Nearholmer

Actually, I was going to suggest "downgrading" to tramway myself, for much the reasons that Echo puts forward. The Wantage Tramway alone had a wonderful array of contraptions over the years, and if you spread the net wider across Britain you could draw in compressed air power, internal combustion locos and tramcars starting in 1883, battery-locomotives, convicts pedalling, traction-engine locomotives, the list goes on and on ........ And, if you electrify a part of it, you could have any of a dozen power supply systems! I detect that you are in Germany, which also has a rich history of eccentric motive power on tramways. If you PM me your email address, I will send you a couple of articles that I have written, which touch on the topic. Go to the US, and you also get "soda motors", which I don't think made it to Europe, too. BTW, what you have drawn look more like "traps" than FPLs to me, but maybe that is a difference in drawing convention. As SM knows, I had to seek clarification on these things myself recently.

Echo Beware ye the Festiniog. It had two lives, one as a "full" railway, but with lots of kit and procedures pre-dating "1889 lock, block, and brake", and another as a "light" railway ........ Oops, three lives, because it is a different light railway post-preservation. Oops, no ....... Four lives, counting the pre-locomotive, pre-passenger (mostly) phase. We could throw "crossing gate indicators" into the mix too. See for instance, Canterbury Road on the EKLR. Truly fascinating topic! Kevin PS: I think that the two-armed stop indicators at KESR stations have been misunderstood by enthusiasts, in that I believe that they were used not only if passengers were present, but if new "orders" needed to be issued to the train crew, as per US "train dispatcher" protocol.

Andi In true light railway mode, I will differ slightly from some of the other suggestions. 1) put both the Home and Starter at Wansford on one, tall, post adjecent to the road-over bridge. (Whatever you do, make sure both arms read left of the post from the oncoming train); 2) a single ground-frame at Wansford, controlling the three points that are on the passenger line, plus their FPLs, and the two signals, making eight levers in total; 3) starter interlocked with points and FPLs; 3) passenger or mixed trains not to leave the platform at Wansford until the starter signal is clear; 4) non-passenger trains in possession of staff/ticket can be flagged into section, past the starter, from any location; 5) at Jackfield, two ground-frames, one at each end of the loop, each with two levers, one point, one FPL; 6) signs outside the loops, requiring incoming trains to stop, whistle, and wait until called forward from the platform; 7) guard of train then to go to station, set the required route (loop-siding or platform) if necessary, and call the train forward; 8) if the guard finds the required route already occupied, he waits until it is clear,before setting the route and calling his train forward; 9) guards to confer (or resort to fisticuffs) to agree order of shunting etc. All very procedural, but keeps the capital cost down! I'm assuming, BTW, that "officially" you can only pass a passenger and a goods train at Jackfield, since there is only one platform, but if you put FPLs on all the point-ends, you could pass two passenger trains. I'm fairly certain that, for instance, the Welshpool & Llanfair used this "passing without signals" process at loops,mand may even have had the stop-boards (or stopping locations) within the loop,rather than before it. The overall thrust of my thinking is that all fixed signals do is tell the driver that the route is set, and FPLs correct - so, if he can see that for himself, or be told that by the guard, there is no need for fixed signals. It is the staff/ticket that gives authority to be in section, not the signal. Kevin

Here is the signalling diagram to a "respectable" light railway terminus, not one of the more "wild and wooly" places: http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/sre/R1852.htm No signal-box, the instruments being in the station, a simple ground-frame, and the luxury of two signals, each with its own post. A typical economy would be to put the two signals on a single post, with the train drivers knowing where the stopping points in the rear of each signal actually are. Tenterden Town had (still has?) an example with, I think, three arms on one post, two Reading in one direction, the third in the opposite direction. http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/colonel%20stephens%20society%20drawings%20service-35/index.html Kevin PS: I just noticed, when looking at your diagram, that your signals are on the right, with arms facing right. Unusual, even by LR standards, methinks.

And, in the case of Wantage, I think BGJ is right - after I posted, it struck me that it was built under tramway, not railway, legislation, so probably operated on "line of sight". My Wantage books are right at the back of the book cave, so I can't easily check. Having studied light and other peculiar railways for years, before going "mainstream" three years ago, my suggestion is that you read-up on the particulars of a few, because practices ranged widely, even between those built under the 1896 Act. The Act is really an "enabler", and the individual Light Railway Orders could/did/do permit or require different things in different places. Study brake vans on the K&ESR, as an instance. The biggest, most common, modelling mistake is to signal a light railway just like a typical branch-line built to full compliance with the 1889 "lock, block and brake" act ....... Which was exactly what the 1896 Act was designed not to achieve. Kevin

