Kirby Uncoupler

Many Thanks Apollo/Brit15, That was all very interesting, there's nothing like a bit of inside information. Besides the awful Warrington incident, another gasometer incident was what followed the January 1917 Silvertown Explosion. As many will know, during WW1 there was an accident at the wartime TNT purifying factory at Silvertown, in what is now London Docklands. 50 tons of TNT exploded, destroying the factory and surrounding buildings, plus it shattered windows across London. Not only that, but an iron girder or similar, was thrown across the river, which hit and punctured one of two gasometers at North Greenwich, close to the site of the present O2 Dome. The puncture caused it's contents to ignite instantly, creating an immense fireball above, this all happening in the early evening darkness, the fireball lit up the whole of London, as if in daylight. Around 80 people were killed, hundreds were injured, the TNT factory was never rebuilt, and the site remained abandoned until recent years. The damaged gasometer had it's top repaired, and it carried on in use until the 1970s, and was dismantled in the 1980s, although I believe the base layout was preserved, perhaps as a memorial? It's smaller companion gasometer has also been recently dismantled. BK

If it wasn't for the problem of pollution, burning coal would possibly help us out of the current high price of energy, although we might have to first extricate ourselves from this worldwide fixed price arrangement? From an economic point of view, what's the point in erecting more wind turbines, if we get stitched up paying higher world market rates for energy? Having said that, if we went back to producing town gas, it would mean more filth in the environment, and lots more new-build gasometers and plant? BK

Yes, the bad smell dimension would not be allowed on the exhibition circuit (remember the methylated spirit locos at shows?), and would incur the wrath of any exhibition manager, on the grounds of H&S, and fear of driving the punters away. And who would be dedicated enough to recreate prototypical heavy industry smells in their attic/cellar/spare bedroom/garden shed? 😂 BK

Nice idea, but rising tides and falling tides, take roughly plus or minus six hours each, or are things speeded up in fantasy modelling world?😃 I've also thought of applying some water float technology to a gasometer, but how many hours does an average gasometer take to empty or fill? Is it worth all the trouble, watching paint dry would be more exciting by comparison? Maybe a three position up/down/half full option would suffice? 😂 Recreating the smell of an old town gas plant would be more obvious, and I know a few people who could help me with that. Box of rotten eggs anyone? I won't tell you how we re-created the odour of the modelled sewage works. BK

Many Thanks for the replies so far. I prefer the well-estabilished term "gasometers", it has more of a ring to it than the official "gas holders" term, plus a gasometer is a crude measuring device anyway, you can tell at a glance whether the pressure is up or down. My recent interest was sparked(!) by the 2013 book "London's Lost Power Stations And Gasworks" by Ben Pedroche (The History Press), which is excellent, plus I grew up in the era when local gas works and power stations were being abandoned, later to appear derelict in countless 1970s/80s action films and TV series. If it was an ITC/ITV series, like The Sweeney/Professionals/Avengers, you just knew the big punch-up with the baddies, would take place on one of these disused sites, more often than not at Southall gas works. Having said "disused", the gas company would still often retain a presence in a small corner of a site, for control and/or storage, it was mostly the old town gas producing buildings, with their multiple retort ovens, that were completely abandoned. I can vaguely recall even earlier in the 1960s, being driven past these evil looking places like Beckton on the A13, or Angel Road, Tottenham on the North Circular, belching out the yellow sulphurous fumes, and the associated eggy smell, that made you want to throw up for the next mile and a half. Going slightly off-topic, during the same period, smaller local electric power stations were also closing, many only working when peak demand was required, supply was switching to the new (1960s) CEGB megawatt stations, located away from large cities. I remember the Islington power station, by the ECML at Caledonian Road, it had started as a small local supplier, being later taken over by larger concerns, and eventually sidelined, usually only working in winter months. I used to see it every day, walking to school, it was fairly compact with wooden cooling towers and a very tall octagonal chimney, by the end of the 60s it had gone cold. Walking past one day in the early 70s, the demolition men started knocking down the chimney, brick-by-brick, no explosives here in a built-up area, right next to the main line. Like with the gas works, the site was not completely abandoned, it carried on as an electrical switching/sub-station, with new homes and a refuse centre all around it. These days in the UK, we can buy our gas and electric from the same company, but there must have been a similar crossover pre-WW2, in some situations. My family lived in an old Victorian house, when re-decorating you could see the marks on the walls, where gas lamps had once been mounted, but at some stage the house had been converted to electric power. In the cellar were some ancient cast-iron fuseboxes, that by the 1970s, urgently needed replacing. At the time, I was puzzled by the cast initials "G.L.C.", I thought Greater London Council, can't be? Then the penny dropped, it stood for "GAS LIGHT and COKE company! Cheers, Brian.

