Captain Kernow

Thanks for the Klear suggestion - it had been on my radar to use this stuff, but Re6/6 had a bit of a scare with it on Matford, so I decided not to use it, can it be diluted is the next question?

I've made a start on the weathering of the track and ballasting on Callow Lane. I would normally do all the track weathering first, which usually involves painting and/or dry brushing each individual sleeper, plus painting the rail sides and chairs varying shades of light/mid rust-brown/brake dust etc. This would then be followed by ballasting/siding grunge/weed growth etc. My ballasting methods on previous layouts such as 'Engine Wood' and 'Bleakhouse Road' have generally involved painting PVA between each individual sleeper bay (3 or 4 at a time before the glue starts to go off), and sprinking ballast on top of the glue. The shallow depth of C&L or SMP sleepers makes this possible and I have been very happy with the results. Callow Lane, however, uses track with 'full depth' sleepers from the P4 Track Co/Exactoscale, and when I tried 'The Captain's normal method', this was the result I got: I'm using a mixture of beach sand and 2mm ballast from the likes of Woodland Scenics and Carrs, and I wasn't particulary happy with either of the above two experimental sections. The ballast was too low, and I didn't like the way it clung to the slides of the sleepers on one of the sections. It might be possible to repeat the process to get the required ballast depth, but I simply couldn't face that.... So, this time, I have reverted to an alternative method, which is used by many others and which I have used myself in the past, involving the laying the dry ballast first, very gently wetting it with a misting spray and then dropping dilute PVA (with a drop of washing up liquid in it) onto the damp ballast. Here is a 9 inch stretch where the ballast has been wettened and dilute PVA applied. The cut up bits of bin bag are obviously there to protect the rest of the layout, including any of the steel rail within range of the spray: The bit of vertical white plasticard is a temporary representation of the brick face of the old disused platform, which will be installed once the ballasting etc. has been completed. I would add that it took over half an hour just to get the ballast reasonably neat on that 9 inch section, plus a fair bit of time faffing around wetting it, applying the glue and clearing up! Here is a shorter section which I did a couple of days ago, at least the glue has now dried solid (initially I used too dilute a mixture, and had to give it two goes, the glue I used tonight has a bit more PVA in it!): 08/7/10 Well, I've tried vibrations (to settle the ballast more evenly), and I've tried Klear on the ballast. The latter was more successful, but despite it's lack of viscosity, it is still apt to form 'bubbles' in the ballast, displacing carefully laid and tamped material... :headbang: Anyway, I did a section on the main running line tonight and when it's dry, I'll see how durable it is and how neat the ballast has come out. 09/7/10 The bit I did with Klear yesterday didn't come out too badly, but one or two small sections came away when I vacuumed up residue this evening. Some small spots of PVA have secured new ballast to fill the gaps. I've now done another section with Klear, however, this time using a small wooden tamper tool (idea from Re6/6) to tamp the ballast down neatly when still dry, and then have applied the Klear, which seems to disturb the ballast less, when it's been tamped with the wooden tamper tool. I've also deposited much of the Klear on the sleeper tops, from whence it has flowed around the ballast. We'll see how the sleepers have dried in the morning.... However, another advance is the use of grease-proof paper (idea from Will Vale on this forum), to tamp down any wet blobs of ballast, once the Klear has been applied. What's also been quite effective is using the wooden tamper tool on top of the grease-proof paper...

I think bottom right is 'BY ORDER'...

[Captain Kernow Pedantry Service on] Er, if you are referring to the loco in Barry 10's photo, it's actually a Warship.... [/Captain Kernow Pedantry Service off]

Lovely photo, Al, and very well-deserved as 'Photo of the week'

Incredible! Didn't even realise it was a canal before it became a railway... What about the SCC, though?

I'm sure this won't be a problem for Craig, but I'd also be happy to oblige next time I'm down there on 'official business'...

