what is referred to as 'the six foot', because that is the minimum spacing between two adjacent tracks.  In 4mm scale (1:76) that equates to 45mm between the track centrelines.  However, because of our overtight model curves, that needs to be increased to 51mm (if using Streamline) or 67mm (if using Set-track).  However, it would be normal for these two circuits to be parallel with a constant spacing: yours vary all over the place.

Your 'fuel stop' and 'diesel shed' sit between the 'up' and 'down' lines, which is not prototypical.  Such facilities would be created to one or other side of the main running lines (ie your two circuits).

Your 'loading area' is unworkable if the train on your inner circuit is travelling in the correct anticlockwise direction.  It would only be possible to work this facility if you were representing a country where trains drive on the right (such as the USA).

Your 'station' looks like it can only be used by trains on the inner (anticlockwise) circuit.  Most stations would have two platforms, so that they can serve traffic travelling in both directions.  There is no point in a passenger travelling to your station if they can't get a train home again.

I suspect that the arrangement with the diamond crossing between your 'goods shed' and 'lumber yard' isn't particularly common on the prototype.  I've no idea how such an arrangement would be signalled in the prototype (if such a layout exists).

I find the best way to think about these plans is to trace your finger around the tracks to imagine how it would be operated.

Whilst I agree that DCC wiring would be simpler than wiring for DC, I think the priority should be to get a good workable track plan first. 

1 hour ago, BrakeCoach said:

as it would mean they would be making things that aren't real.

It's okay - they just sell them under a Fictitiouscale brand name.😁

1 hour ago, MattR said:

The header on their website, as displayed in the top of this thread, says they are returning and to stay tuned. That's the basis of this thread.

I suspect that it's more likely that someone else has bought the modeltrainstuff.com web domain name rather than a resurrection of the MB Klein business (as the thread title presumes).  Presumably there is some goodwill with the brand name, which I suspect has been sold.  What is subsequently sold online through a modeltrainstuff.com website, we'll have to wait and see. 

It does look as though no-one has anything useful to add.  Even the title is misleading, as it doesn't appear that MB Klein will be returning.   If the business is just shutting down, which is the case here, I seen nothing unusual in them contacting customers with outstanding gift certificates to refund the remaining balance.  I'd consider that to be normal.  It's only when businesses fail that the holders of gift vouchers tend to get nothing because they are near the bottom of the list of creditors and there is rarely enough money to refund them.

On 10/02/2024 at 12:41, Butler Henderson said:

Checked Hattons comments, they are getting round the Data Protection issues by saying on the website https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail?id=1504 

Quote

Please let us know if we DO NOT have your permission to transfer your preorder, you can contact us via email. If we do not hear from you, your preorder will automatically move over

. Would have thought to properly comply individual communication would be necessary.

Well, I received an e-mail from Hattons about the transfer, so I guess that does count as individual communication.  The only problem is that there wasn't very long between when I received the e-mail from Hattons and when I got an e-mail from Accurascale confirming that they had received my pre-order details from Hattons, which means that if I hadn't wanted my details passed on, I'd have had to read the Hattons e-mail and responded right away.

There seems to be rather a lot of sidings that will only hold a two car multiple unit or a locomotive and a single coach or a couple of wagons, but not much else.  Do you really just intend to run really short trains?

It looks like you've tried to fit in as much track as you can, but I can't really see the purpose of your railway?  Where are your trains running to and from and why?  There are no station platforms, it's not clear whether there is a goods yard and you seem to have several places to run round, but in each case, you can only run round a very short train (ie a single coach).

Such limitations don't bother young children, so if the layout is primarily being built for them, then okay, but I'd want something closer to reality if it was for myself.

With regards running two or three trains on DC, that's relatively simple.  You just divide the layout up into a number of different electrical sections and then use switches to set which of the controllers you want to drive the trains in that section.  This is known as 'cab control'.

There is a thread on here about P D Hancock.  If you've any specific questions @dunwurken is the best person to ask.

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Yes, it’s a lovely site, but it only really covers the post deconstruction of the layout doesn’t it?

So, do you want that page expanded with more written about the 1975 - 1987 period?

