Harlequin

I think you've got the platform length and curve exactly right! It was designed to allow a 4-6-0 to stand alongside the platform with 6 coaches behind it, all inside the run round loop without fouling the points ahead so that other traffic can get past. The water crane would be positioned on the platform just alongside where the tender would stand.

If you went with that 6-coach restriction, then a beautiful double-bracket signal could stand on the platform just before (or maybe on) the ramp, providing the starters for both platforms. You could plant a non-operational Ratio signal (or scratch built or 3D printed signal if my idea works) until such time as Dapol produce one...?

29 minutes ago, Mick Bonwick said:

Your first two resaons would only be apparent to you and my eyes were drawn to the ruined shed. That, for me, was the main focus of the scene and so it worked fine.

 

I completely understand the concept of scrapping photographs in this digital age, although mine still seem to hang around for ages years. A sort of, "might be able to do something with it one day", approach.

Everybody sees different things and it's fascinating that you focused on that part of the picture, Mick. I didn't see that until you mentioned it.

The original image is really two photos in one and we can see what you saw by cropping out the left side, which is then a nicer composition:

Hi Ralf,

You need to plot the curves coming out of the turnouts because they will throw the track much further off the centre lines than you imagine.

Along the quayside you might need to use straight points - unless you’re going to curve the quay.

Hi Jamie,

What will you do with the space in the top left corner? It’s hidden by the station buildings and taking up valuable baseboard area while not doing much...

You need to think about the fiddle yard at the same time as the scenic part of the layout because each one will affect the other.

It’s nice to see trains articulate a bit as they enter and leave the scene and dead straight track doesn’t help with that.

Everyone is always crying out for space so if you have a choice of scales maybe choose the smaller scale to get more space, effectively, unless you have a really strong reason to use the larger scale.

Shallower angles with 51mm track centres means longer parts. Reducing the track centres, keeps the lengths under control and, of course, is more prototypically correct and sits better with the Bullhead drive towards authentic looking UK format trackwork.

It's much easier to add a straight section (or a curved section) to achieve 51mm spacing than it is to cut parts down to achieve 45mm.

Cutting marks for use with the suggested 9:12 adaptors are described in the PDF above.

The key thing to avoid is the building’s ridge line getting chopped by the back scene because it will look artificial. The ridge line is the horizon and any chopping that is required behind it should be OK because it will be hidden.

Grandmother? Eggs?

Balance lever plate, balance lever and weight with connection to down rod:

Some of these bits will need to be improved later. (And I should really fix everything together with bolts and screws...)

If you don't want to go into business and the costs don't stack up for whatever reasons, how about making 3D models of the pipes publicly available for people to print on their own 3D printer?

7 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Actually designed so that gravity returns it to danger if anything breaks, the balance weight has to be enough to pull the wire back from the signal box, the spectacle casting enough to put the arm back horizontal, and the down rod helps in that when its not broken. So definately not balanced!

I realise it's biased to return to danger but it's set up so that not all the weight is on the danger side of the balance (if you see what I mean). That's what I meant by not affecting one side or the other "excessively".

7 minutes ago, Right Away said:

Thanks for all the info Mike.

Yes, absolutely!

Now that we have DCC Sound and locos with operable whistles, this is another small aspect of working practice that we could "get right".  Are they publicly documented anywhere? I don't think I've ever encountered a list in any of the books I've read.

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It was no doubt there to absorb the upward force, I doubt it could force back the down rod and balance weight.  And the centre pivot arms were well known for developing a 'notch' as a result of the stop arrangement used for some of them

The spring ought to be fairly efficient at reflecting the energy that the returning arm/boss/rod/balance-lever system puts into it. That system has obviously been designed to move reasonably freely and balanced so that gravity isn't affecting one side or the other excessively. The chain/cable at the bottom would offer little resistance to the recoil, just slackening off.

So, to the naive imagination, a bit of bounce would seem quite natural if the signal man releases the tension in the cable faster than the system naturally returns to Danger - unless there's a damper in the Arm Stop itself. Hmmm... 

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not 'bouce again?  GWR/WR semaphore arms were moved by a down rod, a substantial steel rod with a very limited amount of 'whip' in it and that was well controlled by guides.  To replace a signal arm to f danger the rod moved vertically downwards and it was attached to teh balance - so the anr could only bounce if the balance weight bounced and gravity tended to stop that happening.  With a steel post signal thrown (hard) back to danger the post could sometimes sway, but there was no bounce; if replaced to danger properly there was no sway.  Over the years I have seen being replaced to danger, or have personally replaced to danger, hundreds of Western LQ signals and I have never seen one bounce - vibrate a bit - yes; sometimes even sway a bit when a heavy handed Signalman was working or a timber post was well past its renew buy date.

