drduncan

The Mark 2 valence printing failed; the steps which were fine in the MK1 just aren’t thick enough. Or possibly it was washed for too long. Anyway trying again to be sure. However, the failed print was good enough to do a fit check and all seems good so far… The mark 2 chassis came out well and I just need to decide whether to strip the mk1 or have 2 saddle tank versions. I’d best count the number of wheels in the stash…. You can see all the cut outs for the busbars and pickups very clearly. So a quick count shows I’ve enough for 2 BG 3521s and two NG ones without ordering more just yet. So I think it may well be a strip down of the mj1 chassis as I want the 0-4-2st and 0-4-4t versions in BG for Nampara. Duncan

Some signalling observations by someone who isn’t a signal engineer but is battling with the theory for their own imaginary line… CA. A decision will be needed on station limits. This is because you can either have starter (at platform end) and advanced starter (at station limit) set up or a starter with subsidiary shunt ahead arm (which covers shunting past the starter if it is at danger but only as far as the station limits). The station limit needs to far enough along both BM and Achingham lines to allow running round and setting back with goods etc to access loops and goods yards. Looking at the plan, the station limit an the Achingham branch might be quite close, but the BM line station limit will have to be long enough to cope with getting the Achingham branch train out of the way (probably into the (not a platform) ‘bay’ siding - suitable fenced off from the real platform to stop passengers trying to en-train when it’s out of service). At the country (ie non turntable end) of the platform you’ll need a starter for each line eg AChingham and BM. These would probably (but don’t quote me) be arranged with the BM starter on the main post, and Achingham on a bracket (as the minor route). An earlier method is to have both starters on one post, with the top one being the principle route. I think this approach fell out of favour by the 1900s (if not a bit earlier) but the WNR might still adhere to it in some places if finances are tight. (On a similar vein they might still have slotted post signals in some locations if MacKenzie and Holland were the signalling contractors…) Traps/scotches are needed to protect the Achingham line from the loop and ES road and probably a ringed/subsidiary signal/ground disc to control exiting these lines too. Questions for consideration: Use of ringed (goods only) or subsidiary signals for exits from yards onto running lines and leaving running lines into yard? Or ground discs? Or a mix of the two? Quite frankly it baffles me and I must read through the books again. Protection of the turntable pit when not aligned to the road?

So, let’s start with CA then and signalling James and Louis, Can you mark up on the latest approved track plan which tracks are passenger and goods, and which are goods/light engine only? This might help start fleshing out how CA will work, signals etc. For example this will show straight away where facing point locks are needed and indicate where traps and/or scotch blocks are needed. Btw, as I was penning my original post it was scotch blocks I was thinking of. Was there a date when traps were compulsory and scotch block illegal? Or is this one of those best practice things that saw scotch blocks go out of use in the 1890s in preference to traps? If so, does the WNR do scotches in preference to traps? Or is it a trap only? D

I thought long and hard about whether or to mention the RCH but decided against it. First, I was not sure wether the WNR was participating in the General Managers and other committees. There are reasons why it may, but it may not (as I don’t think there was a statutory requirement to). The issue is that as a fictional (and small) independent railway the WNR can do what it wants, yes it might be guided by ‘best practice’ but such practice may not suit the special circumstances and conditions of the WNR case. (And remembering long forgotten maritime rote learning ‘may’ is not the same as ‘must’.) Second, It was my impression, probably erroneously due to the pooling arrangements and common users that followed (and my interest in BG in the far west of Cornwall long before the delorous year of 1914 where workings with other lines rarely intrude) that the RCH became far more important during and post WW1. I confess that before this date I had only really considered it as the way revenues were divided for through workings and charges levied for the slow return of empty stock. And a way for the evil empire at Euston to vent its spite against those who stood against the successors to the notorious Captain Huish… As I’m true believer in concept modelling (and thus getting the back story right, to get what you are doing and more importantly why you are doing it right) I think -as I feel Stephen does too - these are important things for James to think about. Certainly I always felt that the back stories for Iain Rice’s Tregarrick and North Cornwall Minerals Railway or the East Suffolk Light Railway helped not just explain the scene but why it had to be as it was and helped make these flights of fantasy more believable. Perhaps, following on from the Castle Acing Parish Council thread, we need a WNR rule book and local notices thread to drill down into how we all feel James must play with his trains. (And yes, I can’t decide whether I’m being serious or jesting. I think I need to get out more…or lay down more, I don’t know which.) Duncan

First, think Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely. Railway personnel are likely to find (and use) the quickest and simplest way to achieve a task. Second, it really is your railway. You are the WNR and it’s corporate entity. You can (and probably should) write the rule book (or the relevant bits), including local notices saying how things are to be done to complete a certain task at a specific location at variance to the rule book! So if you want or don’t want goods trains to arrive on certain platforms you can do so (but you will have to arrange the signalling accordingly). The only caveat to this is the requirements of the BoT to open the line in the first place and then compliance with subsequent legislation (eg block working and continuous brakes etc). Duncan

