young37215

The PRA's were built to carry china clay from Cornwall to the Wiggins Teape paper mill at Corpach in the West Highlands being introduced in 1983 and working this activity until the early 90's. They returned empty from the West Highlands back to Cornwall for re-filling. The opening comments in this thread gives a little moreinformation about them.

Realistically no more than a handful of people a week will have need to use the lift. I suspect that it would be a lot cheaper to have a full time taxi available to take anyone requiring a lift to Parkway rather than incur the cost of the lift. I am not unsympathetic of PRM but whoever legilisated for the BS that wastes my money as a taxpayer in cases like this needs shooting.

Popped down to Patchway this afternoon in anticipation of the road closure at Gypsy Patch Lane. Stopped at the station an was staggered to see a passenger lift being installed. I am not sure what the annual footfall is but I cannot understand the economic case for this at such a minor station. It’s no wonder Network Rail cost so much to run.

Absolutely agree, I spent many happy hours bashing using Waverley as my base on various railrovers. WW is a wonderful layout and helps rekindle my memories of my bashing days.

I am awake at this ungodly hour because by my wife and dog are both snoring loudly. Yesterday saw me run a fair part of a single day of the WTT comprising 130 individual movements without any major problems. So far, so good… Lower fiddle yard start of day from left to right: 37049 1415 Sighthill to Corpach 37264 and 37022 0712 Blyth to Fort William 37011 ECS to Mallaig to form 0700 Mallaig to Glasgow 37178 0600 Glasgow to Mallaig 37081 0806 Glasgow to Oban 37012 0837 Glasgow to Mallaig 37085 0606 Sighthill to Mallaig Junction Yard 37108 1449 Sighthill to Oban 27041 1605 Oban to Sighthill ECS Mk3 push pull Edinburgh to Glasgow rake 37081 0740 Oban to Glasgow Upper fiddle yard start of day from right to left 37014 0707 Mallaig Junction Yard to Sighthill 37192 1520 Corpach to Sighthill 37011 ECS approaching the upper fiddle yard. The gap between baseboard enables me to remove the fiddle yard to work on it. I need to decide what to model in the area to the left and behind 37011, either Fort William depot or Bridge of Orchy station.

Whilst reading through some old Rail magazines before disposing of them I came across the 2010 article on WW where Dave is quoted as saying his favourite era was the late Deltic period. What changed to end up with WW set 8 or so years after this? Personally fewer duffs and more class 26,27,40 and 55 would enhance for me what is already a brilliant layout.

You’re correct, it’s had a 300mm graft in the middle. It means I have had to extend the platform but at least the extended length allows load 6 with ease.

Ignore the above, I am wrong. The track changes took place in March 1982 and not on RETB introduction when one train working was implemented in the Arisaig to Mallaig section and Mallaig signal box downgraded to a ground frame. Your track plan is accurate for your period. If you have not already seen it, the attached thread is helpful The question for me is which of the styles do I adopt?

Hi Andy I have been doing a litte research on Mallaig because I think it is likely that I will include a version on WHL4. One thing I have found is a change to the track plan at the throat of the station on or around the introduction of RETB. Prior to these changes, platform 2 was accessed from the main line from a point just beyond the end of the platform which was removed with P2 becoming accessed using the the line for the old cattle dock/oil siding. A new point was added to access the cattle dock line. Your track plan shows the latter arrangement whereas you say you are basing your station on 1983/4. Of course it is entirely your choice as to how and what you do but you might want to review this for your own peace of mind. There are a number of pictures on Flickr that show the change quite clearly. regards Rob

Had I found the attached thread earlier I could have saved everyones time. I stumbled across this by accident when I was trying to find out if the batteries in the MC2 could be replaced with more powerful ones. So far I have not found an answer. I am sure this question will have been raised previously, I will have a look on some of the ESU forums to see if I can find anything

I appreciate your guidance, indeed everyones input is really helpful. I agree that direct comparisons of ECoS and CabControl are not very meaningful and if that is what people think I am trying to do, I have not made myself and what I am trying to achieve clear. I currently run a wireless Guagemaster Prodigy which I am looking to update with something that does much the same only with up to date technology and greater power output. The wireless throttle is a must have for me and because I use ESU chips, I would like to see chip functions displayed on the throttle screen rather than have to keep refering to data sheets. My points and signals are servo operated and controlled independently from loco control using a Megapoints network and a central control panel. Given these, I consider the ECoS inappropriate for me because I do not want its 2 static throttles or on screen track plans. It is clear that the ECoS is good kit but it's capabilities do'nt match my requirements hence my apparent obsession with CabControl which, as far as I can find, is the only product that delivers all of what I am seeking.

A landmark today as I finally managed to connect the lower level to the upper and run a train through to Fort William. The delay is largely due to my inability to source chipboard which is my baseboard of choice. My traditional suppliers B&Q have stopped selling it as, so it seems, have most DIY and hardware stores. 37011 had the honour of leading the ECS to Fort William as a positioning move to start the days operations with the first southbound train to Glasgow. The train should start from Mallaig but I have not completed the baseboards for this yet. In addition there are 2 freight trains awaiting departure from Mallaig Junction Yard. Before I secure all of the track and start the scenic work, I want to see if I can run the WTT in full with the current sidings and fiddle yards. I think it works but will only find out by running through the days movements over the extended line which now totals approximately 50m in length. 37011 waits for the route to be built 37011 climbs the 1:32 gradient to the upper level 37011 rounds the curve above Garelochead and heads to Fort William approaching Mallig Junction Yard arriving at Fort William arrived at Fort William Run round Awiating departure to Glasgow

No. The Cab Control is the existing mobile handset MC2 plus a seperate 7 amp power supply which ESU call an 'Integrated Control Unit'. If you read through the thread you will see that there is an expectation that the MC2 will be issued in an upgraded form in the near future.

The steam hauled service in the picture below is load 7 with rear coach overhanging the platform. I did a Pathfinder tour back in 2016 which was load 10 or 11 and top and tailed between Fort William and Mallaig. The train was split in the platform at Mallaig and shunted in portions using the siding to enable the loco at the northern end to run round.

I am grateful for peoples contributions to this thread which are most informative to me. Assuming a £ equivalent purchase price of £300, duty and VAT add another 22.5% making a total of £367.50 which compares favourably with the costs of an ECoS at circa £600. I am only seeking: locomotive control with chip functions shown on screen, programming higher power output than the 3.5 A of my Guagemaster Prodigy so the lower levels of functionality of the CabControl option do not seem an issue for me. I hope that the indications and rumours about an upgraded MC2 come to fruition sooner rather than later. In the meantime I remain tempted by the older version of CabControl but have not quite got to the 'buy it' decision yet.

Hi Ken Impressive work, the results look first class. Do you, or anyone else for that matter, have any suggestions on the bracketed lights that Inverness based locos received such as the one on 37017 below? Apart from your work above, the best that I have seen are the lights Lee Edmondson supplies and fits but these do'nt appear to have a bracket. Rob

Nice to see another WHL layout under development, who knows we might get our own sub folder in the Special Interests section!. Looking forward to seeing a track plan and watching progress. Good luck

A little progress and a lot of thinking at present because I have to make some decisions about linking the lower and upper sections as well as which stations/scenic sections will work best between Crianlarch and Fort William. I also need to decide if I have the space to include a station between Fort William and Mallaig and work out the amounts of fiddle yard storage that I need to be able to run the full working timetable. In an effort to work out what works best, I have cleared space and will trial some track plans on the baseboards in the hope that the best solution becomes clear. Some work has been completed and trains can now run between Fort William station and Mallaig Junction Yard where I have installed 26 droppers to power the track. This is under test with a loco and several coaches in the as yet unconnected section. Everything else is set up for the start of day of a running session but, because I have lifted several sidings which are required to store rolling stock when running the WTT at present, I have not started the days operations yet. I am hopeful that I can link the upper and lower sections today and start running trains. Fort William station is connected to Mallaig Junction Yard Raring to go at the start of the days operations 2 southbound trains which will start from Fort William once it is connected thus freeing up space in the fiddle yard Sidings to go. The 2 in the middle and 3 to the right will all disappear with the area being made a secnic one. The line to the far left is the connection to the upper level.

