Keegs

Fair enough I guess, I’m just a bit annoyed with all the unnecessary duplication when there are other models that get seemingly forgotten about because there were more than 1 prototype ever built (which seems to be the current trend!) if we take GWR (only because that is what I model/am familiar with) there are no Saints, Duke’s, Bulldog’s or Aberdare’s and well overdue a retool (imo): 0-4-2 tank(has someone announced one of these maybe?), Star (no proper bearings), 2251 (old tooling)

I guess I’ll just keep waiting! 😆 

Ok let’s look at it from another angle which is the angle I was actually meaning in my initial reply to The Stationmaster. Which is not so much comparing the Bachmann 2-8-0 to a hypothetical “new” 2-8-0. But rather having releases of 2x 2-10-0s of which there would be a limited market(we’ve seen this recently with the Manor, Large Prairie, Lion, Class 37 to name a few) vs allowing KR models to salvage some of their hard work and create a slightly improved if you will 2-8-0 instead.

Think of it not as “the Bachmann model is seriously out of date” more like a “would you rather see duplicate of a rather niche (IMO) locomotive or an “updated” 2-8-0 of which the prototype was seen all over England and in decent numbers and would likely sell well.🤷‍♂️

19 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Sorry - but IMHO there is no need for a new WD 2-8-0.

 

I judge my locos on performance, not on features (which may, or may not, be necessary).

 

My WD runs superbly - once I had found the random short, generated by a trapped wire.

 

It seems that, nowadays, models are judged on whether they have the latest innovations - be it cast bodies or whatever.

 

If a model looks like the prototype, performs like the prototype - what more do you want?

 

Ahh - sorry; a model with little inherent mass, so that a multitude of electrickery can be crammed in to give chuffing and smoke - hence the 'necessity' for a cast metal body.

 

I know - grumpy old man!

 

CJI.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you and I'm not saying the old one doesn't run well, I was merely offering up the idea that instead of having two newly tooled WD 2-10-0 models from different manufacturers one of them could be changed to the 2-8-0 (which would some of the parts are interchangeable with.)

Regarding the Bachmann model I was merely comparing it to newer releases and the specifications that KR models were looking to apply to their 2-10-0.

-Fair enough about pickups I suppose it has 8 driving wheels, but no excuse for no bearings except cutting corners.

-Other nitpicks would be the moulded smokebox dart.

-Cast bodies have been around since Hornby Dublo, not really a "Latest Innovation" and quite alot of locos would benefit from it although the Bachmann cast running board means their WD 2-8-0 is heavy enough.

The 2-10-0 only had 150 examples built vs 935 of the 2-8-0 so it's assumed there would be alot more livery variations they could cover than what is currently available and they were redistributed all over England whereas it appears the majority of 2-10-0 were shipped to the Netherlands after the war. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I note that the Bachmann model doesn't cover this particular livery:

Of course if KR wanted to shelve the entire design and do a completely different locomotive then that is an entirely different kettle of fish!

On 30/01/2024 at 10:05, E100 said:

 

Yes, I'm not sure there is enough room for more than 1 in the market and ECT seem too far along to stop although so claim KR models.

Agree 100%, KR would be better off changing to the 2-8-0(I think they share some parts?) which would be a huge improvement over the Bachmann version (no tender pickups, no proper bearings etc) especially if they go with the diecast boiler as originally intended!

Oh dear... seems it's offline again. Went to check prevalence of large logo BR Blue in early 1980s but received this message:

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Bachmann already did that one recently though. So maybe a different number?

 

Looking at what ones seem to be most/least popular I noticed the NCB is lowest. Could it be that many already have that one so don't want another? I didn't manage to get one, so it's on the list.

 

Funnily enough now running in BRITISH RAILWAYS green!

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1383538558625307/

 

 

Jason

Yes def different number, wartime black lasted a few 57xx all the way until the 60s so would "fit" anything ww2 onwards (one of my layout ears is 1948-52 so br black is pushing it a bit for a lowly pannier & I have a few other locos in br so wartime black would make a nice contrast!)

I’m hoping for a wartime black variant Accurascale exclusive or in a future 2nd run! 
 

eg: 

🤞😁

Just now, spamcan61 said:

Locomotion #1 looks really impressive from an engineering perspective but I'd file it under 'inefficient use of limited resources' - can't see many people buying multiples over the years 

They could put it in a Beatles livery perhaps? 😏

Well, my wallet and my wife have both taken a collective sigh of relief, I'm thankful really. Rapido and Accurascale have more than made up in the past year and the year to come for us GWR modellers!

On 08/01/2024 at 11:33, Harlequin said:

From 1918 to 1947, in fact. You can download the PDFs from gwr.org,uk.

😃

Ahh excellent, I spent many hours on that site and WarwickshireRailways.com so much information and detail, really makes researching alot less painless!

And another photo of a S & L Ore train:

This is from a Key Model World article so apologies if it's paywalled:

"With a heavy rake of wagons loaded with iron ore behind, GWR ‘Mogul’ 4329 passes Southam Road & Harbury in 1932. P.W. Robinson/Rail Archive Stephenson."

Long may the treasure hunt continue (Even if it's just me still hunting!)

Cheers,

Kegan

Can anyone provide a reason (beyond speculation) why this Iron Ore train has got two brake vans? (one each end)

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p935128670/hf56bda1b#hf56bda1b

Initial thought was to run around it however this is a tender loco so not sure that would have been the norm?

Thanks,

Kegan

22 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

It was a popular design and was supplied by Charles Roberts to several Iron Works.

 

 

Thanks Mark, that's excellent!

Do you have any information on a diagram number or the Capacity? Struggling to find any more information the only one that turns up is the Diagram 161 that was built in 1949.

Sorry if this is reviving a dead thread but I didn't want to create another with the same subject.

It seems we've lost alot of photos after "The Purge" so I can't be sure if these have been posted previously.

At any rate these are some more photos I have dug up. This is of great interest to me because there were some heavy freight trains in the area I am going to model.

This is an odd diagram Iron Ore Hopper from as picture dated "Shortly before the war" that I haven't been able to find any info on apart from this picture, it doesn't have any vertical surfaces on the side(From by "Paddington to the Mercy" by Hendry and Hendry):

Lastly a rare colour shot pulled from the Transport library of Bulldog class "Kingfisher" in 1936:

29 minutes ago, DCB said:

The problem here is that while the tracks  2 south  3 north and the platforms and goods yard relationship are similar to Kidlington the track plan is not. The Branch does not diverge at Kidlington it is the 3rd line north of the station.  The model plan has no branch run round loop and a goods lay bye, running loop what ever has been added  to make the 3rd road.    It  is not something a full size railway would have built,  the whole ethos of the real Kidlington was to keep branch trains clear of the main line.   From the NLS map around 1900  Kidlington had the road bridge much closer to the platform and three running lines north of  the road bridge for 1/2 mile maybe before the branch swung away to the West ,  Also North of the road bridge was a branch run round loop.  " At Kidlington this meant first unloading any passengers before reversing out of the station to perform the run-round. " There was a scissors crossover between Branch and Down Main.    The scissors was unusual I don't know of another example quite like it,  but the run round away from the platform made a lot of sense,  The Branch was a later addition and Kidlington was adapted to become the junction station and the Branch extended beside the main line even later to keep branch trains clear of the main line.

You're not wrong, I actually prefer my original plan without the Junction for it's simplicity and overall "Flow" It is based heavily on Lavington(Signalling not yet added correctly):

I'm not giving up on the Junction idea entirely but it definitely requires more research on my part. :)

On 05/01/2024 at 07:59, philip-griffiths said:

Hello Keegs. 
 

Your signalling is getting there with Mike and Miss Prism’s help.  There are some good resources in signalling, books by Bob Essery are very useful especially on typical passenger and freight workings. I know you stand upside down, but may be worth considering seeing if you can source them down under. 😀

 

you’d need some ground signals. I’d use them out of the yard at the catch point and from the down platform line for a reserve into the loop, the up line or into the lay-by. 
 

anither ground signal for working from the up to the down and even a ground signal from the loop to the down as the signal in Miss Prism’s diagram (the 3 post bracket) would really be for a movement from the loop to the down and then past the down starter. If shunting with in the station precinct you would not be pulling off the bracket signal as that will only be released with the down starter. 
 

(Ducks from the fags ends that Miss Prsim will throw towards me as I apply LNWR practice to a GWR situation… ) 

 

regards. 

Thanks Philip.

I’m afraid my model railway budget has been put on hold for 9 months due to quite a splurge on railway books and Rapido wagons last year! Have got a 8 month old sconegrabber aswell as saving for a house(which are not cheap in NZ!)

I use a UK freight forwarder which allows access to most of the rail books which definitely are not available over here!

But I will definitely add some signalling books to my collection before I commence building the layout. :)

I should add that while I would like to start building this year, there is no rush as I forsee this being a 10-15 year project at least!

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget the trap point - a dummy will do - for the yard sidings.

 

The xtra siding next to the bay appears to lack any sort of road access so isn't much use for loading or unloading anything unless you can work in some road access with room to get a road vehicle along the side of the cattle dock away from the siding.   Livestock traffic. apart from various specialised flows, seem to have declined considerably by the mid 1930s but the docks themslves often survived at many stations well into the 1960s

 

The two splitting ('junction') signals would be as described by Miss P but one needs a bit of elaboration.  The one at the facing point coming in from the branch would be a three doll signal - one arm reading to the Down Main, a second doll and arm reading to the bay, and a third doll and (short) arm reading to the goods yard.

 

 

Incidentally Maiden Newton has already been mentioned, along with similar arrangements at yelverton and Wellington (Salop)

Thanks once again Mike, decided to omit the extra siding for now and added the trap, hopefully I've interpreted that signal placement somewhat correctly!:

On 03/01/2024 at 03:20, The Stationmaster said:

And of course  with a number of similarities to Kidlington.

 

Anyway to the latest plan posted by 'Keegs' -

 

 

I think this gets you there.  The only thing missing is a trap point on the sidings from the goods yard.  

You might care to copy Kidlington and move the trailing connection into theUp Main further to the right but that would interfere with the curvature on the branch; or you could equally move it to the left so that it comes toe-to-toe with the connection to the Down Main - basically  you have a bit of flexibility there if you want it but it's not essential.  The goods yard would be more useful and workable if the two sidings were spread apart so they arenoy parallel to each other.

Something you need to do is move the footbridge to the left of the building and turn it round so the steps face in the opposite direction.

 

In 1948 there were 8 passenger trains and one Mixed Train on weekdays from Kidlington to Woodstock; all were Auto trains.  Several of the passenger trains were through trains from Oxford - which can't be replicated on your track layout as it stands although you can run through from the branch to the Down main subject to providing a suitable signal.

 

The through running of a passenger train  from Oxford was made possible by track layout alterations in 1942, prior to that (look9king back many years earlier) there had been a through train off the branch to Oxford but not in the opposite direction.  Yjr layout changes in 1942 made the track layout much simpler and did away with the single slip replacing it with a facing crossover from what is your Up Main to the branch and providing a new trailing crossover between tthe Main Lines thus gving full access in either direction between the Main Lines and the branch.

 

But through trains to/from the branch aren't essential and your track layout is absolutely ok and fully workable as it now stands.

Thankyou once again @The Stationmaster!

I've hopefully made the alterations correctly, although I'm not so sure about the extra line running parallel to the bay but I thought possibly it could supply a cattle dock as I believe they were widely used in the 30s. Would any of the signals be Junction signals?

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

You must have better eyes than me, those SRS low res diagrams are mostly unreadable

It's incredibly frustrating not being in the UK, the cost to get the diagrams I want is £24 on a CD which then has to be shipped halfway around the world(at what cost!) when it could quite easily be available for  download from their website!

