Cwmtwrch

23 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

I believe they were built at Ashford and were sent north (Hull?) for shipping abroad

Via Ipswich? Felixstowe possibly?

2 hours ago, Ray H said:

Assuming that the line is used by passenger trains it would be more usual to have No. 3 point's lever back in the frame which leaves the points set for the route to/from the curve at the bottom of the plan.

It isn't, hence the ringed signals. You may like to have a look at https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/185911-signals-for-a-single-line-junction/, which gives the background.

On 03/05/2024 at 17:58, The Johnster said:

hump yard shunting is a young man's game, for the quick or the dead...

There was a reason why they were called "Wagon chasers"...

6 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Clearly something you would need on a gangwayed vehicle but why on a non gangwayed one?

4 hours ago, bécasse said:

lighting would have helped speed the task without damaging anything.

A van might contain part consignments for different destinations; if so, it would be necessary to be able to read labels...

It's not particularly conclusive, but a rather random selection of photographs of identifiable fish vans in S Wales in the late 1950s and early 1960s show numerous ex-LNER vans, both original uninsulated and insulated conversions, several BR 1/800, one BR 1/801 and one Insixfish [dated Sept 1962], but no Bloaters.

2 hours ago, 31A said:

Not sure whether it's been commented on already, but the second of the BR liveried vans pictured above has a different body in that the louvres between the planks are absent - would this be the rebuilding referred to?

Only partly. Rebuilding involved the disappearance of the side and end vents of those Bloaters which had them, but more noticeably the replacement of the sliding doors by cupboard doors.

2 hours ago, Graham_Muz said:

E87061 is a Diagram S10 and therefore without the louvres.

But it should have end louvres according to Peter Tatlow [Historic Carriage Drawings vol. 3].

It was built as the residence of the CME in 1873, but demolished in 1937.

20 minutes ago, 46444 said:

Out of interest would the chassis on this Bloater cover other GWR wagon diagrams such as the Fruit D?

The Y11 Fruit D had the same wheelbase but different brake gear, spring suspension and steps.

4 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

That's a great budget model to add to a Sixties parcels and miscellaneous lash-up, in crimson.

Some were converted to parcels vans circa 1948, but with the bodies substantially rebuilt; any survivors would not have been in fish traffic in the 1960s. Even the modern InSixFish had been transferred away from the WR, and photographs suggest what limited fish traffic there still was on the WR was in BR 4-wheel lwb insulated vans.

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I think it would also cover the large Minks. ISTR that Ian Kirk and then Parkside used the same chassis for their different types.

The same issues apply as apply to Y11 above, plus different wheelbases [apart from the last 50 of V9] and only two doors.

On 29/04/2024 at 09:35, cravensdmufan said:

I just use a sharpened white artists pencil - easy to rub off and change, just like the real thing!

Likewise, except that I use a pale grey, as white looks too stark to me, especially if it's supposed to look as though it had been written weeks previously.

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

would you really want a long rake of factory-sh*tted cattle wagons with exactly the same splats on each one

Acrobatic cows?

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

IMHO no need for the LoPTW sign either - that's something of a 'modern' thing and in any case the fact that 15 has a ring indicates that the line is goods-only.

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

It would also be implictly covered through things like drivers' route knowledge, documents such as WTT, Sectional Appendix.

All of which is true, and for a passenger train the signalman wouldn't pull off 15 anyway; although ringed it's still a "Stop" signal.

There was a W1, a diesel railcar; whether it lasted long enough to get the suffix as well I don't know. W7W probably did.

12 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

I don't know about an ex-GWR  vehicle vehicle bearing such a low number, but I saw an ex-SR van bearing an S*S number as late as 1972; it was one of the 3 4-wheeel passenger brakes for Continental work, 

S1S - S3S. Originally blue and dual braked for working on the Night Ferry service. Ceased to be ferry vans 1960, air brake removed and painted green for general use. S1S and S2S were withdrawn in1969; S3S in 1974.

37 minutes ago, JZ said:

57XX It will be renumbered to 7787 probably.

4652 is 8750 sub-class, 7787 was 57xx sub-class. Different cabs and water filler caps.

8 hours ago, Rhydgaled said:

I think Peco/Ratio/Parkside have some 4mm scale cattle wagon kits, though not sure on accuracy or whether they offer a GWR one (other than the larger 'Beetle' type for prize cattle).

Parkside do both LMS unfitted and LNER VB cattle wagons, which are to their usual standard. They may not have done a GW one because of the existence of the Coopercraft version. The Airfix BR version can be altered to a GW version IIRC, but I don't remember the details.

2 hours ago, RailWest said:

IMHO you do need 21, in order to limit passengers moves coming into the platfrom from the RH end, as unlike Combe Jcn the platform is on a through line rather than a dead end.

Actually, beyond Combe Junct for much of its life was Moorswater Yard, but there were two lines there as Jeremy C has just posted. The layout looks like a composite of Combe Junction and Looe, where the platform is on a single line without a loop, because in steam days the empty passenger stock was run round in the goods yard/quayside area beyond the station. That could be done here, but realistically only with a different operating pattern to Combe Junct. as running occupied passenger trains to the yard to reverse would require quite different signalling.

So far as 21 is concerned, I have thought a bit more about the possibilities of, for example, crossing a freight with a passenger train, and have come to agree with you.

It would help to know what period the layout is set in [is it evident from the signals and structures?] as this may affect the answers. 

To control this track plan as shown, with token and staff for the two lines, a signal box is essential [Coombe Junction had one roughly where the G/F is shown until the line became one train operated between Liskeard and Looe], as a ground frame can't exercise the necessary functions. Is it actually a ground frame or a signal box?

