Dungrange

11 hours ago, chrisb74 said:

I'd need to use insulated rail joiners between each section?

Yes

11 hours ago, chrisb74 said:

can you clarify what type of switches I would require? I'm still struggling to get my head round poles and throws...

Poles - refers to the number of number of wires / circuits that you are switching.  Throws - refers to the number of 'on' positions that the switch has.

A switch labelled On - Off would be called Single Throw.  A switch labelled On - Off - On would be called Double Throw, because from the Off position, you can move it in two directions.

The simplest switch is a Single Pole Single Throw (SPST) switch, which has just two terminals on the base.  All an SPST switch can do is make / break a single circuit.  A Double Pole Single Throw (DPST) switch would have four terminals on the base.  It would do exactly the same as a SPST switch, except it makes / breaks two circuits at the same time (eg live and return).  You can also get 3PST and 4PST switches that would do exactly the same thing, but make / break three or four circuits.  The more poles the bigger and more expensive the switch tends to be, so although you can get large numbers of poles, they're not common.

All of the switches in @Nigelcliffe's drawing are double throw switches (ie one way connects to controller A and the other to controller B).  You could use either Single Pole Double Throw (SPDT) or Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches.  The choice is really whether or not you plan to use common return wiring.  If you connect all your, say, outer rails as a common return (eg black wire), then you only need SPST switches to switch your feeds (eg red wire).  However, if you're not using common return wiring principles, then you'll need DPDT switches and you're switching both the inner and outer rails at the same time.

Once you want larger number of throws, you're into rotary switches, so you can get for example three pole, four throw variants, which is what you could use if you had two transformers and were using all four control knobs.

39 minutes ago, rynd2it said:

The track gauge won't fit

But does it just about fit, or is there not a hope in hell of it fitting, even with 0.5mm removed from the inside edge of the rails? 🙂

1 hour ago, chrisb74 said:

Rather than switching out track sections, would a system work whereby feed 'A' from the transformer ran to an on-off-on switch, the outputs from which ran to the two controllers which subsequently provide power to the inner and outer loops? Feed 'B' could follow a similar path, eventually terminating in the two sidings sections.

Yes, I think that works (to a point) provided you are using Double Pole Double Throw (DPDT) switches (ie switching both wires simultaneously).   You're just using two switches to control which of your four control knobs can be used at any one time.  However, the 'cab control' system that @Nigelcliffe highlights is much more flexible as one of your control knobs could be used to drive a train anywhere on the layout without stopping.  That is, you could drive it from the sidings to the connecting loop and then to the other loop without any issues.  You just need to ensure that the required track section switches are all set for the same controller.  

The issue with the method that you are proposing is that when a train leaves your sidings (powered by knob 1) when you get to your first loop, it will then need to be controlled by knob 2.  As it crosses your join between these two sections, it will either speed up or slow down (depending whether the speed on knob 1 is lower or higher than on knob 2).  Alternatively, it will bounce back and forward if you accidently set the two direction switches wrongly.  However, with a bit of practise, it should work okay (ie set both controllers at the same speed and same direction for the pass between one controller and the other).

Where the method you're proposing falls down is passing a train between your two loops.  Because you're proposing that only one or other of these can be used at the same time (because they are both powered from the same transformer winding), you can't drive a train across the gap in a realistic manner.  You'd have to drive the locomotive through the crossover and then it would come to a halt once you were over the insulating joiners.  You could then throw your switch and use the other controller.  I'm not sure that stopping is particularly desirable, but perhaps you could live with that or with a bit of skill you could learn to throw the switch as the locomotive crosses the gap (provided of course you had set up the other controller to a similar speed and same direction in advance).  However, the one problem that you wouldn't be able to overcome without the hand of God, would be if you have any locomotives where the pickups on one side are on the locomotive and the pick ups on the other side are in the tender (I'm thinking 1980s Hornby models here).   With such a locomotive, it would stop once the locomotive passed over the insulated joiner and throwing your switch would do nothing, because the tender wouldn't have made it over the gap.  The hand of God would become your only solution for these locomotives.

I'd therefore follow the diagram that @Nigelcliffe has provided above, as it's the better solution.

