5BarVT

I got my adjustable feet from Station Road Baseboards.

 

Very good service, no connection etc. etc.

 

Paul.

Roundy with added interest - that's my kind of layout! Looking forward to watching progress.

Paul.

Anyone apart from me remember Stig of the Dump?

I read it in Primary 7 (I think) and enjoyed it.

Paul.

You could just say it had got a faulty windscreen wiper at one end, seriously.

I was on a HST in the late 70s and we were turned on Maindee triangle for a faulty wiper.

Paul.

I received an exasperated sigh, and a quelling look, which leads me to believe that further sanctions may be exercised in the future...

 

Al.

I can get those too!

Paul.

The SRS (Signalling Records Society) website has a plan for Marylebone Goods Yard box (at the mouth of the tunnel) showing Fast and Slow lines between there and Marylebone Station box. I don't know what year that would have been, but I guess from the beginning. It shows the colour light signalling through the tunnel to Neasden South Jn. which was very early in the development of colour lights and track circuits.

Paul.

You've done a lot of work there! In your Locks column you have shown Normal, Reverse and Both Ways locks: in doing so, you have lost the ability to do some simple cross checks and what you are doing is duplicating things that you have listed elsewhere. WR locking tables (and therefore I assume GWR) have four columns: Released By, Locks Normal, Locks Both Ways and Releases (Releases is really just Locks Reverse). If you do it that way, anything in the Locks N column should have a corresponding entry in the locked lever e.g. 6 Locks 8 and 8 Locks 6 as you have shown (known as a converse lock - if the frame is locked mechanically you can't have one without the other). Likewise anything in the released by column will have an entry in the releases column e.g. 1 is released by 2, 3 and 4 so 2, 3 and 4 have 1 in the releases column as you have shown - you don't need 2, 3 and 4 in the Locks column of 2. 10(2) in 15 and 14(2) in 16 would be in the Locks Both Ways column with no converse shown on the table. This is all just presentation and you could leave your Both Ways Locks as they are, knowing that the converse won't be shown.

 

You also have some superfluous locking: one example is 18 locks 6 - 18 needs to lock 7 as you have shown, but 6 is released by 7 so 6R needs 7R which automatically holds 18N. A more interesting one is that 18 does not need to lock 14! 18 Locks 13 and 14 is released by 13 so must already be N. 14 is locked indirectly by 18 (phew!) through 13. Similarly in the released by column, 12 only needs to be released by 14. You have caught some of these because you don't show 11 or 12 as locking 15 because they want 13 points in the opposite direction hence the lock is present already.

 

None of this really matters when it's only on paper, but when you start to design your frame the extra locks that don't do anything will make it significantly more complicated.

 

There is other locking that GWR would have included to a improve safety and help the the signalman not to make mistakes, but I assume that you're trying to make the signals operate realistically rather than have a 'true to prototype' frame. There is a limit to how many rivets can be counted!

 

With a quick look through I can't see any locks that you have missed. Well done.

 

Paul.

Marcus,

 

You're absolutely right. GWR signs were the rectangular cast metal 'SW'. When I started in '75 they were all over the WR and other ex GW lines. Edicts from above more recently have seen most of them removed and replaced with the round W board. I know which I think looks best!

Paul.

Hi,

  plus something quite unusual which I'm sure some members will query me on

 

I hope it had an appropriate level of scheme plan review ;-). Will I find it on eB?

I'm sufficiently old (and grumpy!) to remember different practice. Green up to a buffer stop (for the long platforms) at a terminal station with colour light signalling was only changed in the mid 80s (+/- 5 yrs), so I'm fairly sure that distant off would have been OK too.

Paul.

I've just found out that what I thought was a 14XX, is in fact a 48XX, No 4825, can anyone tell me what the difference is please?

The 1946 renumbering I believe.

Paul.

(One of those brown and cream coaches has an E prefix!!!!!!!    )

Jinty

Maybe Rule 1 applies there!

Paul.

Clive,

 

I will have a similar problem when I get my layout going, with the added complication that my terminus has through turn back workings (like Worcester Shrub Hill or Tilbury Riverside) so the destination blinds don't work either. I may have to revise the theoretical timetable.