2 hours ago, BenL said:

Though a bit of a tedious faff when you’ve ordered quite a few of the wagons that need this mod!

If you need quite a few, just be grateful that a reasonably accurate model is being produced.  It would be an even more tedious faff to scratch build them because other companies are overlooked by the ready to run manufacturers.

On 09/02/2024 at 17:27, Robin C said:

I go by the old adage buy cheap buy twice so need to get it right & hopefully when I'm gone my family have something still in demand & works well.

Or perhaps more likely ends up in a skip because no-one in the family cares about your hobby.☹️

6 hours ago, Robin C said:

This way I could test sections as I go? Possible??? It also gives me much more ease of track laying the lower deck.

Testing as you go is definitely recommended, otherwise it will be difficult to track down a fault.

6 hours ago, Robin C said:

My locos range from Lima through to Accurascale & Cavalex so will draw various amounts of power.

The question is how many locomotives will be drawing power at the same time?  Are the locomotives sound fitted (which will draw more current)?  Are the coaches lit (which will also draw current)?  Even a locomotive just sitting on the track will draw some power (albeit not much), as will any resister wheelsets that you fit if you go with a current sensing method of detection.  How much stock needs to be detected?  The amount of current you are drawing through the track will dictate whether your Command Station can provide enough current to operate the layout on its own or whether you will need one or more boosters.  The layout that you are planning sounds quite ambitious, so you're probably looking at dividing the layout into one or more power districts and buying one or more boosters to power these.  You'll therefore have more than one DCC 'Track Bus' (ie you'll have one from each booster).  You may also look at splitting these into sub-districts, each fed through a circuit breaker, so that a short in one part of the layout doesn't shut the entire layout down.  You could therefore have quite a few different 'DCC Track Buses', which are all isolated from each other.

6 hours ago, Robin C said:

Accessory buses? So confusing. I hear some AC 16 volts others DC bus & again DCC Accessory bus. Others using the rail DCC bus. Point motors ie Tortoise are DC but can run off a DCC bus? Others DCC Concepts do a DC & a digital motor.

An 'Accessory Bus' or 'DCC Accessory Bus' is no different from a 'DCC Track Bus' (ie it carries exactly the same DCC signals), but instead of being connected to the track it is connected only to accessories.  The advantage of a separate Accessory Bus, is that if each DCC Track Bus is fed through a circuit breaker, then when one trips, the accessories that are connected to the Accessory Bus can still be used.  That is, the points can be changed, to remove the short without manual intervention from 'the hand of God'.

As has already been said, point motors, etc will draw some current when stationary and usually more when they are being operated.  If they are drawing power from your DCC Track bus, then this is power that is being taken away from running the trains.  If you have lots of accessories, then they may consume so much power, that you need another DCC booster to meet your current requirements.  If this were the case, then it's likely to be cheaper to look at using a separate transformer with an AC / DC output to power some of the accessories simply to reduce the load on your DCC buses.  Not all accessories need to be powered the same way, so some could be fed from a DCC Accessory Bus, some could be fed from a 16v AC supply, and others could be fed from a 12v DC supply.  You just need to take care to keep all these different power sources separate.

12 hours ago, virginhst539 said:

Problem is most of this type of work either happens in a massive works like Donny or in a siding somewhere mobile. I'm trying to build something in the middle 

That's the conclusion I came to realise and shunting without a mainline locomotive wasn't what I had in mind originally.  Nonetheless, it will be good to see how your plan develops.

On 07/02/2024 at 22:08, Mark Forrest said:

any plans to run an exhibition?

I hear the NEC has a weekend free in November 🤣

On 07/02/2024 at 22:34, virginhst539 said:

Hamilton works

It was an idea I had in the past, hence this thread - 

37 minutes ago, TerryD1471 said:

You must ask yourself questions. 

I think all prospective members do - it's understanding what questions they ask themselves that is unknown.  The issue for clubs is what can they do to attract new members.