15 minutes ago, Fair Oak Junction said:

But then it wouldn't be a mystery box, would it 😉

They are all different. You take your chance and see what you get, that's the fun.

I agree, but I'd rather spend £400 on something I actually want rather than £250 on something of limited interest (ie out of period / region).  Looking at what Rapido might put in a box I'd say that they have a lot more in stock items that I wouldn't want than items that I would, which is my reason for passing.  If the surprise excites some people fair enough.

18 hours ago, Edge said:

Well, it arrived - and I am rather happy with the contents 

 

- GER Liveried W&U tramway train pack 
- Ltd edition ‘iron mink’ wagon
- ‘Toad’ brake van
- ‘loriot’ flat wagon
- 2x SR Eight plank wagons (different numbers
- LMS diagram 1666 wagon 

Also got beer mats, pens and a pin badge, an APT-E book and a 2024 calendar.

I'm assuming the GER train pack is the analogue rather than the sound fitted version, but it seems good value.  If I knew that was the contents I'd have been tempted (even although I don't really need a fourth tram).  The problem as always is that there is the risk of getting a locomotive that I don't really want and even if I did strike it luck and get another tram, Rapido don't sell a DCC Sound upgrade.  The wagons could be used on a club layout, but for me, BR liveried wagons are of limited interest.

19 minutes ago, MartinRS said:

have a look at https://www.geograph.org.uk/stuff/list.php?label=Oil+Terminal&gridref=NN1174

Those sidings at Fort William were the inspiration for this kit from Goodwood Scenics to recreate an Oil Depot  https://www.goodwoodscenics.co.uk/oil-depots.  It's a bit pricy though.

How many were produced for the Rhymney Railway? I don't really need another GWR wagon! 

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

There have been no other reports and it cannot be replicated here.

I've had something similar with regards a McAfee subscription, but I couldn't replicate it.  I was on an RMweb page and it was replaced by a message about an out of date McAfee subscription.  Hitting the back arrow in the browser (I use Chrome) returned me to RMweb.  I'm not sure of the reason and there didn't seem to be any issues afterwards.  It's happened about three times over the last month, but that's only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the number of pages of RMweb that I view, so it's not common.  However, I haven't had the same issue on any other website.  Obviously you can't fix what you can't replicate, and I can't really help identify the cause.

Okay - and it looks like the Bachmann Dynamis can't read CVs, so unless you're willing to connect the Lenz to a programming track, then pop the decoder into the ESU 53900 Decoder Tester, connect that to your program track and then just write a new address with the Dynamis overwriting whatever the current address is.  There shouldn't be a need to know the address to do that.  The decoder should then respond to whatever new address you give it.

Okay - so I'm assuming you connect your ESU 53900 Decoder Tester to the Programming Track output of the LZV100.

Use the LZV100 + LH90 to read CV29 and type the number into this calculator - https://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/cv29 calculator.htm and press 'BackCalc'.  Bit 5 will then tell you whether the locomotive is using a long or short address (empty box = short, blue tick = long).  If it's a short address (ie CV29 <=31) then read the value of CV1 and you have your locomotive address.  If CV 29 indicates a long address is in use, then read the values in CV17 and CV18 and enter both of these into the second calculator at that link and then click 'Calc address' and you'll get the long address of the locomotive.

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So, if the Grouping in 1921 was a means of ensuring smaller less financially sound railways did not go bust, was the Grouping a missed opportunity? Did the railways really need a kind of Beeching MK1 in 1921?

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

And a Beeching Mk1 need not have just been about closures, it could also have meant modernisation & improvement of inefficient outdated working practices. Some of that happened under the B4, but was enough done? Was there enough impetus to do more?

Beeching was appointed in 1961 as the chairman of the British Railways Board and part of his remit was to review and improve the profitability of British Railways, which was of course a government controlled entity (ie the government was in effect the only shareholder).  The circumstances surrounding the cutbacks in the 1960s were therefore very different from 1921 where there were a large number of private companies with an even larger number of private and corporate shareholders.  Basically the government couldn't have reviewed the finances of all of the pre-grouping companies and instructed various companies to close various parts of their networks - it was responsibility of the board of each company to make these sort of decisions and they were of course accountable to their shareholders for those decisions.  There are plenty of instances where pre-grouping companies closed lines or stations that weren't profitable from as early as the 1840s.