I'm not even sure you need to worry about that. When the trains are "inside" the home signal, they aren't "in section", but within "station limits" under the control of whoever is nominated in charge of the place - classically a signalman, but on a light railway, more likely the "station agent and general factotum". In theory (which light railways didn't all, always follow) you should secure the points over which the passenger train moves with facing-point locks, but you don't need to do that except when it moves. I have a strong feeling that some light railways "got away with" weighted point levers being accepted as a sufficient lock, just as many continental railways did. Any amount of general arm, flag or lamp waving ought to suffice to keep things reasonably safe. Stationmaster knows a lot more about this stuff than I (that's only a guard's cap that my avatar wearing, so he is Senior Man here), so I will bow out if he suggests different things. Kevin

Try humming along to: A rake of coaches with a lifetime's traces; An engine going to romantic places; My mind still has wings; These foolish things remind me of when ...... Or, how about: The trains of tin came rumbling round; Remember, In December, On the floor; As the fire burned down to just one final ember; In December days of yore. I'm sure you all know the tunes. K

There's one in the "history of telecommunications" section of our local museum, which my children love playing in. And, yes, I think it is stouter that the Langley photo looks, K

Surely, by definition, it can't be difficult or expensive to ship a Tardis? Any time, any place ...... K

Artfull In the UK, the price for the latest GWR livery, Lionchief control, version of the Hall train-set varies very widely, for reasons that are well beyond my understanding. Mine cost the equivalent of c$300, which was a seriously good bargain by UK standards, because they are to be seen at the equivalent of $600 too. As a non-GWR person, I bought it to for the various children in the family and their friends to drive, because I get a tad nervous when they zoom my locos round the track at about 500mph. However, the loco is so good that I intend to over-paint it, and deal with some of the slightly gross features like the chasm between the loco and tender, and keep it, even when the children have lost interest. To avoid over-speeding, I use my ordinary DC controller to give a set c10V on the track, then the children drive using the Lionchief handset. Because they have grown up with "remotes" for everything, they find a handheld much more intuitive than a traditional controller, which the youngest ones don't quite "get". It is a real, real pity that the coaches are so under-scale, though. They are pretty good representations, but can't rise above "toy" in the UK context, where everything else towers over them. Kevin

Phil I wasn't saying that you had; I was just exploring the dilemmas that you set out in 154. I think they are genuinely interesting and difficult dilemmas, and quite fun to pursue to logical conclusions. K

PhilH My personal take on the questions you're exploring: - yes, we do need limits on freedoms, if we are to coexist reasonably harmoniously, because individually and collectively human beings are capable of doing all sorts of beastly (which probably insults beasts) things, and, at a lower level, all sorts of things that are pretty well guaranteed to annoy one another and cause disharmony and destroy more happiness than they generate; - the setting of the limits is better done by some democratic process than by "diktat", if for no other reason than that tends to lead to acceptance of, and adherence to, whatever limits are arrived at, with relatively little coercion; - all democratic processes are imperfect, but they are less imperfect than the alternatives. - if a person really wants to live without limitations, they can, by living a very, very long way away from everyone else, who will then know nothing of whatever they decide to do. The person who decides to do this will, of course, have sacrificed one enormous freedom to gain his/her freedom, in that they will no longer be free to commune. Big old sacrifice to make, methinks. Kevin

Rockershovel We have equality legislation because, in its absence, some people seemed to have it in their heads that it was acceptable to be unfair, or downright cruel, to some other people, for no other reason than their religion, race, gender etc. Simple as that. I would readily agree that some of the detail and application of some parts of equality law strains at the edges of practicality, but that isn't anything like saying that the entire kit and caboodle of equality legislation is unnecessary, or bad. Two questions: Do you think that equality law is unnecessary, in that everyone would behave decently to one another in its absence? Do you think that equality law is a bad thing, because it actually is perfectly acceptable to be unfair, or downright cruel, to people, for no their reason that their religion, race, gender etc? Kevin

RayMW Having now read your "calculus" posting, isn't all the "inner fish" stuff a re-hash of material that was first made accessible by Karl (Carl?) Sagan, in a book called "The Dragons of Eden" in about 1968? I read Sagan's book in the 1970s, and I still sometimes warn my family if I get up in the morning feeling as if only my "lizard brain" got switched-on (coffee usually switches-on the higher layers, but not always!). Another good read is "The Private Life of the Brain", can't remember the author's name, but she was President of the Royal Society for a period. Susan Greenaway, possibly. She looks at how the brain develops from conception, through early life, which offers another set of perspectives on how/why we think/behave as we do. Kevin

Ray MW You ask: "....... so, why are you thinking differently in this case?" 'Cos I didn't spot that it was in Wheeltappers. Mae Culpa. Now I know it is, I will soak up the education, and leave-off the railway-modelling talk. Kevin PS: the bit about calculus homework I don't understand. Should I?

