Rick_Skateboard

My Bachmann/Kernow 37418 arrived today, and it's the first time I've seen one of the new 37s in the flesh. I'm very pleased with it! Here's a bit of a photo review. I'm particularly impressed by the detail around the fuel tanks, which is an area the old model was severely lacking in. I took a few pictures of it with the top off, I was wondering if a body swap would be possible with an older model. I think the answer is yes, but not easily. One big difference is that the lights are connected to the chassis by four miniature connectors, so that would have to be worked around. Cheers, Rick

I hope they don't do an Intercity Swallow 37/4, but I'd definitely buy a model of any the locos that did carry that livery. 😉 37251 please. Rick

Thank you Gordon. I'll have a look at those websites. Cheers Rick

Hi All, Has anyone managed to successfully obtain spares from Bemo? I've emailed a few times and had a mix between being completely ignored and being told to stop sending emails... Any help appreciated. Cheers Rick

Thanks for the updates Fran. Aside from the outstanding products at reasonable prices, this is where Accurascale is really leading the field - communication with modellers/customers, and reacting to feedback. Brilliant. Cheers Rick

Some of my thoughts on the decorated samples. Obviously these are the best rtr model of a class 37 we've ever had, and the fact that peope are nitpicking over little issues shows how good they are overall. The nose and windscreen are the 'face' of the loco and it's so important to get that right. The windscreens look excellent, infinitely better than the Bachmann ones, and I'm looking forward to not having to go down the Extreme Etchings/Laserglaze route again; excellent results but a lot of work! I do agree with people who are saying the headlight is too high. I understand that it's overscale and that throws the proportions out, but I think it would have been better to get the actual lamp in the right place even if that meant the bracket went too low down on the nose door. The lamp is the bit that the eye is drawn to, especially when it's lit, and it should be below the centre line of the marker lights. I'm guessing it's too late to change this now? The bracket should be yellow, not black, which would also help to hide it being overscale. Easy enough for the modeller to change if they have to, but yellow is always a pain to paint, especially over black. I'm not convinced by the horn grilles. I can see what Accurascale have tried to do here, but I think the gap between the last luvre and the rounded side is far too big and looks a bit odd. Perhaps that gap is slightly bigger on the real thing, but I don't think it scales down well. Finally, I think the handrails on the corners of the nose are too long/go too far up. There should be a bigger gap between the top of the handrail and the bottom of the headcode box. As I said, I'm being picky and overall these look excellent. I've got two on order and will certainly buy more as different versions are released. Apologies if I'm just repeating what others have already said. To prove I'm not scared of doing some actual modelling occasionally here's a picture of one of my heavily detailed Bachmann 37s, and now as I'm looking at it I can see a load of things I'm still not happy with! I am really looking forward to the Accurascale ones! Cheers Rick

Thanks for the replies guys, Howard, the lever frames on the Leeds City thread are things of beauty! I'm familiar with Leeds as it is today, so I enjoy watching the model coming together. I’ll have a read of the link from the scalefour forum, thanks. I’m planning to modify the MSE kit, perhaps even build something new and just use the cast levers. Cheers Rick

The MSE lever frame kit has arrived, and I've had a look at the bits. The cast levers are nice, although the handle and pull rod to the latch could probably be improved on. I'm not 100% convinved by the frame arrangement, and I may try to modify it or build something else. The issues are discussed on this thread. I've made a start on the locking drawing, but I think I'm making hard work for myself by doing it on paper! I need to get on with learning CAD. I've got hold of some small 12v electomagnetic cabinet latches that might be a start for electrical interlocking, they have about 4mm of movement. I've also bought a small rotary swith that may be the start of a circuit controller. Cheers Rick

Hello, Does anyone have a clear picture of 44871's nameplate when it was called 'Sovereign'? Thanks Rick

Hi Michael, I think Line Clear Release is the correct terminology, it certainly appears on the box diagrams. According to the book, the shunting key can be released under two condtions; section clear or behind another train. It is electrically released by the block instrument in both instances, and the block is locked until it is replaced. Because withdrawing the key locks the block, it would not be possible to get LCR for nos.4/5/11, so they will be electrically locked. Looking at the interlocking at Dunkeld it appears that the shunt key lever does mechanically lock the starters too, belt and braces! I agree that 19 should lock 2 and 9 normal. Cheers Rick

I'll have a look at the SigScribe software, thanks. I see what you mean about the single line clearing point, I hadn't fully appreciated how the operating regulations would effect the interlocking in that way. Cheers Rick

Thanks Robert, email sent.

Excellent work on the grille, it really looks the part. Rick

Thanks, I can see the sense in those additions. 12 is the FPL for 13 (that probably isn't clear from my drawing), which is worked as a crossover. So I've already got 4 locks 12 and 17 locks 12, which in turn locks 13 in either position. I've also got 11 and 16 being released by 13R and 15R. Is it right that points release signals, but signals lock the FPL, where provided, rather than the points? I'm sure you're right about 17 being a miniature arm, I will change it on the next draft. I don't think any passenger trains will be terminating, so that's not an issue. Cheers Rick

Now that I’m happy the layout is mainly correct, I’ve had a go at a locking chart, based on what I’ve read and what I think should lock what logically. I’m not sure what the relationship between no.2 signal and no.13 and 15 points should be? Should a train be cautioned at 2 before being allowed to move up to 4 if the points are reversed (ie; not set for that train)? I suppose the same could be said for signal no.3 if no.9 crossover was reversed and the movement was being signalled towards no.5 and the up platform, but with no.15 was reversed. Or am I overcomplicating it? Any comments on the interlocking gratefully received. I’m also still not sure whether no.17 should be a full size arm or a miniature one? Or if the post should have both. It reads up to no.10 which is a shunt disc, can a main arm read to a shunt disc like that? The down line is permissive, so I think there would need to be a miniature arm, because the track curcuits would lock the main arm if the line ahead was occupied. The other thing I’m questioning is whether the limit of shunt board is right? Does it need to be protected by another stop signal (an outer home?), or is it just protected by the block? Cheers Rick

Ok! Thanks. I'm surprised it involved passing signals at danger, but I suppose that actually makes sense so that there's no confusion between a shunt and a movement through the section. Do you know if the signalman would have given a yellow flag to start the move, or just given verbal permission to move when ready when handing over the shunt token? I assume the interlocking would allow the shunt back out of the section (into the station or yard) to be signalled normally? Cheers Rick

Thanks again for the replies, it’s been a really interesting discussion. I always think it’s good to be able to find a real life example of something you want to model, and I think Dunkeld is the example to follow for the down end of Braeintra. For that reason, I think I will stick with no.11 reading straight into the section (LCR), and no shunt ahead arms on no.4 or no.5. I haven’t found a real life example of a shunt ahead arm on tokenless block in Scotland. I see what you mean about the diagram referring to a shunt lever and a shunt key, but in the picture of the lever frame below you can see that they both appear exactly the same in reality. I wonder if the pulling of the two levers has different effects on the interlocking? Also worthy of note is the white collars that denote a lever released by the block – which includes disc no.12. I have a question about how the signals work with the shunt token? The Forbes Alexander booklet on Scottish Tokenless Block states that as no physical token is provided, a train must never enter the single line without the clearance of the section signal, as that is the driver’s sole authority to proceed, “and its clearance indicates that the line is entirely clear for a running move. It cannot be used to authorise a shunt”. He then goes on to mention the shunt token is the solution to this. What is not clear to me reading it is whether the section signal is cleared for the shunt move once the shunt token is released? It almost reads like the shunt token is the driver’s authority to pass the section signal at danger for the purpose of a shunt, but I find it hard to believe that is how the arrangement works. Cheers Rick

It looks like Dunkeld & Birnam on the Highland Mainline has a shunt disc that reads into the section, so it must have been allowed on the Scottish Tokenless Block system. The diagram is below, the disc is no.12. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lickeybanker/49676480758/in/faves-120901503@N04/ the disc can be seen just by the bufferbeam of the 37 in this photo, and has an arrow showing that it is for the siding. Based on that I think I'll keep the no.11 on my layout as it is. I think if I put a shunt ahead arm under no.4 I'd have to do the same for no.5? Cheers Rick

Thanks Mike. If a shunt disc signal is not sufficient to enter the section on tokenless block, does No.11 on my diagram need to be a full size arm? Or perhaps it would be better to move the points from the yard back behind no.4, so the disc reads up to a main arm, as Jeremy suggested in a post above. I guess the shunt disc at Lairg is sufficient to enter the section on ETS working? If my understanding of the Scottish tokenless system is right then the token is released from a lever in the frame. The lever can only be pulled after a release is given by both boxes. I’m assuming that pulling the lever would release the physical shunt token and release the signals that read into the block until the token was returned and the release lever put back to normal? The shunt token lever, no.16, can be seen in this picture of Dalwhinnie. Below is the diagram as was, although I changed no.17 to a full size arm. I'll make some more changes. I've ordered an MSE lever frame kit today to have a look at, and I think I'll probably try to mock up some interlocking in plasticard to start with. Cheers Rick

I would have assumed that in later days, after Highland Railway perhaps LMS/BR, there would have been some level of electrical locking added to the original arrangement that would lock any signal capable of sending you into the section to the token machine? Perhaps not though! I think Lairg must have been resignalled/modified at some point; the signals in the picture I posted are LMS type, not Highland. On the tokenless block system there is a physical shunt token that can be released even if the single line is occupied by a train heading away from you, with agreement with the box at the other end of the section. Or so is my understanding. Thanks, that clears that up. Based on what has been discussed up to now, I don't know whether my diagram is correct or not, but it does seem similar to the arrangements at Lairg and Dalwhinnie. In have started writing up a locking chart for the layout as I have drawn it, which I will post when I think it's far advanced enough to warrant scrutiny. Cheers Rick

Thanks again for the replies, I had previously wondered if it was a signal to shunt into the section, but I didn't know if that was right or not. This raises a few more questions, please bear with me! At Lairg, how would the shunt ahead signal be interlocked with the block, which I assume is ETS? If there is no signal beyond, does that mean a train departing from the yard is entering the block on the authority of the shunt disc only - obviously with the staff too? Does this mean I should have a shunt ahead arm under No.4 on my diagram? And if so, does that work with tokenless block? Another question I've been thinking over is the bracket signal I've got as the up home on my diagram (No.19/17/16) drawn correctly? Should 17 be a main arm? Or should 17 and 16 be miniature arms on the same post reading top to bottom left to right? Cheers, Rick

Hi Jeremy, The yard is where it is because I’m loosely basing that end of the layout on Lairg. So the station is a mash up of Dalwhinnie and Lairg in that respect. From a model railway point of view I wanted to keep it fairly simple, but with enough operational interest to stop it becoming boring to play with. I had wondered about whether 11 needed to be a main signal, or whether an advanced starter needed to be provided. I think your suggestion of putting the points to the yard behind signal 4 makes more sense. Below is a picture of Lairg. The disc on the floor is the equivalent of my diagram's No.11, and the signal on the bracket is like my No.4. I've never fully understood the Lairg signalling, because as you can see there's a main arm and a calling on arm, but I don't know the purpose of the calling on arm? Is the calling on arm to allow a train to enter the block section for the purposes of a shunt only? Or does it read to an advanced starter that is out of sight? Cheers Rick

Hi Nick, The reason 9 is a facing crossover is to allow a train to be held in the down platform and something else to overtake it via the up platform before going onto the single line, that is also why the up platform is signalled bidirectionally. This seems to be the arrangement at Dalwhinnie. The trains terminating in the down platform would be freight destined for the yard, and have come from the direction of the single line (Inverness). After running round they will shunt back out onto the single line and then propel into the yard from signal 16. This is another reason to allow down trains to pass through the up line, so they can continue running past after a freight has arrived. Does that make sense? Do you still think 17 should be a main aspect? Thanks Rick

Hello, Reviving this old thread. The layout has changed slightly, I decided to represent one of the places where the Highland Mainline goes from single to double track, rather than just having a passing loop on a single track line. The fuel sidings are now accessed from the yard, so there is no longer a ground frame. The double track is going to be absolute block with intermediate blocks between here and the next box. The single track is going to be tokenless block. Some notes to go with the diagram as I have drawn it. 20 lever frame. The points at each end of the loop (9 and 15) are motored, and have only one lever to operate them, whereas the points into the yard are on rodding with an FPL and points lever (12/13). No.11 is a yellow disc to allow movements up the yard headshunt when the points are normal. The disc no.10 reads to the limit of shunt on the down line, for a loco to come off a train in the down platform, get behind no.3 signal and then run round through the up line. One of the unused levers will be a shunt token release for shunting onto the single line. Does it look ok? Is the signalling correct? Does the numbering of the levers make sense? As usual, any tips appreciated. Cheers Rick

Thanks again for the replies, the wealth of knowledge on the forum is great. The photos and video of the locks and rotating contacts are brilliant Phil, and Mike's pictures of the locking frame under construction are a great help for what I'm hoping to replicate in the future. I did a bit of research myself, armed with the knowledge from reading the replies on this thread, and came across this: https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/S%26T_reference_folder_1969 which I found very helpful. I feel like I've closed a gap in my understanding, so thanks again. I'd like to make a miniature lever frame that is as close to scale model and operates as closely to the real thing as is realistically possible. I was planning to use the MSE frame as a base, but I wonder if just the cast levers might be better, built into a scratchbuilt frame, or possibly the whole thing scratchbuilt? Inevitably some things will be impossible to scale down; I think an overscale amount of movement will be necessary to make mechanical interlocking work properly for example. That also makes me wonder if locking driven by the catch handle will be possible on a small scale due to it being such a small movement? Has anyone tried or managed to make a small scale electric lock? Or is there a suitable off the shelf item that could be used or adapted? I'll have to do more research on the arrangement in the Highland Mainline boxes, I think a lot of them were modified by the LMS or BR, so probably don't have much of their original Highland Railway equimpent left. Cheers Rick