Andy Keane

Right - I have some broad gauge society bridge rail in stock so will see what I can make from that for the verticals - I could print them but they would not be stiff enough to do anything on their own.

Thanks for this - really helpful. So to be clear these vertical lengths of bridge rail were just that - no diagonals, just posts with holes in the flanges to thread the eye bolts through? so Full straining post with diagonal, 24 wood, vertical bridge rail, 24 wood, vertical bridge rail, 24 wood etc., until at the other end when we get another set of 24 wood before the final full straining post with diagonal? So 240 odd posts between full straining posts (about 20 feet at 4mm scale)? No doubt reduced if there was some junction or big change of direction. And I guess on very long runs the double diagonal straining posts were used though I will not need them on my station boundary. Andy

The classic problem area I have is right at the far end of the line where the carriage shed sits on the top of a dead end embankment, see the solid line in the map below. In BR days there were concrete posts with threaded wires right around the 180 degrees of the end of the line - as its only a narrow embankment its a pretty sharp curve. But in GWR days I have no record except there must have been a wire fence. So what to do? I could do it as a rectangular box but this would not fit the map or the lie of the embankment. I could do it like the edges of an old threeppeny bit with short runs between a lot of stretchers but this seems excessive. Or perhaps here they actually did use holes in the posts and thread the line around? Hence my search for a better answer! Elsewhere the curves are indeed sufficiently gentle to allow the fence run to adapt to the bend with stapled wires.

Oh don't do that - buy the pre-drilled Scale Model Scenery ones that are pre-drilled as in my first post on the fence-line above. They are very good being laser drilled.

I have also tried wire threading, though in my case using the Scale Model Scenery wooden posts. These work fine but its just not how wire fences are made - it is not practical in the real world to thread wires through posts on long fence lines - hence why they are stapled on and why the Ratio posts work that way. Below a short bit with easy line and GWR stretchers and below that a length of four wire I put on one of our club layouts again with SMS posts but that one with fishing line. The key thing in both cases being the line is elastic so the runs can be tensioned against the end stretcher posts, and also they are more forgiving of being knocked.

So a blank name board something like this: This one is three feet long overall and six inches deep at full scale.

I guess I was thinking about a 90 turn. If you do up the bolts to tension the wires running around such a turn you either risk pulling the posts over or if the wire is stapled on the inside pulling it off the posts? But clearly it depends on how much tension you use!

Phil - that's a good point - on the Helston running in board in the end I got a custom waterslide transfer made up from your file with the letter depth in the transfer. I guess I am best to do something similar and float it onto a bare backing name board. Could you send me something to work from please? Otherwise I shall be reduced to Microsoft fonts again and suffer ridicule as before. https://www.handh.co.uk/auction/lot/51-original-station-road-cast-iron-road-sign/?lot=50377&sd=1

Another little job I am working on are the cast iron signs for Station Road and Park an Harvey. The station Road sign will need to be free standing while the Park an Harvey will be a wall plaque, both in cast iron. I plan to 3D print these but wondered, given my earlier attempts, if anyone could advise on the correct font for Victorian era cast iron name plates for such roads?

This is my attempt at modelling the fence. Ratio 423 posts, 3D printed stretcher posts and easyline between them. As per the original the diagonal stretcher rails are at a slight angle to the run, so that they don't need drilling for all the wire runs. This works well for runs where the fence is straight, or on the outside of a curve as the tension in the line pulls it onto the posts. But I am not clear how the GWR did fence runs on the inside of a curve. As I understand it, the normal practice was that the wire was stapled to the posts on the non-GWR side of the run, so that any cattle pushing against it would not tend to pull the wire off the fence, but when you do that on an inside curve run, the fence tension itself tends to pull the line of the fence. So did the GWR staple to their side of the posts on such curves so that the line tension pulled the wire onto the posts or perhaps use a sequence of straight runs with more stretcher posts? I would be interested to see a photo of a run with its original stapling on an inside curve if anyone had one. Andy

Here is a short sample using the ratio 423 posts, which have little grooves moulded in. It turns out to be much easier to deal with the easyline this way as it only needs threading through the stretcher posts - this is one piece of line threaded back and forwards seven times and tied off at the end. So then using this little jig I can pull out enough line for whatever fence run is needed, put the stretchers and line onto the main base-board and then add the fence posts into pre-drilled holes along the run. It seems quite robust and tolerant of my handling.

