Derekstuart

Cheers Russ BTW I finally started some construction today- only a 2' by 1' test plank, but using the heavy framing of a larger board, as I discussed with you and others on another thread. I think I'm going to go and learn the violin instead. I haven't got to do any bridges (apart from a concrete one later on) but I have a retaining wall and a small brick built hut to do, which I will try your technique. (unless I get on better with violin's than models!)

Hi Russ Can I ask what method you used to construct (and weather) the bridge in post #10 please? I don't know if it's deliberate or accidental but your photo has cast a bit of a shadow inside, which looks more prototypical. Either way, it looks very much convincing.

Hello Craig Apologies for 'bumping' an old thread. Can I ask (briefly) what technique you have used to weather the sleepers so well? I've not seen anything even remotely as realistic as those. I have tried to mix paints and techniques myself but come nowhere near it. Thanks Derek

Thanks for that Mike. I dare say that the offices were awful places to work in reality. But to me back then I spent most of my school holidays wandering in and out of them- and jumping trains (PT pass of course) to Finsbury Park or Peterborough etc.. and occasionally "volunteering" to take documents to Hornsey or Bounds'. (terrible job... but someone had to do it). So to me, it was a great place to spend time. But I suppose I didn't have to stay there 52 weeks of the year. As for platform 0- of course, I remember (vaguely) the roadway and concourse part there now that you explain it. Yet oddly in all those years, it was only some time later when my Dad was retiring and I went down to help clear his office that I saw the west yard area (motorail platforms etc). I had been down to the West (Northbound?) Moorgate tunnel, which in those days was very badly blocked up (ahem) and the former platforms there, but I never paid much attention to the rest of the area. Ah, the memories....

BTW Russ I've just noticed your layout link in your signature (I must have had these turned off???) very good plan and does fit in quite well with what I understand about infrastructure in the area. Not cramped like a London terminus but not too far spaced out like rural Wales. I shall be following your progress with interest.

Thanks Russ. I have read further on this subject and I think the author of the first page I read didn't make it as clear- What he meant, I think, was that two lines could not be controlled from one post unless separated on a 2 dolly bracket. So yes, I think you may well be right. You can see in a situation where on X line it is permitted and the lower arm is for the left line and the upper arm is for the right line. In this case a driver on the middle road could forget what he's doing and think he has the right of way- just as platform 1 correctly reads the signal and proceeds forward... I suppose that's what route learning is for though. But it does open up a whole myriad of issues from the days of non-standardisation. Even now drivers still have SPAD's by not paying attention to local rules.

Hello Russ That was my first thought (see above). However, I read before that this was only used on non-passenger lines??? Also, the schematic shows that both arms controlled by the one lever. This could suggest that the second option is correct- or that the bloke drawing it out was incorrect. I have gone through all my photograps and I cannot find any evidence to show for certain.

Steve After reading your comment above, I realise that I was reading the schematic incorrectly and that 19 is a FPL control. 28 is definately the P2 starter, and 20 must be the P1 starter, with the ground signal being used for the middle road. I think you are right that 20 is a double signal- until summer 1953, the station had an overall roof and I suspect that this obscured the signal for any trains on platform 1. I believe that the signals had to be at certain heights, so the upper* arm had to be where it is, but the lower arm was also installed to assist with visibility. In respect of the departure/arrival platforms- yes Whitby did use this practice when built. I haven't been able to find out when it ceased, although I suspect it was during the 1860 rebuild- they were struggling with space then anyway and the extra shunting movements would have been problematic. Although this point is disputed and some (including those writing the conservation report used by Scarborough Borough Council) seem convinced that such practices carried on until much later than that. I think that there *might* be an error on that schematic anyway. It shows the lower left point of the scissor crossover as not having a FPL. You might think that it doesn't need one as it is the only one of 4 that isn't facing. However, from Bog Hall crossing the two lines were bi-directional. *However* that bi-directional signalling might only have been for access to the goods yard or for light movements, hence the *might*. I think I know someone who will be able to answer that.

As I know there are a few people here who are familiar with NER/BR(E) signalling practices, can anyone tell me what is happening here? http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0001-dh-whitbly-departing-dmu.jpg My assumption: The half disused bracket signal on the left speaks for itself- the right bracket controlling platform 2, the left bracket was removed when platform 3 was lifted. However, it is the 2 starter signals on the far right post that I am unsure of. On a goods only line, it was possible to have two roads signalled from a single post- and if that was the case, then the upper one would denote a road diverging to the right. Or does one of those arms control the middle road? The middle road of course has the ground shunter signal. It would appear that the two starter's both relate to platform 1 and just indicate to the driver which road out- diverging left to the UP or ahead on the down (with a crossing to the UP at bog hall one suspects- I believe the lines were bi-directional until Bog Hall crossing). However, this is just a guess on my part. You can see just beyond it a home signal controlling traffic INTO the station- with a main home and a calling on arm below. But beyond that is another 'home' style signal for outbound traffic. It seems a very complicated signalling arrangement even for what was once quite a busy station. Here's a schematic http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=173 Any ideas anyone please?

Hello Steve I think that it would be the icing on the cake to include it- it has to be done! But first I have to bake the cake. Have you done much previously in P4? I've never touched it and am learning the easy way (a brick layer analogy: study the brick, watch other brick layers. Lay half a dozen bricks. Study result, build a row, study result. Try different brick bonds. Study. Build a small wall, study. Large wall, study, extension, study then build a whole house and hopefully no need to study). When you say "Broomielaw", I take it that you mean in Glasgow? I did think about PH. But my "practice" layout needs to be basically a small, compact version of Whitby so that I can trial all the bits that I will need for the main layout. PH has that very interesting box of course, but it wouldn't really help me prepare for the main task ahead... though if I was doing Larpool later on..... I will take a trip up to the GCR at some point. I've only been there once before (having no interest in railways since the mid/late 90s). I know Whitby had a 50ft table, but as you say it will be close enough in design to prove useful to study. I am told that the rail for the table is the very old stuff scavenged from the former Goathland deviation route. Should be fun to replicate. Not.

Thanks Mike. I know there were many people working there and not everyone knew everyone, especially in between departments. I can still remember those offices so well. Initially Dad was overlooking platform 8 (I think just South of the footbridge, but not 100% on that) before moving over to look over those dull spam cans of 9,10,11. I know they refurbished the offices a bit after privatisation. I hope they didn't destroy the character of the place in the process. In all the 100's of visits I've had to KX, I never got to see any of the East side offices- I don't know if the East side offices were in use at the time? Certainly seemed very quiet.. On the subject of KX-E. That new platform '0'. I have read two different accounts of this- one that there was a platform there already, which had been dis-used for years (also heard a variant that it was designed for, but never used at all), and the second account is that it was a major engineering exercise to substantially modify the East side to accomodate this brand new platform. I think perhaps the latter is more likely and the former is someone being confused with the Southbound entry onto the MWL???

Mike, did you know my Dad, Lou Taylor? He was a Traction Inspector, retiring in 1994 after working his way up from grease monkey/ cleaner in the (then) newly Nationalised BR at Darlington, then to Stratford and onto Kings Cross late 70's or early 80's.

Thanks Mike BTW do you mind me asking what sort of timeframe you and he worked at KX? I keep bumping into people who knew my Dad when he worked there. I think a trip up North is in order- I might pop into see him if he will talk to me... if not then there's that ex Whitby wooden shed to photograph and if I can find any ash ballasted track left, some notes on colours

Hi Paul Thanks. Any info would be appreciated. It is difficult for me to get up during the week to look- although if I find out that there is some useful info, I will book a holiday from work and go look. Re: The ford, sorry my post didn't explain very well. I meant that I WAS uncertain at the time. However, I have seen early photo's as well as a pre-war OS map that shows it just how you describe it. When you see the photo' of the Esk PRE dredging, it makes a lot more sense. Though I must admit to never having gone to look on the East bank for the other side- I will do next time. Mike, Someone else has already suggested speaking to Mr Benham. But I suspect he's not the easiest chap to get hold of, being quite a busy bloke. I could try writing to him??? Steve, I ordered a copy from an Amazon dealer- not received yet. I will try buying another copy as there's a few on Ebay. I had forgotten about that. I would really like to include Larpool viaduct as it is such an important and distinctive part of the line and would provide a good 'scenic break' as well as allow the proper modelling of the Prospect Hill incline. But it would be another 12ft long and because of the size of the curve there would mean that the layout width would be excessive.... I'd have to be mad to include that amount of extra work, wouldn't I.....? Wouldn't I? Would I?

Hello Alan & Sade Chairs: I found the easiest way is to add an extra 1/2 inch onto a length and then file it to a much longer taper. I am still intending to lay each panel as 30/45/60ft as per prototype (as opposed to just cutting a notch every 120/180/240mm). But I am threading all the chairs on one length and will then cut it into sections when I'm ready to lay them. I have found that I can make several feet of track with not a single breakage- and then break the next three in a row. I did try the scalpel trick but I found this weakened the chair and I wasn't sure if it would grip the rail properly. I suppose it's a case that we all need to find a system that works for us. So far I've made several test pieces on straight, curve, curved with checkrail etc- (using the 1 chair alternating between rail and checkrail as I haven't yet got the double chairs). In respect of the mini layout- yes, I've got that and am starting to build the boards. It's got approx 12ft of track, 3 points and all aspects of the scenic parts that I will need for Whitby. But also, to test scenery rather than track, I am making a 9" by 2' "plank" to test several of the things that I have learned from people here (and elsewhere). I can do that at the same time as building this small layout as I should be finished the plank before I am ready to put scenic items in the layout. Now I just have to figure out re-wheeling things to test the track. I built a OO turnout using spare parts, which worked fine- I would like to test P4 track a bit more before going further.

Given that Bachmann have produced the 47/7 in Scotrail previously and there is a DBSO listed as "coming before the next ice age"- I would have thought that a MK3 will come sooner or later... (later, knowing Bachmann) In fact if there's anything with wheels that ran on rails in the past 100 years I suspect if you wait long enough Bachmann will produce it. Hornby? I think they have non-railway interests to pursue first. (and I imagine that I'm not the first to suggest this)

Hello Paul Thanks for the info. I have tried NR, but all they have is 1/4 of the station from the stops South. I know that plans exist as I've seen extracts from an architects "station conservation" document from about 10 years ago. I believe that the originals (or good copies) live at NRM or Darlington, but so far I've not been able to confirm. Out of curiosity, did your drawings list turnout types etc? I am told that there was a set sold (copy or original I'm not sure) that was a full engineers drawing showing how many ft/inch from X to Y and rodding/wire runs and ducts. But this has proven very much elusive. I would appreciate seeing any photo's you have. As for the ford. I remember my Dad telling me that the Esk at that point was a large mud flat and that there was a crossing there- having seen it post dredging, I assumed he was mistaken or on a wind up (I always wondered about the site of the turntable as well, which I remember my Dad showing me the outline on the ground of the loco shed, which conflicted with photo's of it being on the Esk bank at BH. Of course, I NOW know that this was the original table before the shed was expanded and it was moved to the carriage sidings- odd to think it was still visible (just 80 odd years later)- hence my uncertainty regarding his story of the ford). As I've said elsewhere, when embarking on a project like this, you have to learn the disciplines of an archaeologist- taking in info from many sources- books, films, people on net forums and field visits. You also need to understand architecture to understand the way buildings were built back then and also about geology- you can't terraform realistically otherwise. Nothing proves the first point about research more than asking the information from people such as yourself. There's a HUGE amount of information out there. Many, many thanks for your info. If you do find any photo's, I'd really love to see them- even if the track lifting is such a sad occasion, it would give clues to the missing 'black spots' in the data. Hello Paul Thanks for the info. I have tried NR, but all they have is 1/4 of the station from the stops South. I know that plans exist as I've seen extracts from an architects "station conservation" document from about 10 years ago. I believe that the originals (or good copies) live at NRM or Darlington, but so far I've not been able to confirm. Out of curiosity, did your drawings list turnout types etc? I am told that there was a set sold (copy or original I'm not sure) that was a full engineers drawing showing how many ft/inch from X to Y and rodding/wire runs and ducts. But this has proven very much elusive. I would appreciate seeing any photo's you have. As for the ford. I remember my Dad telling me that the Esk at that point was a large mud flat and that there was a crossing there- having seen it post dredging, I assumed he was mistaken or on a wind up (I always wondered about the site of the turntable as well, which I remember my Dad showing me the outline on the ground of the loco shed, which conflicted with photo's of it being on the Esk bank at BH. Of course, I NOW know that this was the original table before the shed was expanded and it was moved to the carriage sidings- odd to think it was still visible (just 80 odd years later)- hence my uncertainty regarding his story of the ford). As I've said elsewhere, when embarking on a project like this, you have to learn the disciplines of an archaeologist- taking in info from many sources- books, films, people on net forums and field visits. You also need to understand architecture to understand the way buildings were built back then and also about geology- you can't terraform realistically otherwise. Nothing proves the first point about research more than asking the information from people such as yourself. There's a HUGE amount of information out there. Many, many thanks for your info. If you do find any photo's, I'd really love to see them- even if the track lifting is such a sad occasion, it would give clues to the missing 'black spots' in the data.

I was thinking the same thing. I have looked at a good percentage of the layouts on this (and other) forums. Some individual, some club. Some large or small. Some OO, some EM and some P4. And many of them are absolutely superb and detailed. And yet I must say that this is usually Waverley West that I come back to time and again for inspiration and to see how certain things are done. There is certainly a 'something' that I cannot put my finger on that differentiates this from most others (though WW ISN'T the only one to manage to capture this 'something'- but it's very, very rare)

Thank you, Paul, for that piece of enlightenment. I shall rest easier tonight knowing that.

For anyone who is interested, I bough 'half' the C&L stand today (or at least it felt like it). I armed myself with some 3 hole chairs, rail, plywood, cutters, various fishplates, a turnout kit..... First stop: Make a single panel of 60ft track... OK, so not bad but would have been better if I had used a proper steel edge (but it was only a test piece anyway and already lessons learned). I am suffering a breakage rate of about 40% threading the fragile chairs onto the rail. Yes, I have the rail the right way up and yes I've filed the edge to make it easier. Is it worth the hassle to handmake track? I shall soon know. I like the ply base points and it looks silly to me to have ply points and plastic track. I think I can do this for the short test track for this "mini" layout (12ft total track give or take) but for Whitby? That's about 120ft of track all in. Good game, good game. Q: Heard the one about the idiot who tried to handmake 100ft of P4 track? A: On a postcard.

Dave, I take it when you take those photo's, the train is actually running at speed and you just have to try and pan the camera around at the appropriate speed? (if that's not a trade secret and you haven't been asked 200 times already) I did something not too dis-similar with a brochure for work, but it involved a heavy commercial vehicle going into lane 2 of the M1 whilst I shot past in lane 1 to get the photo- it came out looking a similar effect.

It's out of my era, but I will still be having one. It's such a quality looking bit of kit that it'd be rude not to. (and if Charlie's description of window glue is right, and I get lucky- I know a professional re-sprayer that will take the commission!) Derek

No, I live near Milton Keynes- so not much closer than you! But I do try to go up there every now and then. And to help, work is looking at opening a branch on Teeside.... and muggins here would be in charge of setting it up so I would have a lot of chance. BTW thinking of the comments I've read here, I think my 'trial run' should be a prototypical layout. It isn't such a big deal to miss the estuary wall and I can do this on a 'plank'. West Cliff has been done, Sandsend would be nice but it needs that big viaduct and learning to make a viaduct won't help me, the same as Staithes. Robin Hoods bay was once done, but I think a long time back, it is still standing AND there is a chap here who knows a bit about it. I also wonder about a nice simple one- Prospect Hill junction. No major buildings, only 2 (or 3 perhaps) points, 1 signal box and 1 bridge. The rest is vegetation. Would be enough to practice but without delaying Whitby until I'm retired. Opinions?

No I didn't know that, Russ. Speaking of BH. I remember my Dad telling me how the Esk used to be a mud bath at low tide and I couldn't really picture it. Well I found a photo last week of the mud flats between Endeavour Wharf and the dockyard on the other side and I didn't realise it was totally "dry" (term used loosely) at low tide. Where exactly was the ironstone mine then? I know the photos of Grosmont processing plant are very impressive indeed. It's a shame that you can't see the full detail because of the quality of film in that era. It's quite hard to imagine when you're there in the car park under the tree canopy.

Sorry for 3rd post in a row Is it me or is this forum really unstable, sometimes requiring 3 attempts to post. It doesn't let you paste in anything- specifically URLs and when you cancel the attach link box when it doesn't work, you can't close it and have to F5. Anyone else have this problem?