 

On occasion I even tried to make one bounce - all it did was make the post sway an almost imperceptible amount.  You might possibly get some bounce if there was a lot of slop in various components but that's about it and even then it would be imperceptible in 4mm scale   UQ signals with only a signal wire to the arm and with a rubber insert in the arm stop could bounce a little and could be made to bounce a bit more if really thrown back to danger.

 

Far more common of course to see some hesitancy in the movement of a signal arm when it is being pulled off and a Signalman changes his grip on the lever or doesn't swing the lever steadily in the correct manner using his body weight to gain stroke on the lever.

<Takes a deep breathe before questioning The Stationmaster because my knowledge is miniscule and mainly from books...>

The "Arm stop" in old pattern signals contained a sprung buffer to absorb the impact when the boss plate swung down onto it. That could explain a certain amount of bounce when arms return to danger, couldn't it?

(Ref: GWR Signalling Practice page 82.)

Ladder, ladder connection to stage, ladder stays, rod guides and down rod:

48 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

whats the intended scale and what 3D printer are you going to use 

4mm, AnyCubic Photon S. (Build volume 115 by 65 by 165mm. Z resolution 10 micrometres.)

I realise that I will need to adjust the thickness of some parts but for now I'm creating the model using real-world dimensions as an idealised starting point.

Hi Chris,

Small correction to what I said above:

I looked up the reference and, apparently, the bottom 4ft of the ladders was painted white during both the First and Second World Wars (GWR Signalling Practice page 89).

So, you could have white in your period if the ladders had not been repainted since 1918 but black would be safest...

Lieutenant Seagoon, you say the walls of Sebastopol are 20ft thick?

Why do you say they are 20ft thick?

Have you ever measured the walls of Sebastopol?

They might, in fact, be only 10ft 6in thick.

What happened to the other 9ft 6in?

Lieutenant, are you blaming me for the war?

Hi John,

It’s a lovely finish - nice to see a bit of shine on the loco like you see in the pre-war photos. Matt grime seems to be more a post-war thing.

Has the nearside topfeed pipe popped out of its locating hole at the cab end?

Hi Chris,

The bottom of the ladder was painted white during the second world war (to improve visibility during the blackout). Before that GWR practice was just black all the way up.

Hang on! You need to be able to fit your largest loco and at least one wagon into each spur to make it work, operationally.

Imaginary exchange trials?

Does anyone know how Dave is getting on in the current horrible situation? I'm sure none of us want The Model Shop to go under.

I tried to send a supportive message on his web page but the email system seems to be broken.

@Dave: I know you don't like RMWeb much  but this would be a great way to keep your customers up to date and maybe we can help, if you need it.

31 minutes ago, bigP said:

Hi,

 

That approach trackwork looks way too complex for what is, in all essence, a three track platform worked intensively by (largely) MUs.

I'm assuming you are using OO here, and in all honesty you don't have too much space to play with, so don't worry about straying too far from Minories - it does the job very well!

 

The freight can't get the departing road from that loop, and shunting to a platform seems a bit 'odd', but you can resolve that with an extra approach pointwork.  Also, diamond crossovers to hold the station pilot?  On a mini terminus in the 60's?

 

Not to be all doom- and-gloom, I had a go in XTrackCAD (as that's what I have to hand)....

 

 

• Your freight can now directly access the loop, and regain the correct road upon leaving too.  Loco cuts off and run round back through P3 and the Headshunt
• Headshunt would just be off scene
• Two trap points in use - keeping the mainlines safe
• Effectively a Minories - all platforms to both main roads and you get simultaneous arrival to P2 or P3 with departure on P1.
• Just as idea - added two carriage sidings to the 'back', and a turntable.  Gives you some shunting to the loco hauled services if you want.
• Would imagine this is best served with a Cassette Fiddle yard.

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

 

That is wonderful, Paul!

One small point (erm, ha ha): I don't think the trap points are needed because the crossovers would do that job themselves.

3 hours ago, BBuckley said:

I’ve been having a look for some more information or pictures of goods around Wolverhampton as well as still looking for more goods yard ideas, but without much success.
 

Can anyone suggest any threads on here, books or other websites which would have this sort of information. Particularly around what prototypical formations for some goods trains would would be. I guess there would be a fair amount of coal coming through, but don’t know much more!

 

Thanks again!

Two good books that go into a lot of depth are: "GWR Goods Train Working" Volumes 1 and 2 by Tony Atkins, published by Crecy.

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I wouldn't use "P1" as a passenger platform personally, I'd just use it as the access to the shed. I think you'd be rather unlikely to have things as drawn with a facing connection from the running line (since it's a single line) directly running into the back wall of the shed. If you need 4 platforms then can you fit another line parallel to the start of P1 for access to the loco facility?

I think the shed off the running line is OK but I agree that P1 should ideally come off the P2 loop because it would then unambiguously be a trailing connection.

Whether that's feasible in the space is another matter!

P.S. If we take away P1 as a passenger platform then there is nothing left of the former "terminus"...

Idea: