Jeremy Cumberland

I think the Atbara class (4-4-0) were the first in 1900, but piston valves weren't fitted to all of them from new, and apparently this first incarnation of piston valves wasn't a success (http://www.gwr.org.uk/no440s.html). It is also possible that the 3600 class of 2-4-2T were built with piston valves. The prototype, No. 11 built in 1900, certainly had piston valves but I am not sure about the production locomotives built in 1902-1903. The Saints appear to be the first major class built with piston valves. The works photograph of 181 Ivanhoe, one of the first batch built in 1905, shows what appear to be piston valve covers.

As far as I know, Queen Anne is still at the Strathspey Railway (it was there in 2014). Here is a very informative article about it: https://whiskyshunters.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html?m=1 The photographs show it shunting 5-plank wagons.

The scale track plan makes a lot more sense. Entrance to the sidings is going to be a problem. What are the sidings used for? If they aren't track circuited with motorised points and signals for each siding (possible for carriage sidings, but unlikely I would have thought for anything else) then I think trains wishing to enter them would have to be stopped at the points before the points could be reversed. This is because there is no guarantee that there is an empty siding for the approaching train (and no guaranteee of which siding the points are set for), and a train cannot be signalled straight into a potentially occupied line.. This could mean having a main signal with siubsidiary (which I think would be fine here; visially it is a long way from the station, even if it isn't in feet). Alternatively the points could be worked from a local ground frame released by the signalbox, in which case there probably wouldn't be any signals at all, either to enter or leave the sidings. Much the same is true of the shed entrances; the entrance roads are shorter than I imagined. Trains approaching from the right might not be a problem; the subsidiary signal at the scissors crossover isn't so far away, and I think this signal is only used for trains entering the shed, but there is no guarantee that the shed entrance road is clear, apart from the short length before the shed exit signal which would be track circuited. In the other direction, though, the shed entrance is a long way from the subsidiary at the scissors crossover, so I would be inclined to place a main signal with route indicator and subsidiary immediately before the first set of points entering the station. Trains for the shed, which up to this point have been signalled using main signals, would be stopped at this signal before the points are set for the shed and the subsidiary cleared. It ought to be three aspect and show a yellow to trains entering the station when the starter is red. Other signals depend very much on what shunting and running round you want to do, and whether you want any trains to reverse in the platforms and leave in the direction they arrived from. At least one of the bottom platforms needs a starter at the right hand end for trains coming out of the sidings and continuing in that direction.

I think properly-surfaced roads (metalled/macadam, but not tarmacked) were common in pre-First World War Britian. There is an excellent account of a road mender in The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan (1915) working on a remote road in south west Scotland. It might have been a main route (it is referred to as a "highroad"), but there was very little traffic; in the morning there was just the baker in a motor van, the county surveyor in a car and the narrator's pursuers (who did not recongmise him) in another car, plus a shepherd on foot.

You are quite right. A basic $5 print I paid £5.18 (inc VAT) for in July is now being quoted as £8.04 (£6.70 + 20% VAT), representing an exchange rate of $0.74 to the pound, when it is presumably meant to be the reciprical of this ($1.34). This is one of my own models, but the same error applies to public prices.

The main lines are straightforward. Starters at all the platform ends used by departing trains, which from your description is the right hand end of the both top platforms, the left hand end of both bottom platforms, and the right hand end of one of the bottom platforms for trains coming from the sidings. The approach lines to the station will each need a home, possibly with route indicator, before the scissors crossover is reached (yes, I know they aren't called homes and starters in this era). The "homes" may, of course, be outside the area shown by your plan, but I would be inclined to put them just before the crossovers, and then the shunt signals can be subsidiaries. I think it is rare for there to be ground signals on main lines in the normal direction of travel. Alternatively, all shunting movements over the crossovers could be conducted onto the opposite line, so the shunt signals to head back to the station are not faced by oncoming main line trains, but this would probably be unduly restrictive, particularly at the right hand end of the station. The sidings are rather a problem. How is shunting carried out? Where's the protection from the main line? How can trains be signalled into the sidings with any confidence that the line is clear? How do trains run round? Why, in any case, are the sidings in the facing direction off a main running line - I don't think any railways favoured this arrangement? There is an obvious solution to all of these questions, by having the sidings coming off the bottom platform road. There would then be an arrival line, track circuited and controlled, with a shunt signal and trap point on the exit from the sidings proper, and a subsidiary on the platform starter for trains coming off the main line. Run rounds could be done in the station - a little inconvenient operationally, but at least it could be done. I imagine the controlled area of the shed would just be the length of each crossover. Each would need a shunt signal on exiting the shed, as close to the shed as possible, with a trap point beyond. No other signals would be needed to exit onto the main line. What shunting movements would there be? Run rounds at the bottom platform for trains going in or coming out of the sidings. This would need subsidiaries on the platform starters, and the obvious arrangement to me would be to run the locomotive out to the far side of the scissors crossover where there is already a shunt signal, back along the second platform road from the bottom, which will therefore need a subsidiary on the starter at the left hand end and a shunt signal at the right hand end. At the other end of the platform, the locomotive again goes to the far side of the scissors crossover, although at the left hand end you could have a ground signal just beyond the platform loop points. Locomotives entering the shed from the main running lines could be admitted via the subsidiary signal just before the scissors crossover. Locomotives entering the shed from the sidings would need to be signalled out beyond one or other of the scissors crossovers, where there are already shunt/subsidiary signals for coming back in. This gives, by my count, two "home" signals with subsidiaries, five "starters", three with subsidiaries, a shunt signal at each of the scissors crossovers for coming back into the station from the "wrong" line, although I am not entirely convinced that the one at the right hand scissors crossover is needed, and the one at the left hand scissors crossover could be replaced by a shunt signal at the left hand end of the bottom platform loop. You also need a shunt signal at the right hand end of the bottom but one platform and three shunt signals to control the exits from the engine shed and the sidings, each with a trap point. In terms of FPLs, the left hand entrance to the engine shed definitely needs one, as does the sidings entrance. My guess is that the other shed entrance points would have an FPL as well.

The connection is shown in the 1903 RCH junction plan: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Camden,_Hampstead_Road,_Kentish_Town,_King's_Cross,_Maiden_Lane_%26_St_Pancras_Blackfriars,_Snow_Hill_%26_West_Street_RJD_84.jpg. The junction at Farringdon is also shown, but the RCH plan confusingly omits showing the Widenend Lines and the Metropolitan crossing over each other between Kings Cross and Farringdon. My guess, and it is a guess, is that this crossover was removed whem the link from Chalton Street Junction was put in in 1926. Incidentally, if it is Kings Cross you are modelling and you decide to set it before this link line was removed, then only the eastbound Widenend Line would have been be electrified (but try to find a photograph; as I said earlier, I don't think I have ever seen one showing this) and used by trains from the Metropolitan main line and Great Western, while westbound trains would have used the Circle Line rails. However I don't recall reading anything to suggest that many Metropolitan main line trains terminated at Moorgate, or that any Great Western trains did. Since Moorgate also had two bays off the Circle Line (one shared with the Widened Lines), it was also possible for Metropolitan trains terminating at Moorgate not to use the Widened Lines at all, although the absence of a loco siding would have made this diffiuclt for loco-hauled trains.

In the period you are looking at, the trains would mostly have come from Aylesbury, but before 1936 a few would be from Verney Junction. There were also a handful of workings to other destinations such as Amersham, Wendover and Chesham. These would all have had locomotive swaps at Rickmansworth. There were also one or two loco-hauleds that went only to Watford or Rickmansworth, but the primary reason for having locomotive-hauled carriages was to enable through trains to destinations that weren't electrified. I cannot remember off the top of my head whether Metropolitan main line trains only ran east of Baker Street in peak hours in the era you are looking at; I suspect they did. Harsig's site is an invauable resource for London Underground track plans and signalling diagrams, which might not be of great interest to you in themselves, but the Widened Lines always seems to me to be particularly complicated, especially around Kings Cross and Farringdon, and being able to look at a plan helps a lot in getting my head round it. The Metropolitan page is here: http://www.harsig.org/Metropolitan.php and I particularly recommend the 1933 Metropolitan Railway plan for your era. The eastbound-only link between Chalton Street Junction (not named in this plan, but it is between Euston Square and Kings Cross)) and the Widened Lines was removed in 1935 (it only got put in in 1926). Apparently it was electrified, as @bécasse mentions, but I don't recall seeing any pictures of the Widened Lines with conductor rails, and I don't know what trains used this lnk (except, presumably, GWR goods trains to Smithfield, but these were steam-hauled).

There is an informative article on freight workings on hte Underground here (pdf): https://www.lurs.org.uk/02%20jan%2017%20FREIGHT%20ON%20THE%20UNDERGROUND.pdf There is a thread about through GWR passenger workings here (electic-hauled and using the Cirle Line tracks to Liverpool Street): The Met of course ran their own electric loco-hauled trains to Moorgate/Liverpool Street/Aldgate with dreadnaught carriages (6 or 7 seem to have been the norm). Watford/Rickmansworth services would have been T Stock. I don't know what worked Uxbridge services or Hammersmith and City or Circle Line.

This website says they are IEAs (as distinct from the taller IOAs) https://www.ltsv.com/w_profile_059.php There seems to me to be quite a bit of information about them online. Include 5892 in your search term.

There is. Matador Models do one in whitemetal: http://www.matadormodels.co.uk/xengineer/lists engineer.htm I have no idea what they are like.

I think Herefords were used in the Cotswolds (Devons were more common elsewhere - but perhaps not as late as the mid-20th century where most areas used horses). They are big animals, certainly, but I don't think there is any difference in size between a Hereford ox and a Hereford bull. Just chop the balls off. 1960s sounds very late for draught oxen though; I thought they had pretty much all died out in England before the Second World War. Edit: I've just seen that it was Earl Bathurst at Cirencester Park who kept a team of oxen into the 1960s. There's a colour video of the team at work in the 1920s on YouTube, but my attempt at adding a link failed. They look like horned Herefords to me.

Is it a diaphragm valve? The downstairs loo in my current house failed in a way similar to your description. It took me a bit of time to work out what was going on, as I'd only encountered slide valves before, but all it needed was the diaphragm replacing - I just took the old one to the local hardware shop. Here's a picture, and a handy website. https://www.practicaldiy.com/plumbing/ball_valves/ball_valves.php

Why wouldn't they both be on Annett's keys? It by far the simplest arrangement. Is there any reason why both crossovers should be reversed at the same time?

I cannot tell one GWR class from another, but the position of "Y of" means that the second word is shorter than the first. County of Hants is therefore a likely possibility, and I think the only other possibilities (if the number does end in 5) are 3475 County of Wilts and 3835 County of Devon. These were both renumbered in 1912, with the former being pre-1912 and the latter post 1912. Perhaps on the original photograph the first letter of the county name is clear enough to rule these out.

Let me get this straight: It is a single line. As you head from left-ish to right-ish in your top pictures, there is a platform, then the level crossing, then the facing siding point. You will have track circuits and/or treadles for normal train operation (not using the siding) - your real life example clearly has track circuits as you can see from the last but one photo - with most likely a pushbutton or similar on the platform to activate the crossing for trains heading left to right, assuming all trains are likely to stop in the platform anyway. Apart from this, all you need is a pushbutton or similar to activate the crossing before a train leaves the siding. It probably makes most sense for this to be by the ground frame, and operated by whoever operates the ground frame. Both activation devices need to be secure from being tampered with. There are only six possible movements that I can see: Left to right on main line: Train stops in platform and driver operates activation device. Right to left on main line: Automatic operation by track circuit and/or treadle. From left to siding: Train stops in platform. One person operates ground frame. When line is set, driver operates crossing activation device on platform. From right to siding: Automatic operation by track circuit and/or treadle. Train stops in platform clear of crossing. One person operates ground frame. The same person then probably walks back to platform and operates the activation device on the platform (assuming the driver is at the other end of the train). Train shunts into siding. From siding to left: One person operates ground frame then operates activation device by ground frame. Train enters platform. Ground frame reset and train continues when person is on board. From siding to right: One person operates ground frame then operates activation device by ground frame. Train reverses into platform clear of the crossing. Ground frame reset and person rejoins train. Driver operates crossing actuation device on platform. Train leaves.

They are check rails for dual gauge. Here is a picture showing what the whole thing presumably looks like, although this example is from Australia rather than Austria. show

They're in steel, so I doubt it matters. In wood, a tenon joint is far stronger in compression than it is in tension.

I imagine much of the Hornby range is EN71 certified, and they are members of the British Toy & Hobby Association, so they could apply the logo quite widely to their products. However, I also imagine that they choose not to because they don't want them thought of as being "children's toys".

If you are doing DC voltage testing (which the OP is) then having the wires the wrong way round will show -12 V instead of 12 V, for example. If you aren't interested in polarity then this does not matter, but the OP specifically asked about testing the polarity of his PSU outputs. You will get a similar polarity error with DC current testing. If you are doing resistance, continuity or diode testing, where the meter applies a voltage across the two probes, if the leads are plugged in the wrong way round then the black probe will be positive and the red probe negative. This won't make any difference unless you are testing electronics (diodes and transistors), when you will get unexpected and possibly confusing results (till you work out the leads are swapped over).

This isn't true. Power does not usually remain constant regardless of voltage, and power ratings are usually given as the maximum power expected at the usual voltage. With tungsten filament incandescent bulbs, there is a sudden current draw when they are turned on which quickly heats up the filament and increaes the resistance, which in your example ends up as about 400 ohms. When cold, the resistance is a lot less, perhaps 30 ohms. from which we can work out that the initial current at 12 volts is 0.4 A. This is enough to heat up the filament, increase the resistance and so reduce the current, perhaps to 0.1 A, making the power of the 1.2 watts at 12 volts. The bulb will barely glow. These numbers might not be accurate but they should be in the right ball park. Don't use a multimeter with mains voltages unless you know what you are doing. You also need to take a little more care with current readings, and sometimes a lot more care with the meter set to measure resistance, than you do with voltage readings.

If you are using a proprietary PSU, then you need have no concerns about safety. Short of cutting it open you won't be able to get anywhere near the mains voltage, and 12 V (or even twice that) won't cause you any harm. However, if you have a homemade PSU it might be better not to try anything at all until you know what you are doing. There is also very little that you could possibly break, except possibly for the meter itself, and I suggest you don't try using the 2000 mV or 200 mV DC settings. 20 V DC, or something like it, will be fine. Even 200 V DC or 600 V DC will work well enough for most things I imagine you want to do. Do make sure you plug the probes in correctly (unless they are connected permenently). The red lead must go to the red terminal on the meter or, if there is more than one, the one marked V. The black lead must be plugged into the black terminal, which may be marked COM. You can leave the probes plugged in the meter permanently, although you may need to move the red lead if ever you do current testng. When using the meter on a voltage setting, the probes are unpowered and you can touch them together and treat them like ordinary metal rods. Don't try sticking them into a mains socket or your toaster or anything like that. The only damage I can imagine you doing with them is if your PSU does not have short circuit protection. If this is the case, then you must take care not to allow a single probe to bridge across both positive and negative outputs. Touching one probe to the positive output and the other probe to the negative output is fine - it is what the meter is designed to do. Note that you have to touch both probes to the outputs (one to positive, the other to negative); touching just one will not give any reading. You asked about knowing which is the positive and which is the negative output. If, after turning on the PSU and touching one probe to one output and the other probe to the other output, you get a positive voltage reading on the meter, then the output connected to the red probe is positive. If the reading on the meter is negative, then the output connected to the red probe is negative (or zero, of you prefer). Apart from checking polarity, another common reason for using a voltmeter is to check for open circuits. Open circuits can be on either the positive or negative side, and one common approach, which might be what you saw in the video, is to measure the voltage close to the PSU or controller, where it should be fine. You then leave one probe connected at the PSU or controller, and then move the other probe progressively further away, ideally testing after each soldered joint or switch. If you get a reading on one side of a soldered joint but not on the other, then that is where the open circuit is. If you have tested all of the positive (or negative) circuit up to the track or whatever it is that does not work and not found a problem, then do the same with the other probe on the other circuit.

Because 0, like 00, is a scale-gauge combination. Or at least it was once, in dim and distant past. It now seems to be three scale-gauge combinations, with S7 adding a fourth. From my own enquiries into 7 mm modelling, one thing that I had settled for myself was to use 0-MF, with a track gauge of 31.5 mm. Perhaps I would need to join the 0MFA.

12 also appears to have GW two-hole chairs. I cannot quite work out where that window-edge is in relation to the train centrline. It doesn't look far enough to the left to be the centre pillar on a class 120 for example (and it looks too vertical for a GW railcar), but it looks a little too far to the left for most 3-window DMUs, so I wonder if it is an auto-coach, which appear to have had narrower middle windows (but I might well be wrong). I don't think the shadow in the four foot in 12 can be anything to do with the train. The sun is behind and a little to the left, meaning it would have to be something above the driver's head which wasn't on the opposite side. However, it is still very odd. Unless it is a colour light signal head (why there?). then for it to be an object further from the line it would appear to need to be very tall. I wonder if it is a lamp on an overbridge, although that would point to an almost excessive number of overbridges. I am no good at recognising signals, and can get nothing much from 15. The telegraph poles have an extra insulator on top which the poles in 12 appear not to have; I have no idea whether this detail is of any significance.

I do not model 0 gauge, but I had been toying with the idea over the past couple of years. Up till now, I had heard generally favorable reports of the G0G, as opposed to generally negative ones of the G1MRA which is also at the periphery of my interests, and would probably have joined had I decided to pursue 0 gauge modelling. However, reading this thread would certainly have put me off. Apart from the anecdotes from @SteveyDee68 and others, which might be attributable to a few individuals in isolated clubs/branches and not be reflective of the GoG as a whole, the idea of using a public forum for electioneering purposes seems objectionable to me. It would seem to me to be more honest to win your arguments from within (and in private), get yourselves elected, and then ask non-members what they would like to see, while at the same time saying what great things the G0G does, and keeping quiet about any divisions that might exist within the Guild.