On DMU tail lamps, you know and I know that DMUs carried them, but many don't so I am going to leave them off. Passenger stock I hadn't got as far as thinking about, but one on each end of fixed formation feels right (the next box is just going to send 7 bells a lot!). I am intending to shunt parcels and don't want lamps on both ends of all vehicles so will probably just leave them off.

Head codes for class 1 will be by having dedicated locos changed in the FY with 1Bnn on one end and 1Ann on the other. As you say, class 2 route numbers of that era do help.

I have an IA headcode book from early 70s and I am trying to reverse engineer some routing codes. It's interesting that LM to WR codes in the Birmingham area have different routing point references for the same route/number depending on whether you are reading the LM page or the WR page (e.g. Cutnall Green vs Hartlebury).

Just remember that only the really ancient and pedantic will know!

All the best,

Paul.

. . . including a double decker with "Shop at Binns" on the front and back.

As you say, you can't have a NE layout without "Shop at Binns" on a bus.

 

My memory is fading, I know that Northern and Gateshead had the advert, Necastle didn't, but I can't remember whether United did or not. Apologies for slightly OT.

 

Paul.

Hi Nick,

Looking forward to getting to see this at Glasgow.

All the best

Mark

Me too.

Paul.

I've done 25way connectors and they do try one's patience. There is a sense of achievement once completed - the same as you get when you stop banging your head against a wall!

I like your interlocking - simple but effective.

Paul.

You may know this already, so apologies if so. The diagram shown does not apply at platforms as the insulators need to be clear of the platform so that there is no live metalwork above the platform. IIRC Motherwell has some interesting examples. Your idea for the bay is fine so long as the 'push' version does not overhang the platform edge.

Paul.

I might even consider construction of the fiddle yard prior to the scenic part.  I guess someone somewhere will have done that before.!

Exactly what I'm doing at the moment.

The run-around fiddle yard was a hangover from my recent transition to retirement that included the loss of my former 30-year occupation as a computer programmer.  I have visions of a fully-automated layout, whereby the passenger service could automatically run in and out of Banff, including gravity shunting at the terminus and run-around in the fiddle yard.  This is still a goal of sorts, but now considerably more vague as I have come to understand what might be involved to achieve that goal and all the other tasks I have ahead of me.  However, I agree with your comments: a conventional fiddle yard will save me space, effort and money, and can always be extended later to include a second fan of points, should I manage to get that far. 

I (will) have a single ended fidfle yard but with a loco headshunt (the space works for that) which I'm hoping to work automatically. It does mean that the train is worked by different locos each time, which perhaps doesn't suit you for a branch. (You could always double up with two engines with the same number!). Building the FY first is allowing me to improve my techniques before I get to the scenic part, and also it is my intention to trial automatic working, coupling and uncoupling, how to get accurate stopping etc before finalising the visible layout.

Paul.

The Pre-06 option is now looking incredibly tempting, but the only thing stopping me is that cross-over. It would be over the board joint between North & North Mid boards!

Does the Xover have to work? i.e. Could you put in the points but fix them for straight through running (agreed, less easy if it is the switch rail that needs cutting, but not impossible).

Paul.

Elsenham

You beat me to it. Should have had confidence and not checked three times! Paul.

Could it be Elsenham? Consistent with what I can read of the box name, and not inconsistent with the road layout.

Thanks for the chat today and the demo of the Pi. Apologies to any other viewers for the delay in service whilst I distracted the driver! Particularly like the track layout as it's not obvious immediately how it works. Very clever.

Paul.

There may be a fatal flaw in your coupling policy: locos need a hook on the adjacent wagon (unless every train has a van both ends). Wagons only have a hook on the down end, so how do Up goods attach to the loco?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your proposal. Paul.

In exactly the same place as you. I have a digitrax zephyr, PM42 (which comes without a cover) and SSB gateway which I want to build into some sort of box/panel so that they are not fixed on one layout (not that I even have one yet).

Paul.

I have been working on a new idea of controlling Yard Shunter by using a Raspberry Pi through a WIFI router to operate Yard Shunter and Feltham Road MPD on my mobile phone and I will be taking Yard Shunter to Stafford this weekend so Richard and will be shunting with it there.

Can you get interference if too many people are running wifi routers? I want to do something like this so I may come and pester on Saturday.

Paul.

[Edit: tomorrow changed to Saturday cos I can't remember what day it is!]