Hi Everyone, We've all seen 'em, but they are now fast disappearing from the U.K. scene, many have been scrapped, some have become preserved non-working artistic conversions. Most are leftovers from complete Victorian gas works, but starting 100+ years ago, town gas production was shifted to larger plants, leaving many places with just the gasometers for storage, and on into the 1970s natural gas age. Nowadays the official line for their demise, is no longer required, or high land values, pressure can also be controlled via the pipe network, plus they do present a target for terrorism (e.g. Warrington). We all know they rise up and down at different times of day, my question concerns the operation of gasometer clusters, of say 3,4,5,6 or even 7 in a group, were they each to serve different areas, or did they work together in sequence serving a common outlet (i.e. one empties, the next one starts to empty, or one fills up, then the next one starts to fill)? I presume they must have had diversion pipework, so as to switch out an empty gasometer (gas holder) for maintenance. Most large holders were telescopic within an external cast iron frame, the more modern (1930s) enclosed type (painted pale blue) were always rare, and are rarer still now, and gave no obvious indication of being empty or full. Cheers, Brian.

Apologies to all members and guest readers of this thread, sorry you've had to sit through this conflict of thoughts and ideas, I assumed it was all done and dusted, but unfortunately it all flared up again last night, with PMP's two posts, he does love an argument. One has to respond to such comments, otherwise one could be viewed as cowardly and wimpish. But don't worry, Paul(MP for East Notts) and I have been mates and ex-colleagues from the dearly missed King's Cross Models, for over 40 years now, occasionally a bit of bitchiness breaks out from both sides, but we still love each other. I shall not prolong or respond to any further argument. Paul and I can shake hands electronically, via the internet, or at the next show we attend. Meanwhile, back in Peco point land, i've thought of a cure for the distorted tiebar problem on my curved point conversion, I could cut another gap in the outside switch rail, with a piercing saw, and move the switch rail along. That should level things up nicely. I'll try it later, hot weather permitting? Cheers, Brian.

Forgive me, but looking at this piece of your evidence, why are all four rails on the right of the join, higher than the four rails on the left? You've got a step in your tracks there, they really should be dead level, and why all the file marks or rough scratches on all the rail ends? Great system. Answers please. BK

The following sequence contains photos of serious open point surgery, please look away if squeamish. No points were harmed in the making of these images. If you try this, wear glasses in case the spring comes flying out towards you. One of my options, in my desire for quick and easy curved points, was to take a straight large radius bullhead, and bend it like Beckham. I know other members have tweaked and slightly curved some already (Ben?), but the aim here was to press this one into the geometric shape of a regular Peco curved point, so the two are almost interchangeable. Luckily the webbing between sleepers/timbers is quite thin on the bullhead points, so it was fairly easy to snip through with a razor saw, on the outer stock rail and the centre switch rails, this photo shows the cut positions, highlighted in white Tippex. The areas around the frog and tiebar are to be avoided, although the frog area could be curved with more intricate cutting. One unavoidable consequence of this jiggery-pockery, is the tiebar gets twisted, but this can be limited or even replaced. It all gets quite floppy (the point), and once the desired shape and curve is acquired, all can be secured by supergluing the rails in the chairs. Here it is alongside a regular Peco FB curved point. Be warned, when the tiebar was twisted, the centring spring flew out, so wear protection. That spring was long gone, so I inserted a spare, luckily they seem to be the same springs from donkey's years ago. However, the spring mounts have changed, on the FB small, medium, large and 3-way points, the spring could be replaced (and even tensioned) from above, now on the bullhead range, the spring is inserted from below, with a retaining plate, that plugs upwards into the point, and is bent over on top. So like the FB slips, the bullhead springs can only be swapped, when the point is completely removed. Cheers, Brian.