One of the options considered post-WW1 was full nationalisation, in which case the government could have exercised greater control over any rationalisation, but nationalisation wasn't the favoured option by the politicians of the time.  Each of the Big Four did rationalise their networks over their 25 years of existence, but this wasn't all done in 'one hit' as per the conclusion of Beeching's Report.

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Did the common carrier requirement stifle attempts at modernisation?

Well it did allow the fledgling road haulage industry to pick up the more profitable traffic and leave the railways with the burden of carrying everything else that the road haulage industry didn't want.

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I guess another way of putting it would be was Beeching (and the 1955 Modernisation Plan) 30-odd years too late?

Not necessarily.  It appears that the average trip length in the Victorian era was quite short and most of the goods conveyed by rail were travelling over distances of just 20, 30, 40 or maybe 50 miles.  On the current network, freight is often moved over 200, 300 or 400 miles and rail is usually wholly uncompetitive with road transport over the very short distances that appear to have been the norm 150 years ago.  In effect, the structure of the economy has changed from being a large number of relatively self sufficient local economies to a smaller number of regional economies, to a nationwide economy and into the global economy in which we currently live.  These changes didn't happen overnight - it was just a continuum of gradual changes over many decades. 

At one time most produce was sourced locally, with very little in the way of national distribution networks and over time, the proportion of traffic moving longer distances would have increased.  There was undoubtedly some national distribution in the Victorian and Edwardian period, but I think this was something that became much more common post-1921 and continued increasing throughout the Grouping and early British Railway periods.  The volume of short distance traffic would have declined over time, as the economy changed from self-sufficient local economies towards national distribution networks and this short distance traffic was also the traffic that road hauliers could target.  Therefore, over the Grouping and early British Railways period, much of the local traffic which originally drove the construction of many Victorian era branch lines would have declined for both these reasons (road competition and the development of national distribution networks).  I would therefore expect that there were quite a few of the branch lines closed in the 1960s that were still profitable in 1921.  At what point in time they became unprofitable, is perhaps difficult to say.

45 minutes ago, Scott said:

The original post was August, which is why I asked.

Sorry - I never noticed the date on the original post.  I did think Jake had mentioned ordering baseboards quite a few months ago.  Yes, it would be good to see some progress photographs.

On 21/08/2023 at 17:15, virginhst539 said:

it will be 100% portable and should just about fit into the car

Could you not have designed it to actually fit in the car?  The layout that I'll hopefully start building in a similar timescale should fit in the back of my car, but I have to say that I found it particularly challenging trying to arrange a packing sequence to make everything fit, due to the presence of wheel arches and the slope of the hatchback.  Once my the baseboards have arrived and been assembled, I'll finally know whether I have all my calculations correct.  However, I couldn't fit that a layout of that size in my car.

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

Looks interesting, are there any progress pics?

If the baseboards have just been ordered but not delivered, I don't expect much progress beyond the stock on the separate Workbench thread.  However, I'll be following.

29 minutes ago, markwilson said:

I'll need to check on Thursday night Ben. It looks like it might be older than I am though. And I'm nearly 52...

So it's suitable for running 52 year old locomotives.

18 minutes ago, NIK said:

Nominal Voltage limit not nominal voltage.

Table 2.3 says Minimum - 8.5V, Nominal - 15V, Maximum - 22V.  I'd therefore read 15V as mid-range value, not a maximum.

1 hour ago, derekdoestrains said:

That’s exactly what could cause you to burn a coach out yes… unless you watch where you stop the set etc

Well, yes, if you stop a coach over the join between power districts, then having one switched on and the other switched off would result in the power district that's turned off being fed through the coach pick ups.  I can see that's not desirable, but surely the issue is about the design of the power districts in the first place and operator discipline.  If you make one power district the up line and another power district the down line, the only locations that these join is in the various crossovers between the up and down lines and you shouldn't really be stopping trains over these.  The same would be true for the fiddle yard - you shouldn't be stopping trains half in and half out of the fiddle yard. 

39 minutes ago, derekdoestrains said:

… it’s about mass start up current, issues around pickups in coaches bridging districts potentially becoming damaged…

But surely that's just have multiple power districts and turn them on one at a time.

