The Stationmaster

Lots of prototype info here too -

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/49734-gwr-8-coupled-tank-engines/

Blimey Dave - the hedgerow looks as good as the trains (and signals) - smashing stuff.

Lovely stuff Dave - great to see it all coming to life.

Absolutely delectable Dave

PS  Smashing range of kits too, including a very British looking signalbox - thanks for the link.

Lovely. Now all you need is a footbridge to go next to it Al

Cor that wall at Radyr - if it's the one alongside the lane off Radyr Court Road? - has got distinctly 'greener' in the past 40 years!

Anyway the model looks great Dave - the layout is coming along very nicely.

Lovely stuff Al  - I must get round to opening the boxes one day as i think I've now collected most of the bits

Al engine and train looked great - as expected with anything you produce, luvverly stuff.

But I was counting 6 beats to the revolution on the first couple of runs (the really slow ones) but getting when it went away with the train - anything to account for that (apart from my age)?

Lovely stuff Al.  Now have I got Tony's DVD because it - and your blog - could come in rather handy

Very useful Al - all I need to do know is establish a nice usable workspace somewhere in the house, find my Wills bodykit, dig out the SEF cahssis ands sundry bits recently acquired and try to put mine together.  I think I'll start here reading yours up before getting down to mine.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder if the next 'detail' will be a third rail !!!  (does quite pretty tho' Al - for a Southern engine)

Lovely stuff Dave.

Now slabs - I recently measured some GWR/WR concrete replacement slabs, the sort that went in to replace original stone slabs, and they were 4ft x 2ft 3" x 3"thick.  I have feeling that the original stone slabs were probably a bit smaller but not by too much and were a bit thinner but it's a long time since I saw any.   The concrete slabs would, of course, be far too modern for you.

cheers,

That'll look nice in lined green with a copper cap on the chimney.  But seriously (sorry, I was being serious anyway) that is a most impressive job Al.

Dave,

The signal which you have modelled - rather nicely - is effectively a splitting signal (junction signal) because it has two arms of equal status one above the other.  In such a signal the topmost arm reads to the route furthest to the left and the lowest arm reads to the route furthest to the right.  Thus in you location the top arm reads to the spur and the lower arm reads out onto the main line.

So we now have to solve the little problem you might have created for yourself - perhaps.  There are two solutions -

1.  not entirely elegant but we simply assume the signal applies to both lines running into the slip.  The signal is not really in the best place to convey that message to a casual observer but it's a possibility and prototype examples did exist.

2. We assume - as I did - that the signal applies to the line from which the train departed and in view of space constraints you put in a ground signal for the other line (or you do that the opposite way round).

No.2 is probably the better solution but to get the best answer you'll need to remind me - perhaps with a  small layout sketch - the purpose of the two lines converging on the double slip.p

Hope this helps rather than confounds.  (BTW I can't remember the detail  but I thought we sorted this at Taunton?)

regards,  Mike

Top to bottom, left to right

Superb - really capturing the feel of the location

Ooh, it's a very long time since I had a trip in one of them (actually the BEA passenger version thereof) and I spent most of the time being sick (sorry) but it does capture the old lady rather well and I still get to see the BoB Flight one not infrequently passing our way.  Interesting change from - dare i say it - proper modelling, I look forward to the full liveried appearance.

Looks much more believable now Al - very nice.  And the overbridge is fairly timeless anyway form the late 19th century onwards.

Ian,

Following what seem to have been usual GWR practice there would be no need for a disc at 5 as it is in effect 'plain line' for a shunt back through No 10 crossover (to pull 10 would require 5 reverse as would the Shunt Ahead subsidiary).

11 is something rather different and I'm really going to try to get to its purpose before anything else.  However if it was provided (read on) it would be co-located with the running signal (13) with both at the point toe on probably the left of the line and point 12 would havea  lock bar through teh point instead of lying in rear of the point toe.

