Tortuga

Thanks for the replies! The book was already on my radar, but I wasn’t sure if it was still in print, so I’ll start checking online sellers. I’ll admit to compressing the track plan, so the platform scales out at about 260’ instead of 400’, but I’m hoping I managed to reduce everything else in proportion so the overall effect hasn’t been lost. I wasn’t aware of the POWsides. I’ll check them out. My interweb photo searches have turned up goods stock as mainly being 16t steel minerals, 5 plank LMS (?) minerals, 24t steel hoppers, catfish and dogfish. I’m convinced that SOME van traffic must have made it onto the line, but have yet to find photographic evidence! Preferably, I’d like to have a go at recreating actual formations that ran...

For those who don’t know what Rylstone looked like, here is a track plan (based on the 1909 edition of the 25” OS map)

Hope someone here will be able to help me out. Below is my shortened and narrowed version of Rylstone Station on the Grassington Branch based on the 1909 version of the 25” scale OS map. As far as I can tell the track plan didn’t really change between 1909 and the closure of the line in 1969 other than losing the platform, most of the station building and the goods shed and becoming increasingly overgrown. Most of the photos I’ve found tend to focus on the level crossing end, which leaves me guessing regarding how the loop was operated. 1) there’s no signal box, so which is more likely; a lever controlling each end of the loop; a ground frame with facing point locks controlling both ends of the loop; or two ground frames with facing point locks one each end of the loop? 2) the signals are located either side of the crossing and I assume would have been interlocked with the gates. The map shows a signal post further north of Rylstone, beyond the loop; would this have been to protect the loop during shunting? Finally 3) how would the sidings have been shunted? Any help gratefully received!

Having argued with myself for sometime, I’ve finally decided to cease further development on Gibbs Sidings, strip it down and start again. Firstly, having just become a dad, having other expensive hobbies (vw camper and surfing) and (as a result) not having as much time, Gibbs Sidings was becoming too much of a monster to cope with. Secondly, me being me, not being able to come as close to prototype as I’m honestly happy with was beginning to bother me and a chance viewing of “Cwm Prysor” really brought this home. As a result, I’m starting again. This time I’m focusing on Rylstone on the former Grassington Branch as the focus is on short freights and mineral trains with minimal excursion traffic. However, I’m still in the research phase: I have a track plan; I’ve found (on the ‘net) some photographs of locos and trains; I’ve even got hold of a WTT (albeit an LMS one from 1945...), but more info would be useful! So, while I get to work on the baseboards, can I put out a general request for information? I’m after WTTs from the ‘50s/60’s, photos of workings and any details of Rylstone Station itself...

Quality, as my current attempt is becoming more and more of a monster, which is why I’m thinking of taking a different direction! I probably phrased myself badly earlier; I assumed that Cwm Prysor’s siding was little used in the era modelled and that train movements were limited to a single train on the line at a time with little need for shunting. I wanted to know if this perceived level of activity was sufficient to allow for engaging single person operation to a prototype timetable while still enabling the operator to enjoy “trains in the landscape”. As this seems to be the case, I’m now 99% decided that the “Cwm Prysor-esqe layout” is the route my layout will take.

Following up on my first post on this thread, I’m now about 96% convinced that changing direction is going to be the way forward for me. Therefore just a quick operating question to help the last 4%: Cwm Prysor is a single line with a siding, limited passenger and freight services and (I assume) operated on the “one engine in steam” principle; does it provide operational interest or is it mainly watching trains pass through?

Pengwyn Crossing (Railway of the Month in RM back in the 90s) featured a scratch-built penguin crossing the railway via the road bridge. If I remember right, it was described as “the only item of silliness allowed on the layout” by its builder. Certainly made a change from the ubiquitous bus...

I have to ask: how did you get the “bare earth” effect on the land either side of the track? When I first saw this thread, I mistakenly thought the layout was more or less complete! The colours look bang on for close cropped moorland grass in winter. Only after I got to the prototype photos did I realise there was more to do!

I have to agree with you about the fascination of finding a single railway line cutting through the landscape, usually quite unexpectedly! It’s probably this that’s the cause of my rethinking.

Hi Tom, Just finished reading through this thread for the second time. Although I’m not a GWR/WR fan, I’ve found myself drawn to your layout. I can’t explain why: it might be the railway-in-a-landscape others have mentioned, it might be the simplicity (limited track plan, similar loco types, etc.) or it might be the level of detail you’ve gone to. Whatever it is, I’m in awe and I’m seriously considering abandoning my current layout project in favour of a similar minimalist track plan, minimal loco variety, railway-in-the-landscape project, which will enable me to concentrate on getting the details ‘right’. From a personal point of view, a new family member and a couple of other (non-railway) projects mean I find my free time and available funds limited, so I thank you for inspiring me to consider a different layout route than the one I’m currently pursuing. Whether I decide to change or continue, I’ll keep an eye on how this layout develops. Although I don’t know the route or this particular area of Wales very well, your model does represent the prototype very well - I can almost feel the drizzle and the cold!