9 hours ago, TravisM said:

I want to put a road in the foreground, but I have absolutely no idea how wide it should be.

How much space do you have available?  If it's a new road, then it would probably be 7.3m wide (two 3.65m lanes).  In imperial units about 24', making something like 96mm in 00 an appropriate start point.  However, if there are pedestrian facilities that result in a traffic island in the middle of the road, then the road would be wider and similarly if there is a need to accommodate traffic making a right turn.  The design of junctions would involve 'swept path analysis', which is basically looking at the space required to accommodate the design vehicle - in this case a large 44 tonne articulated truck.

If it's not a new road, then take your pick with regards to what standards may have been followed at the time of construction.  However, assuming you're not modelling Victorian era infrastructure, and you're assuming a reasonably busy port, then I'd suggest you aim for a lane width of around 10' (ie 40mm in 00), which would make an 80mm wide road appropriate.

When undertaking roadworks on the motorway, contractors can narrow the lanes to 3.3m (~11') without any restrictions, but once they get to requiring 3.0m lanes (~10'), that's when you start seeing signs for HGVs being restricted to the left lanes and the outer lane being cars only.  I think you're average HGV is something like 2.7m across wing mirrors, so that becomes the point where you can't really accommodate two way goods traffic into your port/dock area.

On 15/01/2024 at 22:48, Modelrailwayquest said:

Have you looked at the DOGA website, their members are all over the UK and they list their personal layouts ready to attend shows

Thanks for the suggestion.  There is also a layout database on here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/exhibition-layouts/ but unfortunately not all of the layouts state where the builder is located and there doesn't appear to be any way to search the listed layouts by region - just scale.  Whilst some people may be willing to travel all over the country, that doesn't mean that we can afford their expenses. ☹️

5 hours ago, John B said:

Let me know if you'd like further details and I'll get our exhibition coordinator to get in touch. 

Thanks - I've just sent you a PM.

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that some mergers like the L&YR merging with the LNWR were straight commercial decisions by the boards of both companies plus I believe the NER and GNR were seriously looking merging even moves started to group the railways in the first place.

I don't know about the NER and GNR, but the GNR, GER and GCR had proposed to merge back around 1909 (but were blocked by Government at the time) and the NER and H&B had merged before grouping on commercial terms in the same way as the LNWR & L&YR did.

On 17/01/2024 at 08:00, Jeremy Cumberland said:

It depends what alternative history played out between 1912 and 1921. Schedule 1 of the Act, which lists all the grouped companies, divides them into "Constituent Companies" and "Subsidiary Companies". There are only 27 "Constituent Companies", and three of these represent the SECR as I mentioned above. The division isn't quite as I might expect - the Maryport and Carlisle (which I think was still fully independent in 1921) is listed as a "Subsidiary Company" - but on the whole the "Subsidiary Companies" are ones that had a separate legal existence but which were in fact operated by another company. As far as I can tell, "Subsidiary Companies" were all grouped with their operating company.

I've never really understood the distinction between "Constituent" and "Subsidiary" Companies, beyond the fact that the Constituent Companies seemed to be represented on the Board of the new Grouped Company, whereas there was no board representation for the Subsidiary Companies.  How it was decided which companies were significant enough to get Board representation, I don't know.

On 17/01/2024 at 07:12, rodent279 said:

So were any companies split or partitioned under the RA1921? Was it simply an exercise in reduce the number of controlling interests, rather than an attempt at reshaping the geography?

Geography didn't matter.  The issue was that there were many companies that prior to WW1 were not exactly flush with cash.  The war effort had taken its toll on all companies and there was a real risk that a number of companies would go bankrupt once they left Government control in 1921.  During the war companies had continued to receive payments from the Government based on their pre-war income and it wasn't clear what would happen moving back to a competitive market.  The Railways Act 1921 was therefore a mechanism to force many struggling companies that were at risk of bankruptcy into the arms of their more profitable neighbours before they failed.  Full nationalisation was considered as was different groupings of five, six and even seven companies.  I can't remember what these all were but one or more of the suggestions had a separate Scottish company.  Ultimately, the merger into four was considered the optimum way to create four profitable private companies and the Railway Act 1921 was to take forward that proposal.