Well, I respect the right of those that argue in favour of the WHHR to do so, but in my experience on the 'big' railway (nearly 30 years and counting), the correlation between 'immature' and 'lacking in competence' is fairly secure. I see it regularly in terms of the longevity/experience of the various (smaller) railway organisations that I deal with on a work basis. To clarify, I only used the expression 'immature' in response to the exhortation by a previous poster urging the FR to 'grow up'... As stated above, I respect your right to hold this view, but I'm afraid that I just don't buy the theory that the WHHR would have made the same rapid, spectacular progress as the FR/WHR. Whilst the public statements of the FR/WHR may not have been seen as 'sympathetic' to the wishes of the WHHR, they nonetheless (in my personal view) give the appearance of an organised, corporate entity that understands it's own business needs and 'gets things done'. This may seem horribly unfair, but I firmly believe that most people, whether locals (non-enthusiasts) or enthusiasts simply aren't interested in this argument. I think that most people will judge by results. The FR/WHR have rebuilt the entire route in little over 10 years and brought some amazing motive power to the line. It is an incredible outcome. I visit the line to enjoy Garretts, superb scenery and a decent coffee in comfortable coaches. I most certainly would take a dim view, were I to witness any kind of moaning about this on-going quarrel (whether from either side). I think the title of this thread is spot on, actually, whilst not taking anything away from those who want to feel aggreived by the FR/WHR, it does seem to reflect the fact that the rest of us quietly groan 'oh no, here they go again'... In my experience, an organisation with a calm, measured approach to an issue like this, and especially if they are convinced of the justice of their claim, should be able to engage in a business-like manner with the larger organisation and convince them that what they are offering will be of benefit to the larger business. If what the WHHR is offering were actually to be detrimental to the FR/WHR operation, why should the latter put their business at risk by entertaining it? Adrian, given my longevity on this forum, I trust that the proximity of your comments to mine on this thread is purely co-incidental?

Somehow I doubt that an immature organisation could have completely rebuilt the old Welsh Highland Railway. The achievement is incredible, absolutely incredible. I just cannot believe that the WHHR could have achieved this reconstruction in the manner and timescales that the FR did. As others have said, the public disagreement is very unfortunate, but to my mind the F.R. motives appear to be more business-led and with less emotion. Revenue abstraction from potential competitors is a real issue in the wider railway industry. As such, I think we should be glad that the most amazing railway restoration in the world (IMO) is in the hands of people who understand business planning and what it will take to ensure the survival of this line in uncertain economic times and beyond (not that I'm implying that the WHHR can't run a business, but I know who would get my vote). I do hope that they 'kiss and make up' in due course, but of course none of this will stop me enjoying my annual ride on the WHR main line, nor my visit to the excellent second hand book shop at the WHHR shop either!

The loco looks rather good in that light blue BP livery!

In fact, they aren't the first uncompensated wagons I've run on the DRAG facilities, although one of my 16t minerals used to derail on TT1 (but we know why that happened, don't we?!)...

One other thing I forgot to mention, is the buffer beams - they are from spare Parkside ends (mostly with the wrong sort of buffers), so essentially all that is left from the moulding is the buffer beam itself. This is due to the fact that the Parkside underframe kits don't come with seperate buffer beams (unlike the Red Panda equivilent). I was willing to sacrifice the sprung buffers on the odd wagon, in favour of the lovely Nairn Model Supplies examples...