I now have some passable 3D printed bridge rail fence tensioning posts to play with. These are printed in grey nylon so are quite forgiving of handling yet also easy to drill the wire holes into. Their slightly rough surface is a good imitation of rust. In this photo I have just put some easyline through the top two holes and through three wooden fence posts from scale model scenery. I am not yet sure if I will thread the lines through the posts (which aligns and fixes them quite nicely, but is not scale correct) or instead to use the Peco posts and simply lay the line into grooves and cement in place. Laying them in groves will be much faster but will require seven drops of cyano on every post. I am also not sure if I will stay with easyline, which is probably more accident resistant, or go with fishing line I used on my previous tests, which is much easier to thread being stiffer.

sounds more like sticky bearings to me

I have some transfers on order from Fox. But a related question - my wagon is the one with the rather boxy shaped hood over the driver and cart, see below - it has cream sides with lettering to come, but what colour would you paint the top - would that have been cream as well or something darker? It is currently in primer.

Mine run fine, and the whole rake of six will propel backwards over my entrance points and fiddle yard ones as well - is this a going round corners thing, or over points, or just anywhere?

I think that may explain the gap on this side to the right - the maps show the fence line well in from the cutting top (about 15 scale feet). But the 1946 aerial photo below (and indeed the maps), show the fence much closer to the cutting edge on the far side of the road. I suppose three feet would be about two-thirds of the fence height and I may just get that much in, but it will be tight.

I have now installed the walls, leaving the gaps for the wire fence runs. On the far side the further fence runs will start from the ends of the bridge parapet.

Meanwhile I have been working on the roadway over the bridge with its stone walls. The gaps in the walling are where GWR wire fencing needs to go as per photos of the site back in the day.

It is also interesting to see how people chose to alter the track plan to suit their modelling aims. Their version has two platforms for example, with the engine shed swapped side to allow this.

It is built to a very nice standard, though being BR era not with stock that I would chose. There is some good video of the layout at about seven minutes in to this:

An interesting layout based on the Helston buildings and seen by Chris: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F103471893%40N02%2F53621174939%2Fin%2Falbum-72177720315798867%2F&data=05|02||4ee5d3f64b4f4a43485908dc5536005a|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|638478937624475257|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D|0|||&sdata=iUTztOfbcC%2FAuC6WPMeDIKNjilJZw%2BdfZIyS%2BLBYwDE%3D&reserved=0

I looked at some reviews on one of their earlier RTR locos (The Fell) and people were not very complimentary.

Does anyone know what the sales figures look like for recent RTR locos, DC vs DCC vs DCC sound? I guess the sound fitted stock generates enough sales to convince manufacturers to provide these features but does it remain a minority sport?

That's really interesting. I don't know why, but I had never thought of looking at the map before the railway arrived! Comparison with later maps show for example that the 52/54 Godolphin Rd villa I am building was erected right up against the existing terrace, being squeezed in between that and the goods yard approach. But regarding the fence lines I can see that lot 5 1.567 remained unchanged and the Railway adopted its south-western edge as a boundary while lot 5622 was bisected by the new line as were 5620, 5663 and 11. So a tiny bit of 5622 remained, most became the station and a small amount was merged into 5623 increasing its size to 2.335 acres and a bit of 5620 ended up in 5621 which changed shape but not size, loosing about as much as it gained to the railway, while a large chunk of 5663 became railway land, with just 0.183 acres left as part of Station Road, presumably being placed in public ownership. Fascinating - I suppose all this would have been detailed in the Act setting up the original Helston Railway. Another interest is the old footpath that used to run to Parksledge Villa ended up being terminated on Station Road, with access then being via Godolphin road. But its original location is clearly what dictated the placement of the main station gates on Station Road. PS - does anyone know what the solid line with dots on labelled CF means?

The attached pictures show the situation I am working on - I have placed four fence stretchers on the layout to indicate where I currently plan to run GWR wire fencing. There was always a road here but when the railway built their cutting they re-aligned it slightly to allow a bridge at right angles to the track. I know from photos that on the corner above the station and engine shed, where the steps climb up, that this was all railway land and that the GWR wire fence ran along the road edge for some distance. On the opposite side of that bit of road I have built a dry-stone wall (with a field gate in it) and currently plan the GWR wire fence to start at the end of the parapet and follow the top of the cutting line away from the station area. On the near side of the bridge I again have photos on the station side and know that there was a short run of GWR fencing parallel to the road before it turned through 90 degrees to follow the cutting top along the opposite side of the station. Thus I plan to shorten the stone wall there and replace with a very short bit of GWR wire fence - this will look a little odd but I am working on the assumption that an old Cornish dry stone wall would not have satisfied the inspector as a boundary for the railway which was why wire fencing was used there. Opposite this I have again started the wire fence at the parapet end so the stone wall abuts the parapet. I am pretty sure about things on the station side but on the offside I only have the OS maps to rely on for the location of the fence lines, see map excerpt below the photos (this is the very old map that is now out of copyright but the boundaries never moved as far as I can tell). The map does indeed show the dog-leg in the fence line on one side and the extent of the station precincts on the other. What do you think? Andy