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Why then did the 1921 Railways act group the LTSR into the LMSR, and not in the LNER?

Because in 1921, the LT&SR no longer existed - it was simply an integral part of the Midland Railway and had been since before WW1.  MR went to the LMS. No further thought required.

The question you really want to ask is why was the Great Eastern Railway not interested in purchasing the LT&SR and Midland Railway was?  The Midland Railway probably had more money to offer the LT&SR shareholders and acquiring the LT&SR gave the Midland Railway access to places that they didn't have access to prior to 1912 such as Southend-on-Sea.  The GER was less flush with cash and acquiring the LT&SR would have brought them less benefits - they already had a route between London and Southend-on-Sea.  What are the other major population centres that the LT&SR served?  Basildon is a major town now, but in 1931 it had a population of just 1,159 and didn't get it's station until 1974.  Dagenham Dock didn't open until 1908 (not that long before the Midland offered to purchase the LT&SR) and Dagenham Heathway didn't open until 1932 under the LMS.  In 1911 Dagenham was a relatively small town with a population of 7,930.  Access to the Port at Tilbury was possibly the most valuable asset, but presumably the GER simply didn't have enough money to offer the LT&SR shareholders.

14 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What is perhaps harder to understand is why M&GN didn't get grouped into either LMS or LNER.

Because the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway was jointly owned by the Midland Railway (LMS) and Great Northern Railway (LNER), so it became a joint LNER/LMS line.  No different from the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (LMS/SR) or Cheshire Lines Committee (LMS/LNER), where the parent companies were placed in different groups.

21 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

A van, a five plank or 7 plank open and a 10 ton brake van would be an excellent result.

I think you need to change that 'or' to an 'and'.😁 

I agree that would be an excellent result, but I'd hold out more hope of both a 5 and 7 plank open than I would for either a covered goods wagon or a 10 ton goods brake.  Since Oxford Rail chose the GER Diagram 72 covered goods wagon, that really only leaves Rapido with two options: a Diagram 15 or a Diagram 47.  I'd happily buy either or both.  However I don't think the Diagram 15 survived long enough to be of interest to the BR market and I suspect that the Diagram 47 would be perceived as too similar to the Oxford Rail model (even if the Rapido product would be better). I think the only thing in favour of Rapido tackling a Diagram 47 covered goods wagon, is that it has the same chassis as one of the cattle wagons (can't remember which diagram off hand).  That sort of fits with Rapido's strategy to date.

As for the goods brake, the 10 ton Diagram 1 vehicles were the most numerous type, but I suspect that the 20 ton Diagram 56 Goods brake would be more commercially viable, as these were produced until 1924 and therefore there were still quite a few of these around in BR days (which still seems to be a key market).  I don't think the same can be said for the 10 ton variants which I think became extant around nationalisation.  However, I'll happily buy several of whatever Rapido surprise us with.  My fingers are always crossed for a GER announcement.

A factory reset should return the address to Address 3.

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

11111 is stated to have had ordinary double brake blocks and one side lever.

... and this website https://southern-railway.com/2023/08/02/Bachmann-announce-lswr-sr-diagram-1410-1406-and-1408-covered-vans-and-swr-sr-56ft-non-corridor-cross-country-four-coach-sets-as-part-of-their-efe-rail-range/ says that the tooling suite "allows for four body types across the three diagrams, four brake types (single double block, Morton Clutch, Freighter and Lift Link), two steel chassis types (D1410/06 and D1408), two axle box types (Panter and Warner) and three buffer types (tapered, ribbed and fabricated)".

It therefore sounds a though EFE Rail have tooled the correct brakes for the 'as built' condition of this wagon, but haven't fitted them to the model of 11111.  That could be an error, or it could be that the original brakes were replaced in late LSWR days, which would make the model correct, but only for the end of the pre-grouping period.

As a Midland modeller, I don't expect you to know, but did the LSWR use the same Diagram number (1410) for both the steel and timber framed examples?  The website linked to above, indicates that for the later build variants, there seemed to be different diagram numbers for timber and steel framed examples (1407 / 1406 and 1409 / 1408).