38 minutes ago, TerryD1471 said:

Does the club :-

 

1 Feel friendly & welcoming?

Of your list, this is one of the few things that club members can do to attract new members.  I don't really like socialising with people that I don't know.  I'm not a fan of conferences with their 'networking opportunities' because I don't really like trying to strike up a conversation with a stranger or someone that I hardly know.  I tend to back away from these situations, because I'm not overly confident.

However, as our current club secretary, I see it as my job to speak to everyone who comes into the clubroom.  A prospective member is not going to come back if they feel like they've been ignored.  They might come back if they feel that someone showed an interest in their interests.  Of course one friendly person isn't enough if the rest of the membership just keep their head down and ignore the new arrival.  It takes a number of people who are willing to be welcoming, but I think we have quite a few friendly members in the club at the moment.

49 minutes ago, TerryD1471 said:

4 Are you willing to start chipping in with projects which are not immediately to your tastes?

This is kind of outside of the club's control, but it does explain why some prospective members come back and some don't.  We've had one gentleman who has paid us a visit twice, but he doesn't want to join because apparently he only does O Gauge.  That's fair enough, but as a club, we wouldn't survive if everyone took that attitude.  My primary interest is the post-privatisation period in 00.  In the 20 years I've been a member, we've never built a layout that aligns with my interests, but I've been happy to attend exhibitions to runs trains on the club's O gauge layout, the club's O-16.5 layout, the club's former 009 layout and the club's former N gauge layout, despite the fact that I don't model in any of these scales.  I'll be doing the same when the 009 layout that is currently under construction is complete.  We have three 00 layouts at the moment, but all represent the late BR steam era, because it's been a dominant interest in the club.  That doesn't stop me running my out of period stock on the layout in the clubroom, but I'm happy to think BR in the 1960s when at an exhibition.  We have however decided that the next club layout will be a contemporary era layout.  All good things come to those who wait.  The point is that to fit into a club, you have to be flexible and willing to get involved in any project.

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My observations of several clubs seem to show the same demographics.

I think what people observe is part of the problem.  Around 30 years ago, I first visited a model railway club as a prospective new member aged 22.  A few of the members of that club were friendly enough, but I never joined because the younger members were all at least 30 years older than I was and at least half the membership were long past retiral age.  I didn't feel as though I fitted in: I was at a different stage in life.  I believe that club folded a couple of years after my visits I think I went twice.   The next club I visited, I joined.  I became their youngest member by about a decade, but crucially there were a few members in their 30s and 40s, so I didn't feel so out of place.

Fast forward to today and I'm a member of yet another model railway club and this one has a really good spread of ages between early 20s to mid 80s.  Whilst I was one of the younger members when I joined just over 20 years ago, I'm now around the median age.   I'm now the second oldest member of our committee (the oldest retired from work a couple of years ago) and two thirds of our committee are now under the age of 35.  Going to an exhibition, we'll have a range of operator ages behind the layout and because people see a range of ages, we get membership enquires across the age range.  Any 22 year old walking into our club room today stands a good chance of feeling that they will fit in and I think it's that perception that really matters.

There are still some young people out there who want to be part of a club, but it's rather off putting when they perceive that the existing membership all look like their father and grandfathers.

Welcome to RMweb @JohnGiusso. 

As for posting questions, it's relatively simple.  If there is already a thread about the subject, just post a question in that thread.  You've already done that with your first question.  If your question is related to Manufacturer X's model of Y, then there is probably already a thread within the relevant section of the forum and everyone with an interest in that model will read that thread and therefore your question.

If your question is specific to you, eg looking for feedback on your proposed track plan or you're looking for details about location X in the year Y, then start a new thread in the appropriate part of the forum.  That's important, because some people only browse certain parts of the forum, so if you post a DCC question in a thread about track, the expert who knows the answer to your question may not see it.  Also try to make the title informative.  That is, instead of 'help required' state 'looking for information about Location X or Class Y'  That helps those who just scan down all the new threads and they are more likely to look at a thread that meets their interests.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

2 hours ago, Rammstein2609 said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been more action on this thread stating just how good the new Alcan PCA's are.

Mine haven't arrived yet, but they do look good in your photograph.  Not modelling the West Highland, I didn't feel tempted to buy quite as many as you!!! 🙂