Apart from the BFK, between us I think we have the locos to recreate this.

27029 lasted until being withdrawn in 1986 and cut up in Thornton Yard in 1987. It was not uncommon on passenger trains despite its lack of heating capability, you could always try recreating the scene below where 029 was the meat in a tractor sandwich....

Given the errors and failings with the Oxford Rail Mk3's I am not so sure, there are a number of errors and well documented problems with the Oxford Rail offerings. For example I have only just realised from the pictures in my last post that the steps have fallen off one from one door and are loose on the others. The old Lima/Hornby Mk3 sleeper is a far more robust coach, albeit with less detail, and with an updated NEM coupling fitted it would be my MK3 sleeper of choice. If someone gets around to producing a better MK3 then great but I hope that it is not Oxford.

Nice, an NB one on passenger service in February would be rather chilly though. Always enjoy hearing them splutter away, the last ones made it to 1987 so you aren’t far out.

As if I did’nt have enough to think about, Accurascale go and release details of their 1980’s styled Scottish region class 37’s! These look the business and judging by the number of Bachmann 37’s currently up for sale on Ebay (7 pages worth this morning) it appears to me that a number of people are already thinking about upgrading their fleets! It will be an interesting time watching the Bachmann versus Accurascale contest unfold. The impact on prices will be noteworthy with Accurascale’s superior and more accurate detail at a similar price point in terms of RRP appearing to have the edge. Accurascale additionally state their chassis will have enough space for bigger speakers thus avoiding the industrial scale milling and resulting expense that is necessary to get an EM2 or equivalent size speaker into a Bachmann model. If nothing else perhaps it will cause Bachmann to re-visit their stance regarding the general lack of space within their locos for speakers. All in all Accurascale look well placed but in building up expectations they will need to deliver what they are promising.

A little time away from layout construction today. I recently acquired a body shell of 37049 which I renumbered to 37081 despite the inaccuracy of the missing cantrail dividing bars found on the RSH built locos. 37081 has replaced the bodyshell on the chasis of 37401 which was getting little work on WHL4. I intend adding Loch Long nameplates, Westie’s and the Eastfield bodyside white stripe. I have wanted a Loch Long for some time largely because it was the Eastfield pet loco and regularly used on the Edinburgh to Oban adexs that ran on Summer Sundays in the early 80’s utilising a rake of Mk3’s normally found on Edinburgh to Glasgow services during the week. I renumbered my 3 Mk3 coaches to SCR allocated ones, specifically those known to have traversed the WHL on the Edinburgh to Oban adexs using Railtec transfers. I moved the ETH connectors to their correct position on the underframe and fitted Hornby close couplers which I had in stock. Of course whilst fitting the close couplers to the last coach I managed to disconnect one of the screws that secures the coupling cam which meant I had to strip the coach and re-fit the screw. Fortunately the guidelines found in the Oxford Rail Mk3 thread were very good and made the task an easy one. I added passengers to the coach whilst it was in bits. Apart from a light weathering of the coach roofs and underframes, the Mk3's are now complete. The push pull rake with Bachmann DBSO renumbered coaches coupled with Hornby 'Roco' style not so close coupler ETH socket moved from the centre to the outside of the coach underframe as per the real loco hauled Mk3's

We all get crap days when we question what we are doing, trust me I seem to get more than my fair share. Hang in there and trust your judgement as to what you want. My first WHL layout had similar space constraints and the Fort William line curved sharply on passing the northern junction much as your does. In reality the WHL does this at the far end of Strathfillan, in essence what you have is close to the real thing but you just do'nt have the space for the 2 Strathfillan viaducts. If you elevate the Fort William line and lower the Oban line you will create something similar to Crianlarich, albeit with some selective compression just as I did and I had hours of fun with my first layout. The northern junction changed on the introduction of RETB in Autumn 1986 when the north end platform was also extended and the loop at the southern end was re-modelled to what it is today. The bottom line is it is your layout and only you that needs pleasing, if you want to change it you can but I do'nt see that you need to.