So, while waiting for the 3D printer, I got some work done on track panels - getting the alignments correct on the board joints and making sure the gaps in the rail were as small as possible. As the track is crossing the joint at an angle some of the sleepers are yet to be fitted, but you can see the pints that were inserted into the hardwood strip to support the rail ends. I also fitted the sub sleepers tie bar to the point just visible to the right. Next job: replace sleeper I broke off while doing all of the above. The job after that: find what I did with the sleepers I cut to straddle the baseboard joint. The job after the job after that: fit them… Duncan

So the 3521st hasn’t quite stalled. As I type the mark 2 chassis and mark 2 footplate (0.5mm wider between the inside faces of the valance) are printing. Fingers crossed. I’ve also been working on the CAD chassis for the BG/SG 0-4-4t versions. Here the stumbling block is the bogie. I want pick ups on at least one of the bogie axles, preferably two; so how to get the volts from the bogie onto the chassis proper? Ideas please. Also the bogie will need to be compensated (as there is fag paper thickness clearance between the top if the damn thing and the frames do making it flop about won’t work. So that means some sort of drop out sub frame, or removable outer frames (so that you get the wheels and axles in place). Question are how to arrange these matters so that it is easy to fit together and can be taken apart with minimum fuss to get at the wheelsets? Again suggestions, isometric drawings or photos of how you’ve done it/would do it will be very welcome. Duncan

Very interesting photo. Thanks for posting. The trap point in front of the 16t minerals is fascinating- perhaps it means that there is a use for settrack geometry points after all! I’m intrigued by the need for a check rail at the end of the curved stock rail of the trap, also by the fact that anything rolling through it seems destined to write off the point rodding. Duncan

I’m always intrigued by the sign on the A3 for the village of Hurtmore. Never visited- I’m sure it couldn’t possibly live up to its name. Duncan.

Nick, Lovely work! Duncan

Given your interest in all things Western I don’t suppose you are a member of the GW Study group? If you are, and are attending the members day on 15 July do come by the 3D printing demo and say hello, it would be great to put a face to the layout! Regards Duncan

Sort of. Without going into full on lecture mode…. The key ship is L’Invincible a ship that was faster and better armed than British equivalents. It was captured during the War of Austrian Succession in 1747 and its basic hull form became the foundation for the Seven Years War and Napoleonic fleets. French 74s we’re sought after for the prize money and renown/promotion their capture brought. The supply of hulls wasn’t the key strategic issue (let’s face it capturing French ones was reflectively straight forward). Instead it was the supply of masts and spars (very specialist timber) together with rope and tar, not just for the RN but the much larger (and arguably more vital for seapower) mercantile marine This is why the American Revolution was such a disaster - it was the main supply of these ‘naval stores’. Supply then switched to the Baltic (it’s Stockholm Tar for a reason), making the Baltic second only in British strategic importance in the sailing period to the control of the Low Countries (especially the Scheldt estuary). The French need for ships outstripped their ability to replace them (under Napoleon’s strategic genius the French were in the habit of losing whole fleets rather than single vessels). This meant they tried to steal other peoples (successfully: the Dutch) but the British at Copenhagen in 1807 beat them to it - the British took away any naval stores and warships of use and burnt the rest… But Dutch (and Danish ships) were usually designed for different waters and less arduous operating tempos than the Atlantic so stealing others peoples ships wasn’t always the quick fix French Generals hoped for. D

I recommend N. Rodger’s Naval History of Britain: vol1 is Safeguard of the Sea; vol 2 is Command of the Ocean. D

Being more used to GRT than DWT and more used to looking at the records for 1914-8 and 1939-45 than 1909 I’d say that 8,500 is a very big tramp pre 1917ish ‘Standard freighter’ design. WW2 Liberty and Empire ships were in the 8000 to 10,000 GRT bracket (without dashing off to consult my books). Around 1900 I’d be expecting an average of 2500-4000 GRT. BTW can you do your calculations for China clay rather than coal for your sailing schooner example. It would be extremely helpful! Duncan

Regarding the maritime aspects. Again this depends on the type of load and it’s bulk. You are unlikely to charter a ship.., (because we’re talking about loads of 100s if not 1000’s of tons… This is the age of break bulk cargo shipping via tramp steamers and cargo liners. If you had a perishable, high value or quick delivery cargo you might be able to get it on a cargo liner operating a fixed timetabled service via an agent. This would require you to get your cargo to the liner port (by coaster or rail). Tramps (ie no timetable but taking the most economical route needed to drop off cargoes) is more likely (and they tended to be smaller than cargo liners so could get into more places). Greater choice of where to pick up your cargo but you still need to get it there by coaster or rail… Again I hope this helps. Duncan