Agreed regarding the Undertaking. One of my favourite moments in Thud! is the similarity between the mine sign for ‘mine’ and the symbol for a certain subterranean public transport system in the UK...

The Luggage follows its owner, so it wouldn’t be chasing Death, just following along behind. Also didn’t Death cease pursuing Rincewind, instead choosing to treat him as a sort of weathervane for occurances on the Disc?

Photos as promised - finally some track appears! Looking north; mainlines heading toward camera, underlay for the loading and yard lines curving off the loop top left. Close-up of the main lines, hopefully (!) showing the cant on the curve.

Quick update with photos to follow later. I’ve now got cork underlay down for most of the two mainlines, the start of the loop and the yard and loading sidings on the 6’ board. I’ve also got track laid for the crossover and access into the loop as well as the up and down main at the southern end.

It was only a matter of time... Watching this with interest - the buildings look how I imagine them from the books! Don’t forget some posters for “foot the ball” or watch recruitment!

Yes, thanks for sharing. Really useful - I spotted the modified open and thought I recognised that modification!

Seconded! Can you give us more details on those wagons, such as manufacturer, any modifications you might have carried out? I know I'd be interested to know...

Well mainly due to baby duties, it’s been a while. During that time I’ve had a slight rethink. I wasn’t happy with my proposed train length of 4’ or (once I thought about it) the 6’ of visible main line, so I replanned the layout to incorporate the main lines curving round to the front and diving under the scenery to feed into a second traverser fiddle yard insetead of the sector plate. Unfortunately, my scaled plan of this reworking has got slightly complicated with me using it to work out baseboard frames, etc. so I can’t post a revised plan up here until I’ve produced a clearer version. I can post the work that has been carried out on the 6’ board. It’s now 6’ along both sides and the section that was to adjoin the sector plate has been repositioned 2’ back from that end to allow for the changes to the mainlines. So the main lines curve toward the back of the board (top right of photo) then curve to come 90 degrees to the edge where they will join the next board. I wasn’t happy with the super elevation on the main lines and the photo shows the new 1/16th cork strip in place; the down line has been sanded to profile, the up is drying. A view from the opposite end. The up line runs on an embankment, so the board has been dropped to accommodate this.

Looking really good! Haven’t investigated this thread previously, but really interesting to see how it’s progressed so far. Will continue to follow with interest. Quick question; where is your edging cork from?

I assume you’ll be starting a new thread? It’s a shame to see Carrog go, but I think you’re quite right to do so if you’re finding it “operationally boring”. Building it, changing it, up scaling it, down scaling it again all allowed you to explore and improve your modelling skills, but once done... that’s it, nothing to do but watch the trains... There’s nothing wrong with that, but having something a little more complex means you have the option of choosing ‘watching trains go by’ or ‘operating to prototype’ I guess that’s why I keep gravitating back to my quarry next to a mainline...

What an excellent thread! Just finished reading through the back pages and it’s nice to see it all coming together from the original design.

What an excellent thread! Just finished reading through the back pages and it’s nice to see it all coming together from the original design.

Thanks Beast66606 Back when I was debating with myself which type of track to use (and before I joined RMWeb), that thread was a key factor in my final decision to go with Peco75. I brought it up again for reference before I took the plunge with the razor saw and reduced the 6’ to something approaching a scale 6’. I thought I’d acknowledged the part that thread had played, but I realise I’ve cut your username short! Going back to edit it now!

Going of a line diagram of a single slip in Bob Essery’s Railway Signalling and Track Plans, it seems the tie bar (properly called the spacer bar apparently) only links the two moving blades and so doesn’t need to span the width of the slip (logical really!). As a result, I chose to shorten the bars on my slip and, while I was at it, narrow them at the same time. Turning the slip over reveals a clip on base plate, under which is the over-centre spring. Removal of this and carefully levering up the tags that hold the blades in place allows the blade and stretcher bar assembly to be removed. The blades can then be separated from the bar and the bar can be modified. Following previous advice I used a small fine file to carefully get what I was after - it’s very fiddly and I did snap one of the bars by just catching it with the file. I did manage to repair this, although making up a new bar from plastic rod might have been easier! Of course once I’d narrowed the slips bars and put the slip back together, the perfectionist in me caught sight of the previously narrowed bar on the wye and, unsurprisingly, decided it wasn’t good enough. Fortunately I was able to take the blades and bar out in a similar way to work on them. Unmodified bar and blades at the bottom, modified at the top. Surprisingly the bar is still quite robust post narrowing. As such, I’ll be narrowing the bars on the other points in the same way. Of course, now the bars on the asymmetric 3-way are offending my perfectionist eye and guess which piece of track is securely glued down?

Thanks for the quick reply! Sounds like good advice! I’ve realised in my earlier posts I’ve forgotten to mention that I’m intentionally leaving the tie bars over length at present so I can have a minimal gap between them and the point rodding. EDIT: Really really good advice from Beast66606 there - if you’re modifying Peco points DEFINITELY use a file on the tie bar! Wish I’d done so on the 3-way as I’d’ve made less of a mess of it!