Extremely late post but I would like to mention that this is excellent, have ordered a sound version of 5754. Even better than Dapol's prairie even just for the fact that it has a stayalive fitted from factory (this is my biggest bugbear with Dapol locos as they make it extremely difficult to add one yourself and stalling esp for sound is the most annoying thing!)

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't 5741 have the class+route indicator placed in the lower position as it is in a post-war livery (as on 9741)

Here is 3705 post-ww2:

Thanks,

Kegan

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The biggest limitation is on length of point rodding, a Board of Trade approved length which varied over the years (originally 180 rising in stages to 350 yards from memory).  So ideally you want to be about mid-way from the two outermost points that the box controls, and they should be not too far apart, so yes, this looks good.

 

The other important factor that tends to dictate signal box position would be any level crossing, so not an issue here.

After those, the other issues to consider would be visibility of passing trains (you need to see tail lamps), and purely for efficiency and convenience, proximity to single lines where tokens have to be exchanged.

 

Signal at Up platform end should be a little further to the left (clear of the fouling point at the slip)

Signal needed from Bay platform needed (clear of the point)

Signal from goods yard needs to be before the point to the bay (and the yard trapped to protect passenger trains using the bay)

Signal needed for leaving the lay-bye siding.

You need signals just outside the box (its current position) to protect the crossover from single line to Down Line

I've ignored need for shunt signals

Thanks @Michael Hodgson Hopefully I've interpreted at least partly right, if not please correct me!:

Thanks, I think the second to last one is similar to what I came up with in my last updated plan with regards to connecting the branch.

The bay platform idea I copied somewhat from Kidlington which seems to only have had a token passenger service (14xx and later on a pannier with just an Autocoach by the looks) which was what I was kind of aiming towards...

I might end up just forgetting the Junction as it seems to make things alot more complicated!! 😂

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, I think this is very good. As you say, the signal box wants to be next to the greatest concentration of pointwork. 

Thanks Compound!

Now how bad are my signalling efforts 😅

50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The headshunt is unnecessary unless your main line is so busy that the daily goods yard shuffle would disrupt traffic, which is rather unlikely. Expresses tended to come in bunches, to minimise the disruption to other traffic, and there would usually be a good long quiet period mid-afternoon when the daily goods train could potter along doing its thing.

 

Unfortunately somewhere along the line the goods yard connections have been reversed so that they are facing rather than trailing connections into the running lines - compare with your original plan, which was close to perfection.

 

Regrettably, your branch line connection does not meet the requirements of the Board of Trade, which were that such junctions should be formed as double junctions - i.e. a full double junction with the double line of the branch merging into a single line. Here's an example which is about as condensed as it can get; usually the layout was more flowing, but this shows some of the signalling too:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image gwrbj787a.]

 

The way to avoid having to lay a double junction is to have the branch continuing as a separate line into the bay, with no direct connection to the main lines.

 

It's these sorts of things that are vastly more important to how realistic your model railway looks than exactly how many carriages are hanging on the back of your King. 

Thanks Compound, now I know about the Board rules regarding Junctions!

The goods yard connections was a big oversight on my part, have fixed it up and also changed the Junction to single (hopefully this would pass Board of trade rules?)

Possibly the SB needs moving closer to the station though.

Note the crossing IS a single slip

Hopefully this is better, otherwise I will have another go at a double junction.(Although they definitely take up alot of space!)

Thanks,

Kegan

Thanks for all the comments, I've tidied it up a bit, relocated Signal box etc, hopefully this is a good one. Only thing that I'm not sure about trackwise is the Headshunt(Does it need one as could possibly use the main line? I have a feeling it might be a tad short too).

Also I'm not too confident in my signalling abilities if someone could assist or let me know if I should post this in the signalling section instead.

Closeup of scenic section and my average signalling attempt:

Thanks again,

Kegan