I've now finished P4 box vans numbers 7 and 8 in the current batch build for 'Callow Lane'. These are two Bachmann insulated planked vans, which have had the Bachmann chassis completely replaced with various components from Parkside, Bill Bedford and our very own Craigwelsh of this forum. Notwithstanding the valid debate about the mouldings of the planked Bachmann vans, I had acquired a number of examples when the came out, and I wanted to use them on Callow Lane, (the OO layouts having enough box vans for my usual operating sequences). Whilst the Bachmann chassis are pretty fine, especially by the standards of only a few years ago, the conversion to P4 provides me with a number of smallish headaches, which I now prefer to solve by complete chassis replacement. On some of the vans I have converted (as opposed to having built from kits) during this batch, I have provided compensation, but I decided to build these two completely rigid, albeit with the usual pin-point bearings, and see how they perform. They have slightly more weight (60 grams) than my previous compensated or sprung examples (50 grams). During hand-powered speed trials on Callow Lane, with the route set over the sharpest turnouts, they held the track fine.... Whilst most of my P4 stock admittedly has some kind of compensation or springing, not fitting it to these two has certainly saved me some time (although I would have had to have re-thought that, had they not run OK on the layout). I have used some of the Parkside brake gear, albeit modified. Also, for the first time on my P4 rolling stock, I have used some of Craig's 10' Morton brake levers. Whilst the ratchety bit (the bit that hangs down) was very fiddly indeed to put together, they did get easier the more I did, and I have to say that I am very pleased with the result indeed. I've now completed eight of the batch of box vans, which I think is enough for now, as I really want to get back to working on the layout again...

Just seen the footage of CoT on 'Countryfile' tonight - rather sympathetic coverage of the heritage railway movement, plus some fantastic shots of CoT herself, including working the first passenger train over the re-laid Stanway Viaduct on the Glos & Warwicks line....

Having (a) done this myself (lamping) on a heritage railway and (B) managed a lampman as part of a former job, I know that it would cost more in labour and time than it would save in lamp oil. I like the idea of a Sectional Appendix entry covering Callow Lane, indicating that the lamps aren't illuminated on winter nights might be quite amusing..... Anyway, I'll still probably fit them with LEDs, just to see how difficult it is! Dave - one thing you mentioned was 'LED paint' - not something I've heard of before - presumably straightforward to get hold of?

Actually, Tim makes a stonkingly valid point here - it is more than likely that this out-of-the-way goods yard wouldn't have had the signals lit, let alone operate during the hours of darkness, although I suppose some operation might have been possible after dark during winter. Still not decided whether to fit lamps or not, but I kind of want to do at least one signal, if only to prove that I've done it!

OK, fair enough - I might look at these nanobots a bit closer, but I'll probably try one of the LEDs that I already have in one of the signals. Thanks for everyone's comments!

Right - didn't realise there was any conventional bulb small enough to fit inside a 4mm lamp housing?

Thanks for the link - these look rather promising... I will admit to not having really thought much about the brightness - so are you recommending that it would be better not to illuminate the signals at all, Dave? Or is there an alternative to the LED that would do the job? (what about these Nano thingeys in the above link?).

I am probably going to make a start on the running signals for Callow Lane soon. They will be built from MSE and Alan Gibson components. Like my previous layouts, these signals will be built as working models, using some kind of motor (probably Hoffman point motors). Unlike my previous layouts, I plan to illuminate these signals, using some small LEDs I've already bought. The idea is to wire them up into the structure of the signal. This bit is not the problem, but the purpose of this request for information concerns how to disguise the LED as a signal lamp on the post? I had thoughts of moulding Milliput around the LED, but I'm not sure how easy or effective this will be. Is it practical to drill out a whitemetal signal lamp and glue the LED in there? How have other people achieved this - I'd be grateful for your suggestions. Many thanks.

Very nice job you've done there - is that the Hornby 8F chassis underneath, by the way? In which case, which is the body?

Well, there's a thing..... Me, good taste??!!

The History Revisionists in Somerset are going to be busy in the near future.... Co-Bos at Shepton Mallett, 1500v DC on the Highbridge branch, Blue Pullmans at Radstock, whatever next??!! Whatever next, I say!!

I picked up a new grey one today, running number is B951504, which I trust is correct... A little bit of work on the handrails, perhaps, and a conversion to P4 using Masokits sprung whatsits to fit inside the frames, and the job's a good 'un, I reckon!