But more important is the purpose of 11.  Normally the yard would be shunted by an Up train as it is a trailing move and, similarly to the other end in some respects the disc would be at the toe of 7 as it would require 12 reverse to release it - thus ensuring 12 is effectively 'plain line' for such moves and therefore doesn't need a ground signal.  However you seem to want to shunt the yard with a Down train which means running round - a signalled move - then picking up off the rear of the Down loop (could be handsignalled) then setting back off the Down Loop towards the right (therefore needs a ground signal) then reversing towards either the yard - a disc at 12 requiring both 12 & 7 reverse (and potentially - depending on period) a double disc with the other arm reading to the Up Loop requiring 12 reverse and locking 7.

Hope this helps rather than confuses or confounds.

Mike

Pretty good and no really worrying errors which is a great start.  But it does possibly need some GWification (if layout space and 'roominess' allows) plus some notes on things relevant to teh period you are modelling.

1. It might just be a matter of the way it is drawn but the Up Home should be at the toe of the points or in rear of the facing point locking bar for those points.  Equally the Down Home needs to be similarly positioned in relation to its facing point and point locking bar.

2. I think to make the track layout a little more realistic it might be useful to turn the diamond into a single slip thus creating a crossover between the Up & Down loop lines - so you would need an extra ground signal to go with that alteration.

3. Depending on the distance between the connections I would also be inclined to provide an additional stop signal to protect the trailing connection in the lower loop - the GWR tended to be rather prolific with stop signals in that respect. 

4. Similarly I could see a situation where a further stop signal is provided on the Up loop to protect the connection from the sidings - however here again you need to think about avoiding a forest of signals so providing this one really depends on the lengths you have to play with for your loops.  Technically the absence of this signal makes the matter of block working acceptances potentially a little bit awkward but the Up Starter could double for it in that respect

5. Now the interesting question of of signaling the yard connections at the right hand end.  Firstly the exit signal from the yard would have been required to be a semaphore (complete with a  ring on the arm) and not a shunting signal at that time - it being slightly different from going the other way, however there were ground shunting signals used for such connections in contemporaneous installations and the choice is yours.  More interesting is shunting back in and here you need to apply a little bit of lateral thinking to understand how it would be signalled - the shunting would be carried out by a  train travelling from left to right, i.e an Up train, therefore the connection where the loops become the single line is bound to be set for the upper (Up) loop for the train to arrive ready to shunt and while it shunts - so no need for a ground shunting signal.  However the next point, which effectively is the connection from the Upt loop to the sidings would have a ground shunting signal because it s a trailing point in the Up loop - I hope that makes sense.

Only problem with it visually is that you've got a right angle bend in the operating rod from the water valve in the cab.  Easily solved by using a straight piece of wire and moving the actual valve higher (as it would in any case be seated on the bottom of the tank).

Having gone to a lot of trouble making it I think it would be a shame if  it didn't look totally right and everything else looks spot on.

If you want I can post a couple of pics which show the detail of an injector and the relevant part of the inside of the cab on a 1366 although it has the clacks on the backhead instead of a top feed so the pipework to them follows a different route.

On yours - if you want super accuracy you need a straight rod (not a pipe with a bend in it) from the cab to the water valve just below the tank.  On the 1366 this rod is above the feed to the clack so doesn't need to be cranked or bent but the 74XX could be different.

Also the steam feed pipe and the water feed into the injector are opposite each other and not at an angle - steam at the top and water coming in from underneath and it seems to be exactly the same on all the 74Xx pictures that I can find showing a decent view of an injector although the route of the steam feed from the cab front sheet varies.

Magnifique!

A good many years ago I made GWR lamp brackets, which require bends in different planes, by using the thinner gauge of florists wire beaten flat (carefully and consistently ) so that each bend was made on a the original round part of the wire and then flattened.  The other advantage was that I could keep a 'tail' of round wire to insert in the hole drilled for mounting the lamp bracket.

MY eyes were much better then and my hands were a lot steadier so i don't know if I could repeat the method today but the results didn't look too bad and the soft iron wire seemed to be remarkably averse to damage once the hammering flat had work hardened it.