There should be a trap point between the terminal yard and the halt, assuming no passenger service [which is presumably why ringed arms are used for 1 and 21?], perhaps the other side of the bridge, with signal 1 before the trap. Quite where 21 belongs I don't know, but it's not really needed where it is. There should be signals [possibly ground signals] to permit entry to and exit from siding A-B, which should also be trapped. However, with the track laid and ballasted the alterations to add the trap points may not be worthwhile now.

The layout implies that passenger services are worked by autotrains, as there is no loop at the halt; if passenger trains work into the yard beyond for the loco to run round then the signalling becomes much more complicated, unless the two lines are worked separately, so that only empty stock goes into the yard, unlike the reversal of trains at Coombe Junction [which had a loop at the station].

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

On the other hand Crimea Yard, Westbourne Park, was a domestic coal yard and handled no other traffic but for many years - long after marshalling yards were available within a couple of miles of it - a train of coal empties for South Wales started from there 9including first having to cross the Hammersmith & City Line.  The train was also booked to call at Aberdare Sidings, Old Oak Common, in order to attach any coal empties which might be available there.

Essentially this was a single commodity block train of empties, London to South Wales, presumably without intermediate stops, possibly with a couple of loaded ones the other way [loco coal and domestic coal separately], run that way because there was enough traffic to justify it. Smaller numbers of coal empties from local stations on the way out of London would probably be picked up by local goods trains and, at a guess, be collected at Acton yard and form part of another through train to South Wales, not necessarily made up only of empty coal wagons, perhaps with intermediate stops. Both trains would be classified as through goods, but, as you imply, rather differently organised, because meeting different needs.

4 hours ago, JZ said:

One of them was the Quarryman's Arms, but which one? Anyway, I will be ordering these two from Scale Model Scenery.

The biggest/tallest, in the pale colour - white, possibly? See https://gelligaerhistoricalsociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/NEwsletter67-January2023.pdf [16 page pdf, copy of this photograph and article on p7]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

However the answer to the second one was fairly consistent over the years because intermediate yards where trains called to attach/detach would assemble vehicles in the optimum way to suit the order in which they had to be shunted into the train.

5 hours ago, Sol said:

Thanks Mike. my era is 1940-1960s I guess & while shunting at small stations to be done by the train loco, I was not sure if larger stations needed to know how many wagons were being dropped off & handled by local yard loco.

 

My second question was based on assumptions that,  that large station would have a local yard crew & a loco to organize wagons ready  to be attached  incoming trains that continue on .

To clarify, the reference here to "intermediate yards" refers to sorting yards, not goods yards; although the two might be adjacent, they had different purposes. Through freights would work between two major sorting yards, and might serve intermediate sorting yards as well, where they would leave and collect traffic as necessary, sorted as stated, usually into sections by destination, each possibly with separate VB and unfitted sub-sections. Large intermediate goods stations would probably be served by trip workings from a local sorting yard or yards. Through freights were assembled in sections according to written instructions which also laid down the class of train and the maximum number of vehicles, as well as such matters as types of traffic which could or could not be conveyed by that train. The whole process was remarkaby complex.

Not all WR named trains came from/went to Paddington https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/84189-the-devonian/ In the 1960s the northern terminal of the Cornishman was also at Bradford, after a period at Wolverhampton.

All the aircraft whose names were used for Castles were in RAF service during the Battle of Britain.

23 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

This photo may answer those questions:

But note that this is a 1/800 van, not a 1/801. Did the latter vans ever work off the ECML? [Don't know, just asking.]

51 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

In the NYMR's defence, while replacing the cable is probably a relatively affordable component

I would have thought that a wire rope rated for 45 tons [plus a safety margin] and of a very specific length, is likely to have a noticable influence on the sale price of a crane, as without it the crane is effectively useless. Not only is the boiler of a steam crane subject to inspection, but so is the rope, particularly on a crane which is only used irregularly. There is a lot of paperwork to go with it as well. Unless you have a real need for it, keeping such a crane in certification is likely to be demanding on staff time for limited returns, and requires someone competent to carry out inspections; insurance is dependent on compliance.

13 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

And yes the Banana is a problem, but what is wrong with it having a Fyffes label?

Nothing at all, but what's on the van is not what the actual label looked like. I suspect that it's painted as well, rather than a paper label...🙂 Your photos B881061_BANANA__m_at Staines Central 67-01-04 and B880681_BANANA__m_at Southampton Docks 69-04-17 respectively show the earlier and later labels.

7 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

VANFIT is a telegraph code in BR87209 Dec 1958 but not a marking on the wagon.

Which is the same as the 12/1949 edition [I have both].

10 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

Yes, I believe April 1963 is the introduction of boxed style of writing, which also appears to have led to more of the hidden telegraph codes becoming a descriptor on the wagons including VANFIT

Mea culpa. Being interested in the period circa 1960, I tend to overlook the "boxed" era. I presume that the use of Vanfit was short lived, replaced by the TOPS code VVV as shown on one of the other vans in the photographs?

But note that the "Vanfit" code officially never appeared on the wagon in BR days, while, also under BR, Shocvans did not carry the GWR style "Not in Common Use" black plate with branding in white, whilst some other BR codes changed over time. Always approach the livery and markings of anything preserved with caution. If possible use contemporary photographs, not, for example, https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/570027.html which has the wrong code, BR or LMS bauxite livery but no "M" prefix to the number or "LMS" above it to show ownership, odd placement of wording, a white circle which it should not have and an inaccurate "Fyffes" label.