Michael Hodgson

It's not difficult to work level crossing gates with servos.  Note that as the swept arcs on both the Peco and Skytrex crossings conflict with each other, you have to move one then the other.  If they were hand worked, thus would be true on the prototype also of course.

If they were worked from the box they would be worked by a gatewheel, and there would usually be four gates whose swept arcs do not intersect.  Whether the gates are hand or wheel worked, the brown lever is a lock to hold the gates in place (and release the interlocking on relevant signals).

I would wire the brown lever to isolate traction supply in the vicinity of the crossing, as otherwise its accident waiting to happen, rather like not putting buffers on a siding close to the edge of the baseboard.

4 hours ago, Halton Boy said:

When lever 3 is in the frame ground signals 2 and 5 can be operated.

When lever 3 is pulled then goods signals 1 and 15 can be operated

 

 

 

That should read 2 OR 5, 1 OR 15 - signals in opposite direction on same track are interlocked against each other.

Likewise you would be able to clear one of the four signals 6, 7 11 & 12 at any one time and then only with the points correctly set, the crossing gates locked and for movement left to right the FPL lever pulled.

3 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

... presumably in Pennsylvania they pronounce it as in reading a book ! ...................... I'd always assumed that place was Redding too !

Not to be confused with Derby.

On 20/04/2024 at 12:33, Skinnylinny said:

Yes, I ought to start thinking about signals... As I've mentioned before, the history of Linton Town includes the company contracting out the supply of signalling equipment to Messrs. Saxby & Farmer. As such, I'd rather like to have split-post signals, although I'd prefer to have the spectacles mounted on the same spindles as the arms (similar to the NER designs), rather than lower down the post, which was S&F's more common modus operandi at the time. I've been having trouble getting any useful drawings of similar signals, too. I suspect that I may have to "bash" mine together from a mixture of MSE parts intended for S&F and NER signals, and Ian MacCormac's parts.

What I'll need on the visible part of the layout will be something like this: 



I'm not going to lie, I'm rather nervous about the bracket for numbers 16-19! While I'm a big fan of 3D printing in various situations, I think that metal kits will likely be rather more able to stand up to the rigours of operation. I have previously made some laser-cut signals out of MDF, card, and acetate, but I can't decide whether they look too chunky or not.
 

My instinct has always been to go for metal for strength, but if you have a 3D printer and the knowledge to use it, you do have the advantage that if you break something you can print off another one.   A downside of anything with moving parts is that it will entail different components and an assembly job, so becomes a hassle.   I suppose it then comes down to how clumsy you are = how often you think you're likely to need to do that.  So I'd still be aiming to try and provide some protection where possible - by placing close to an overbridge for example.

34 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I can foresee a time before too long that the tower may be recorded in detail by a conservation body, de-listed and dismantled.

Sorry to say this, but I see demolition as inevitable on safety grounds.  It must be worse than when I saw it and the local council would probably call it an eyesore.  Nobody is going to spend significant money on it, and if it is left long enough it will come down in a storm eventually.  If anybody wants to document it, I would advise them to take the initiative now and approach the site owners with a vew to starting before it gets any worse.  I don't see them getting permission to climb it even at their own risk.  It would have to be surveyed photographically - perhaps using drones?

4 hours ago, MarkC said:

It's all very well talking about redevelopment of the 10A site for housing, but I suspect that there would have to be a massive clearup operation, and given that there is likely to be asbestos & other nasties in the ground, excavation to a metre down or more might be required.

 

You may recall the a few years ago AIMREC had stands at some model railway shows proposing an extensive model railway museum on the site of Ashford works.  That fell through at least partly because of the amount of work required before the site could be used for anything, partly probably for financing but they ended up with a much less ambitious site in a village a few miles away.

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The coaling towers are also listed, I’d imagine this too could become a couple of quirky flats and a rooftop bar.

 

I visited the site several years ago to look at a MR signalbox (which we could only enter using the staircase stringers as the treads were unsafe!). which a friend was considering for relocation.   The decision was against buying it.  The decrepit coaling towers were fenced off from the rest of the site with keep out signs saying it was a dangerous structure, and indeed it looked it. 

Listing a building of outstanding interest is one thing; stopping it from collapsing altogether is quite another. 

Cancer Research UK is doing some excellent work but they are not trying to find a cure for concrete cancer!

17 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

Does Pickering still have them? 

Not sure, but it ought to have them.  Our dog slipped while boarding and we had to help her up.

18 hours ago, Grovenor said:

But steps down from trains are the norm all over the country, although maybe only London has places where you need to step up onto the platform. For new builds things are very strict and level only a very small gap is mandated. Which practically rules out any significant curvature through platforms. Always noticeable when getting from DLR which had to meet these requirements then changing trains in Stratford where Network Rail has yawning gaps such that quite large people could easily fall onto the track under a train doorsill. These days its common elsewhere to have active gap fillers linked to door opening and when the ORR get around to it you can expect a call for Mk 1s to be retrofitted. Probably get a 20 year grace period. 😄

 

In theory you shouldn't need them if the vehicle can be designed such that the clearance to the platform is closer, and you only need fillers at the door openings. 

On a curve the overhang/underhang varies along the length of a bogie coach, and is greatest/least at the middle of the coach depending on which side the platform is on.  So if we avoid centre and end doors on carriages, but place the doors in line with the bogie pivot we can fit the gap more precisely with a fixed filler.  Then all we need is the tolerance for the dynamic movement of the vehicle on its susension and for track moving out of position relative to the platform

In practice though, active fillers are probably easuer to engineer.

On 03/05/2024 at 10:11, newbryford said:

 

A case for bringing back water troughs on the main line........?

 

I'm told Langley troughs are still there, with replacement track laid over the top of them.

On 04/05/2024 at 11:14, jamesed said:

I'm sort of with you @GrumpyPenguin on the coin test thing although I can see that it works - in a crude way.  It just feels completely wrong to be deliberately introducing a short circuit into any powered circuit.

It seems to me that model railways frequently introduce a short circuit into their traction supply.  Whether that's deliberate or inadvertent as is normally the case when operating is irrelevant.  The circuitry needs to be able to cope with it without causing any damage.  Something that confirms the ability to do so has got to be a good idea.

On 25/03/2024 at 11:20, Skinnylinny said:

 

 

 

Excellent job, and I do like the wood finish. 

You'll have to decide whether you are working the instrument to your fiddle yard operator who uses an identical one, or to a simulator of some sort (or possibly both options).  One way of modelling bells I've usd that isn't too loud is to take the bell from an old fashioned GPO telephone and modify that to single-stroke working.

Your wiring of the instrument is unlikely to justify following full size practice, as that includes complexity such as minimising the number of telegraph line wires between signalboxes and a latching design for safety so that the instrument keeps its last indication in the event that line wires come down in a storm (generally one wire with earth return on this style with miniature signal arms), and separate power supplies at each end.  I've used non-protoypical circuitry for simplicity using home made miniature 3-position instruments, as did Tri-ang with their short-lived RT268 block instrument.

One thing you'll have to decide with this two-position style of instrument is how to represent the "Normal" condition of the line in your block working, the third position of a more modern block when there's no trains about.  There were differences between companies in their rules.  Some instruments had additional aids such as reminder flaps or indicators to reduce the risk of errors (such as in the GER flap instrument, or in the Harpers blocks used in Ireland)  https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co209395/telegraph-block-instrument-great-eastern-railway-telegraph-instrument

The complexity of design could complicate which plungers you pressed to work the bell depending on the state of the block/message you were sending, since this could affect the instrument's indication.

Some railways equated Line clear (miniature arm in the off position) to be the Normal position, as logically the line must be clear if it isn't its occupied.  This probably made sense to railwaymen who had been brought up with Time Interval before block working was introduced, when signals had only been at Danger for a short period after train had passed.

Other railways equated Train on Line (miniature arm at Danger) with Normal position, as it was seen as safer to regard the line as blocked except when it had been specifically established as clear for the passage of a particular train.  The miniature arm should then show the same indication as the signal outdoors.  I believe the SR inherited both practices at grouping and perpetuated the old procedures in different Divisions of the company.

As you're modelling a fictitious company, you've got that choice to make.

They certainly got a good turnout to see the modernisation/rstoration of their system.

3 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

There was a nasty collision a while back where a train hit some engineering kit causing it to derail and fall into the river.  Even so, I was surprised to see that ETCS Level 2 is installed on a line where "inter-operability" is pretty much the last thing needed!

They might want to connect with another monorail elsewhere in the EU in due course  .

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g211855-d3267800-Reviews-Lartigue_Monorail-Listowel_County_Kerry.html

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 Several sources suggest that the vehicles were transferred away from the WR c.1962-64 and seemingly mainly in 1963.   Some remaining Fish Traffic on the WR was carried in insulated containers but fish had disappeared as tail traffic by c.1966/67.

Fish in vanload quantity may have disappeared by then, but fish by rail still existed. 

In the early 1970s I bought a 7-day all Wales railrover making as much use of it as possible.  On its last day of validity I travelled from Pembroke (or Fishguard?) on the last train of the day.  This was an overnight train to Paddington via Gloucester calling at Chepstow a few minutes before midnight.  The Guard had inspected tickets just after Cardiff, and presumably checked the few had boarded at Newport.  I was the only passenger to alight at Chepstow where nobody was waiting to board.  So he was very surprised to see me as he hadn't seen a ticket "to Chesptow" and he told me that the train didn't normally stop (although it was advertised as a normal stop in the public titmetable) but had done so only because he had to collect a crate of fresh salmon for Billingsgate that had been caught in the Wye.  It had been left unattended on the platform and was apparently a regular if intermittent traffic flow.

40 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Wasn't that what the Dambusters set out to do, by flooding and beggaring power supplies?

It was arguably more of a propadanda victory. 

Apparently the dams were repaired and factory production resumed relatively quickly.

Loco is carrying what used to be class D headcode, which was originally a partly fitted express freight, which this clearly is not.  The alphabetic codes were replaced by numbers in 1962 I think.  The classifications of goods train by braking characteristics changed a good number of times, so it may be possible to narrow down the era by reference to the class, always assuming the train was carrying the right lamps!

1 hour ago, RAF96 said:

There is a good reason why painters and electricians work with one hand in their pocket, the former doesn't touch wet paint and the latter doesn't provide an earth point.

Recommended career opportunities for one-armed men?

Other than banditry, I suppose.

2 hours ago, cliff park said:

I have occasionally been in contact with 250 volts, really makes you jump. Try

I think you meant try not to ?

40 minutes ago, Penlan said:

The builder is an Apiarist's, so the hives have been modelled with care  🙂, if small.
 

The hives would have been an ideal product for somebody who's into 3D printing, and you can then run off as many as you like, so that doesn't strike me as especially impressive.  However I don't think you could knock up reproducible vegetable patches and chicken runs as convincingly - the gardens as a whole are a very impressive job.  There's clearly a lot of very fine detail work there.

I decided to give Thornbury a miss this year, but it's one of the shows I like.

The Luftwaffe & the RAF attacked marshalling yards, but there wasn't much logistical advantage from doing so, although of course if one hit an ammunition train or caused a looco boiler explosion it was spectular and the pilots felt they had done something useful.

Whilst there was plenty of track to hit in a big yard, there were usually alternative routes in or out of it and anyway holes in the ground could easily be filled in, track relaid quite quickly using local labour and the damage was more of an inconvenience than the desired destruction of the enemy's supply chain.

2 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

And again here lies a problem - knowing that a document has been submitted to another manufacturer lessens the chances to a degree. Now I know others have been given a research package but don’t know if they will take it forward or not - leaving me to err on the side of caution and not touch it with a barge pole. However if the other manufacturer decides it’s not for them I will never know and it will never get produced….

...  Hattons told us they wouldn't produce the 12T crane.  😀

5 hours ago, gwrrob said:

The liveries and versions have got to be announced on the 6th June surely, D -Day.

The engine involved in the Soham explosion just a few days before D-Day was an Austerity 2-8-0, WD No 7337.

I mislaid mine when I needed it once, so I simply took a needle file to an ordinary screwdriver with a blade of a suitable width .

I left off filing once the slot was big enough to remove the offending wheel.

A grinding wheel would probably be faster, but filing didn't take long.

Of course I'd no sooner made my own when the pukka job turned up.

20 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I would much less want to put whisky in Palvan than munitions, much more risky. My Great Uncle was chief clerk in the bonded warehouse at the local yard so knew quite a bit about loss and damage to the product in transit.😉

You can still have explosions if it's whisky you're storing

You can see why they used a Shocvan