Following the recommendations, I have just ordered some point kits from British Finescale, so I can compare the competition with the Peco product. The longer double slip offered by BF, is a major attraction. BK

As Eric Morecambe used to say, "You can't see the join". Some serious double screw reinforcement for each rail there. Bang goes the sound insulation! 😀 BK

Many Thanks Harlequin and Martin, Yes I am aware of the Finetrax product, I was hoping they'd attend ExpoEM, but alas not, so I haven't got hold of any yet. I've been a diehard C&L product fan for donkey's years, in fact going right back to when it was K&L (remember that?). I've tried it all, rail on copperclad, rivets on sleepers with my very own Joe Brook-Smith sleeper punch (a serious bit of heavy duty kit), the downside was having to grind the rivets back after soldering, to get the now cut-in-half chairs to fit, very time consuming. These days with modern glues, I just glue plastic chairs to wood, it seems to last perfectly well? Meanwhile try this one, anyone can build this in 30 minutes, how's it done? I was going to recommend this to PMP, for his first foray into flat-bottom point construction. Flat-bottom stuff is harder work than bullhead, because you have to grind away that huge bottom flange, when making frogs or point blades. This is the quicker method that I use for OO or EM, no rail cutting and just three spots to solder, this is a rebuilt Peco code 75 curved point, re-using all the rails, frog and point blades from a redundant or broken example. All is remounted on wooden sleeper strip, using Peco pandrol clips. No drawing required, just cut the sleepers over-length and glue them to paper in the required pattern, feed the clips on to the outside stock rail, and glue to all the sleepers/timbers, then work across on both ends and form the frog, add the outside switch rail in line with the frog, then the inside switch rail, and finally the inside stock rail to gauge. Solder the frog nose and a new tiebar using an insulated copperclad sleeper or similar. You will only have to add new check rails, because the originals were brown plastic. Lastly trim the sleepers. The point pictured here, is gauged to 18.83mm with EM fine clearances. Any use to anyone? Cheers, Brian.

Whilst being faithful to the 1950s track layout, the spacing of the pointwork has worked out well, avoiding the baseboard joins, but one snag is the continuous curvature, the station throat requires curved points. Hopefully Peco will eventually add the E(11)86 and E(11)87 style curved points to their range, but with no announcement yet, these could be a year or two away (and perhaps depend on how well the existing Bullhead range sells?), so fingers crossed. In the meantime, I have three options: (a) Re-shape some Bullhead large radius to fit (they are similar), or (b) substitute Peco curved flat-bottom points for the time being, or (c) make up some DIY bullhead points using C&L parts, based on the Peco dimensions, rather than B6,B7,B8 drawings, etc. I rather favour the latter option, since I already have the GWR chairs in stock, as an option, and because they can easily be removed on the card, I could build more as time permits, and swap over some more, making things interchangeable, and re-use the Peco on a different project, at least the Peco will get the ball rolling😀. Come to think of it, i've got some spare Ratio GW track in 18.83 stashed away somewhere(?), cut with a guillotine and re-gauged, might do nicely for the sidings?😀 Cheers, Brian.

I think i've built more large layouts (e.g. Marton Central on RMweb) than you have PMP, and yes, i've had to cut points like that as a last resort, but it is to be avoided where possible, which is the stage that project Kingswear is at now. Your baseboard ends have to be rigidly held together, and track fixed rigidly too (so foam underlay has to be cut away here), or you can resort to sliding fishplates on each rail, which is also a nuisance. Bear-in-mind that when things expand and contract, you have two angles of deflection. Who was it that built your Bawdsey layout for you? Less of the point-scoring please. BK

Here's a quick piccy of my Kingswear baseboards, all a bit of a mess so far, whilst trying out point and track positions, we don't want points halfway across baseboard joints. BK

Well someone has obviously been spending hours flicking through track photos . . . . . 😀 I'm letting the cat out of the bag, by announcing that my OO effort using Peco Bullhead, will be a model of BR/WR Kingswear in the 1950s/60s. Kingswear was possibly the king of branch line termini, with big locos and big trains, and when later rationalized still handling 13/14 coach trains on Saturdays, before becoming the Torbay Steam Railway. Perhaps it should be regarded as a two-then-one platform main line termini in the sticks? Before anybody sends me a finescale email rocket, yes I know that GWR track used different 2-bolt chairs, but Peco sensibly chose the more common 3-bolt chair, but the difference is minimal, and only spotted under close scrutiny, so no big deal, once again I invoke the life's too short clause. In my experience, point-scorers don't tend to get far with their own projects. And guess what(?), photographs reveal that the main running line out to and beyond Britannia Halt (by the car ferry), was relaid by BR, with 3-BOLT CHAIRS, presumably in the 1950s, using new BR Standard track panels, before flat-bottom became more widespread. The platform roads and all sidings would still be GWR 2-bolt, I haven't spotted any flat-bottom south of Paignton/Goodrington in BR days. My previously mentioned double slip trap requirement, applies to the bay platform, leading to the turntable and rather awkward carriage sidings. By the mid-60s, BR had reduced the whole lot to one-platform with a long run-round loop, in preservation it's good to see the second platform and some sidings have been relaid, and are back in use. I've built all the boards, and rather than being hidden away in a loft or a shed, this will be on display down one side of my lounge(!), so that non-railway friends and family can view it too. I think the single-track meandering down one side of the room, will be fairly inobtrusive, whereas a four-track set-up with trains thrashing round and round would be a bit cranky here. It's a walk in job too, so they won't spill their Pimm's, crawling under boards, or locked-in by a lift-up section. Cheers, Brian. Cheers, Brian.

By coincidence, i'll be using one of my Peco Bullhead double slips as a twin trap point, on the new layout i'm currently building, there's only 10ft to the buffer stop in one direction. My period is 1950s/60s, photographic evidence shows that in pre-nat days it was a single slip and separate trap point, track layouts do evolve in subtle ways. I model in OO and 18.83, why(?), because like many modellers, I have a good collection of OO RTR, and i'll never convert the whole lot to 18.83, life's too short. BK

It's rather like separating the definitions of "conservation" and "preservation", both terms are very close. For the record, i'd say "conservation" is keeping something in it's original condition without any alteration, and "preservation" is keeping something in it's near original condition, but allowing limited alteration, but i'm not a pedant, I wouldn't lose sleep over either term being used. Back to the points, I still think it's simpler and neater to refer to "catch points", as those that were sprung and worked independently in normal service, purely for catching rolling-back runaways on gradients, and could be miles away from any signal box. "Trap points" are those under the control of a signal box, as part of an interlocking system. Is that better? BK

I think the last roll-back catch points went in the 1980s, when BR finally got rid of unbraked wagons on trunk routes. I remember hearing of them being removed on the WCML in the late 70s, prior to the running of the APTs. Any residue unbraked traffic was then sent via the Settle & Carlisle line. It was after these old-style freights finally finished, that the S&C came under serious threat of closure. Interesting Fact: I used to know the now railway author David Maidment, when he was General Manager of LMR in the 1980s. He told me, that if they were going to be forced to close the S&C, he was going to get the tunnels on the Cumbrian Coast line enlarged to accept the 75ft Mk3 carriages, so they still had a diversion option for Anglo-Scottish passenger trains. As far as I know, this was never done, since Michael Portillo (DoT) persuaded Maggie that the S&C was worth keeping. It has since flourished as a freight artery. So there's a nice happy ending to the story.😀 Cheers, Brian.

It's not a catch point, IT'S A TRAP POINT!!!! 😀 Cos it can be opened and closed, as part of the interlocking with the signal box. Catch points are not connected to signal boxes, and are independently sprung in the open position on uni-directional track, often in quite remote locations, to prevent runaways downhill. When wrong line working is in operation, the catch points have to be levered shut and padlocked. Catch points and trap points can look similar, but they function differently. BK

Wouldn't the easiest solution for PMP's layout trap point requirement, be to cut out a short section of the Peco Bullhead, and following Mike's suggestion, install a wide-of-gauge trap, custom made up from C&L parts? You don't see many of those in 4mm modelling. An exclusive! I like to think of points protecting running lines from other tracks as "trap" points, and be interlocked with the local operation, as distinct from "catch" points, which are found facing back on inclines, and sprung open, to catch and deliberately derail any breakaway wagons. I've often wondered what the hard and fast rule is, concerning trap points on bi-directional passenger pointwork in stations? Surely a run-off of plain track is desirable, rather than the immediate derailing with passengers on board? BK

May I suggest to Mr.PMP, that besides a separate isolation section for the loco siding, prototypically it also needs a trap point at position A, to hinder any runaway loco, and protect the passenger running lines. Crews at King's Cross used to tell me, that some diesel locos could runaway after a period of standing, Class 40s were among the worst offenders, and had to be "scotched" with wooden wedges (chocks) between wheel and rail. What do fellow RMwebbers think? BK

Here's some more fumbling around with the points, this time spludging some paint on to the rails and chairs. Two big advantages of not having to rely on point blades for electrical continuity, is no problem with dirt and dust causing unreliability on the board top, and secondly you can merrily paint your point blade sides to match, although of course let the first blade position dry properly, before attempting the other position, or you'll end up with a solid point, ha,ha. Rummaging through my paints, I chose Humbrol No.9, which is actually a gloss paint, so I matted it down with talcum powder, it don't 'arf smell nice! There's no hard and fast rules about track colours, but regularly used lines tend to be a Dijon Mustard colour, less used lines are more orangey-red from the build-up of rust, abandoned lines can be anything from dark brown to even black. I'm no expert, but I think it's all to do with the flexing of the rails (in use), microbes of rust fall off, giving a lighter appearance. Maybe it's like the White Cliffs Of Dover, in their shiny white, where old chalk constantly falls away, revealing fresh new chalk behind? Some people prefer to paint their rails after laying and ballasting, but I find it easier this way, to save leaning over an awkward baseboard. This particular point will be a facing point on a passenger track, so I have added a DIY locking bar cover, from spare plasticard. I used to think these were centred over the tiebar, but more and more photos have shown them to be off-centre, giving greater protection for traffic running towards the frog. Cheers, Brian.

Two further issues, A fellow RMwebber has asked whether the metallic pen paint shorts out the gaps(?), well not in my experience, and I did test the gaps for leakage with a meter. The gold pen that I used, was from WH Smith, which looks very similar to the product by Pilot, and Pilot refer to it as "ink", so maybe there's the difference? We don't want any conduction here, i'd better test some Humbrol metallic paint as well, to check it's electrically dead when dry? I forgot to mention, that as can be seen, I mount my points on thin card, just old re-cycled food packaging like corn flake or pizza boxes, it gives a bit of sound insulation, and a ballast shoulder, plus with just a few dabs of glue underneath, it makes removing points easier, with less damage. I used to use cork years ago, then went through my foam rubber phase, followed by my terrific idea of using re-cycled bubblewrap (bubbles down, leaving a smooth top for ballast), which ended up as a total disaster. Trying every type of glue on the planet, including impact and superglue, the bubble side would just not be gripped permanently, the flat side was not much better. Now i'm stuck with a mountain of secondhand bubblewrap! What about sound or loft insulation??? I really need to paint those check rails rusty. BK

Regarding isolation switches, they're obviously not required, or at least not essential, on DCC operation, but on analogue 12v DC operation your Unifrog point layout will need switches for each siding, if stabling locos, unless operating as a "one engine in steam" yard. The old method of siding isolation using point blades is simple and convenient, but not foolproof, I find it safest to have one or more on-off switches for each siding. What can happen with conventional point blade isolation (not Unifrog), is take two sidings with one loco parked on each track, if the point blade hasn't made proper contact, you end up with a 'M' shaped electrical circuit, and if you apply power, both locos will move at around half-speed. What has happened, is the two locos have worked in series, the positive current runs down the stock rail to Loco A, passes through the motor, back up to the common frog, back down to Loco B, through that motor, and then returns back as negative up the other stock rail. Individual siding switches eliminate this potential operating hazard. BK