While it is educational to learn about the challenges of being transgender, I'm completely baffled as to what connection it has with model railways. Seems to me that anyone, irrespective of gender, static or in-transition, race, religion, politics, hair-colour, class, native-language, shoe-size, whether or not they like coffee, and, if they do, whether they prefer it with or without milk and sugar, or a host of other irrelevant distinctions can, and do, enjoy railway-modelling. In fact, I would observe that people, who in other circumstances might struggle to come to civil terms with one another, often get on splendidly while talking about, building, and playing with model trains. As is evidenced in this thread, it tends to be when they depart from talking about model trains that the trouble starts. So, Garett, what are your railway-modelling interests? Kevin

This is really interesting, and excellent modelling too. Bit "late period" for my tastes, being one of those who was never a great fan of the "architecture", which I thought looked cheap and nasty even when it was new. The previous decaying timber-work had more atmosphere! Anyway, I'm delighted to see mention of the substation (all third rail layouts need one IMHO, and they are very rarely represented accurately) ......... When you eventually get to that bit, you may find that the visible electrical equipment takes a bit of "getting your head round" if you aren't familiar with it ........... PM me a reminder if you need help, and I will try to advise. Also, I remember there being a mechanical detonator-placer, operated from the signal-box, on the up branch road. A tad microscopic for modelling perhaps, but maybe one of the other followers could tell us how long it lasted - it seemed a late survivor to me. Kevin

Brian I have three in GWR livery that are looking for a new home - they look very out of place with my tinplate stock. Barely used, but one or two of the current collectors disintegrated when I secured them up, out of the way, to stop them getting tangled in my pointwork. Don't know what transatlantic postal charges are like, though. PM me if you might be interested. Kevin

Artfull I particularly like the DoY. How long a run do you find you get out of it? I have a much later 'Prince Charles', which is in very good condition, but is a bit disappointing in terms of length of run, at about 60ft with three coaches, but I don't really know whether that is good, average, or poor. What I do know is why people stopped by clockwork locos once affordable electric ones came along! Kevin

Peter Just struck me that you might find this interesting http://ksel.org.uk/blog/ It describes the process of conserving a Stroudley carriage, written by the daughter of one of my colleagues, in whose garden said carriage rests. Kevin

Justifying wagons? Well, there are, to the best of my knowledge, no coal mines in Sussex, so your coal wagons need to get filled somewhere ......... From a boat at Shoreham is probably most likely, but they could be schlepped back and forth to mines in the Notts, Derby, Yorks field, in which case they travel via the Snow Hill tunnel to the GNR or MR. Which takes them to Norwood or Streatham yard, then on a "cross London". Removal van ....... Pretty simple. Brewery van ....... As suggested above. So now, why are they in this yard, which looks like it might be an obscure sprig off the ELL/Deptford Wharf tangle, or the Willow Walk tangle? Er ...... I dunno! Maybe the yard is actually in an obscure corner of West Brighton. Kevin

That is really cool! Just shows that 8ft is actually plenty long enough in 0 scale, if you operate small trains. Until I downgraded it to a FY recently, I had a tiny terminus on my coarse-scale layout, in an 8ft length, and could operate trains of two 48ft coaches plus a van, or 4x6wheelers, with comfortable running round space. What radius are the points? I'm guessing slightly more than the 38" radius ones that are considered perfectly respectable in coarse-scale. Kevin

Been reading Volume 2 of "Railway Modeller", dating from 1951, in odd moments over the past few days, and one of the "gems" is CJF's first "Layouts for Modellers", the very start of what gave rise to all those marvellous booklets from Peco, the excellent PSL book, and much more besides. In short, the start of a career in inspirational layout design. In the first paragraph of the little article, he says, in effect, that lots of people seem to find designing layouts hard work, but that he can't understand why, because he loves it! Very, very evident, in retrospect. That first design is for, you've guessed it, a modest single track terminus, with two platforms, running into a fiddle-yard, and a very good, worth building today, plan it is. His designs for larger layouts, some of which appear in the next few issues, were rather "off beam" at that stage, bordering on the completely impractical, so it looks as if he took a while to "get his hand in". Kevin

Nick Brilliant stuff! I have a WW1 period LBSCR WTT too, but it is buried in the depths of box in the loft of my daughter's house - I feel a battle with cobwebs coming on! LNWR loco at Lewes? Part of the superheater trials, or something else? I'm not supposed to be creating a pre-grouping layout, but I can sense the seeds of trouble in this discussion, especially as I've become temporarily obsessed with Walworth coal Sidings and Walworth Dust Sidings - imagine a dioramic layout with a parade of different goods and passenger trains on the viaduct, and loads of interesting goods-handling facilities linking with the busy street below.....,...

I don't know about GER goods trains to Croydon, but didn't they run passenger trains there for a short period? Not that all "foreign" goods depots were served by their owners' through workings. Even if they didn't have running powers, there might have been a non-statutory reciprocal arrangement between the LBSCR and GER. Which brings up the question of whether the LBSCR had a statutory right of access to Liverpool Street for passenger services, or whether that was "an arrangement". Did the LNWR have powers to get to Croydon? I don't think so, but they certainly went there. Perhaps anyone who was a partner in the ELER or the WLER was considered friend, rather than foe by the Brighton. Kevin