Apart from agreeing wholeheartedly with @Edwardian regarding east vice south Devon, the answer is probably that good historian’s one : it depends. I think the biggest factor is whether each shipment will be a complete wagon load or a part load, or a small consignment. If a wagon load then the originating railway may well provide the wagon. It might be worked through to a foreign company destination (and incur charges etc via the RCH) or it might work to a recognised transshipment point where it is off loaded and loaded into the foreign company’s wagon. The nature of the load may well dictate whether through worked or transshipped. If a part load in a wagon, I think this would increase the likelihood of transshipment. If a small consignment it might go in a road van or station truck type arrangement, transshipped as required to get it to its destination either home company or foreign. Hope this helps Duncan

Hmm, the logistics of moving coal for bunking. Not really my area but from what I recall there were three basic models (and probably lots of variations). 1. Buy from a factor/chandler at a port, who in larger ports might have special facilities - a coaling wharf - and who would have large stocks delivered in bulk, probably by sea but possibly by rail. Probably the most likely course of action. Probably the only open for small single vessel lines and the method of choice for larger ships as it would be the easiest option for physically getting coal onboard. (Coaling was filthy after all.) 2. The shipping line has its own arrangements with a coal factor to deliver to a jetty. I can’t believe this would have been popular given the wagon loads that would have been required for even small coasters and the congestion this could cause in the wharf (and remember coaling ship was a filthy and potentially long process) . Possible for very small coasters (eg Clyde puffers etc) and steam trawlers etc as bunkers were smaller. But in 1900 the coasting trade in the smallest of ports was still heavily sail dependent (as an aside many coasting schooners etc were converted to motor sailers rather than steam). 3. The shipping line owns/hires wagons and forwards them as required direct from colliery to port eg Grimsby Steam Trawler Co. Probably quite rare. Hope this helps. Duncan

Hi Steve, Very impressive (as I’ve said in the GWR modellers FB site). When the design is done could you print one for me? Are you intending to drive the front or rear axle? A high level roadrunner+ with drive extension should allow the rear axle to be driven and the subsequent contortions to get the motor into the firebox/boiler. Also I’d fill in the footplate below the smoke box for strength and to give a fixing point for the body/footplate/chassis. I’d also consider making the rear splashers part of the footplate not cab, again for strength. How are you going to fix the bogie? I’m puzzling this myself for the 0-4-4t versions. I was thinking about a flexichas approach but this might be difficult unless there is a drop out sub frame. I’m also wondering how to arrange bogie pickups, so any suggestions would be great. Finally, given the tightness of space between the frames I’d avoid springs - especially csb ones - and use a flexichas 3 point approach with fixed driven axle. all the best, Duncan

I’ll be helping out on the GW study group stand!!!! Duncan

Anyone planning to attend expoEM on Sunday and fancy a cuppa and chat? Duncan

No I hadn't seen it - an interesting approach. Thanks. D

Today’s progress on the BG 3521 st… The bus bars were glued in place and then wipers from thin PB wire soldered in place. Then an 8 pin dcc socket connected up. Next job will be fit and quarter the wheels and then fit coupling rods. And test - and hope everything works as it should! Duncan

More progress on the Broad Gauge 3521saddle tank. I’ve now fitted the motor and gearbox - a high level box and a Mashima 1220. I also soldered the rocking trailing axle bushes to the pivot bar. I have also been given thought to pick ups. Naturally I thought about this after I printed out the chassis, but that is what files and dental burrs are for! It struck me that the top of the gap between the inner and outer frames might be worth a shot, so I filed and ground a slot to take a bus bar on each side on to which phosphor bronze wire scraper pick up will be soldered. After trying some 0.8mm brass rod for the bus bars, I decided on .5mm. I’ll be able to incorporate the groves for the bus bars and pickups on the CAD for the BG 3521 0-4-4t which is coming in behind the saddle tank version in the CAD queue. Next job is to increase the width of the footplate by 0.25mm each side and move the balance out by the same amount as the clearance in the rocking (from) coupled axle is non existent! And then reprint with better supports to hopefully cure the poor printing of the front sandboxes and rear of the lower boiler.

The Wessex symbol is a red wyvern or there is the medieval https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FlagOfWessex.svg#mw-jump-to-license Mercia is a yellow saltire on a blue background, again a medieval creation. Given Victorian interest in antiquarianism any of these might have been co-opted by the M&WJR. The wyvren might have been seem as a bit too Welsh (and Arthurian) for taste, but on the plus side both medieval coats of arms share a blue background which might allow the company to play around with. Duncan

Yes but you’re 2mm so build volume is a fraction of the problem faced by us 4mm types… I mean, I could print 2mm Dreadnoughts on my printer (probably) …. But I’m not going to design them while I have so much Broad Gauge to sort out!