sulzer27jd

Interesting option. I never thought about laser cutting. I will watch with interest.

13 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

As with Tarragona, I intend the dock area to be served by diesel locomotives, so only the main station area, and the 2 lower sidings will be electrified as far as the bridge.

What are you thinking about with regards electrification? I have been wrestling with this for some time. The supply of catenary is extremely challenging with 87Trains now the last remaining manufacturer and not everything they show in their catalogue is available. Their posts are beautifully made and are very fine but I'm not convinced by their cable (I don't mind it being non-operational, it just doesn't seem the best solution). Their range is also limited with no double headed posts for example so even something simple like a turnout causes problems. I was thinking about diesel only but I have some electrics and few modern diesels are available.

It's caused me to put my project on a back burner until I can work out solutions.

John

The unions were offered the opportunity to put in a joint employee bid to run Scotrail. Not the last franchise but the one prior to that. They could not agree it it between the three of them, so the chance was missed.

Nice use of photos to  create the back scene.

John

22 minutes ago, robmcg said:

Are the 8 from 12 rejects broken badly?  Irreparable?  Not that a buyer should accept anything faulty.

 Valve gear problems, motor/gear issues and shorting electrics apparently. 

Local supplier with 8 faulty locos out of a batch of 12. Hornby’s quality control seems to be non-existent. Do they have a disaster on their hands with these?

I had a package arrive from Zaratren in Zaragoza this week. Tax was taken at their end and the shipping was free. The total was around 140€ so under the £135 threshold and I had no additional fees to pay at this end. All in all the service was excellent.

I especially like this shop because they understand my Spanish when I e-mail them and are really helpful. So I'm pleased this weeks arrival. I don't know what the process will be like if the order is over the threshold.

John

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here Nick but a brick retaining wall would most likely be built in Scottish Garden Wall bond, that is, 5 stretcher courses to 1 header. 

John

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

The TSSA's General Secretary could not resist making a sarcastic comment on this news: 'Manuel Cortes said “This announcement is long overdue – much like many ScotRail trains were whilst Abellio was in charge'. 

 

 

 The TSSA along with the other trades unions had an opportunity to put forward a combined employee bid ahead of the previous franchise process but they, collectively, were more interested in playing constitutional and party politics than looking after their members interests. The fact that the ASLEF rep was on the Labour Party national executive and the RMT rep was either still or had just left a similar post and was in with the woodwork at the STUC meant that they simply would not consider working with the SNP. The ultimate democratic solution is to convert Scotrail into an employee owned cooperative.

I really like this idea and how you are developing it. When I started Balbeggie Sidings the original concept was just a long stretch of mainline, although there was to be a level crossing as a focal point. This was a throwback to many hours spend at places like Longforgan, with the pleasure of hearing the signal box bell codes, semiphores being pulled and gates opening and closing. As I built it though I added the extra sidings and yard in order to give "operational interest." The really  interesting thing was that when I operated the layout I either ran the mainline (including the loops) or I shunted the little yard. I found, that for me, it was one thing or the other and I didn't need the extra bits to add operational interest when I was running the mainline.

What you have done here is quite brave, in that you have dispensed with all of the other things that generally modellers want to add in such as stations, yards and sheds and are letting the railway tell its story. I really like this idea. For the most part, outside of towns and cities, we see the railway in this type of setting far more than we probably realise. There are miles and miles of open line that are rarely modelled because modellers think of the bits between stations as a bit boring.

I, for one, would like to sit back at your bit of mainline and simply watch the trains go past. I am looking forward to this layout developing further. 

John

I found The Man in the High Castle to be a very enjoyable series, available on Prime.

John

53 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Surely one of the things that Grenfell showed was the importance of being able to evacuate the whole building in the event of a fire in any one unit, as they can so easily spread to another? So why on earth would you not mandate alarms in communal areas?

 Grenfell was and hopefully will remain unique. The fire spread was outside of the structure. In a multi storey block the safest place remains within your compartment unless directed otherwise by the fire & rescue service. 

Thanks John. Dismantling the boards won't be a regular occurrence, I really just want to build in the ability to move them.

Cheers

I'm looking for some advice on the best way to deal with overhead power lines and baseboard joints. The Sommerfeldt description states that it "is recommended only for permanent and stable layouts." Is there a way to adapt it in order to split boards for transportation?

Any help appreciated

John

Newcastle to Margate TO sets XC61 and 62

BG (NAV)

5x SK

BSK

4x SK

Mk1 VAC

These worked a variety of duties to Margate, Torquay, Newquay, Portsmouth and Eastbourne.

John 

The Carriage Working Notice (Loco Operated Trains) has the Parcels train as;

Victoria 3.10 - Platform 8

1 BSK (MO)

1 BSK

1 BG

1 B

1 GUV

1 GUV - for Dover Priory

2 BG - for Dover Priory

1 BG - Sheerness on Sea

The Newcastle set is listed as being 1 BG plus 10 ER Coaches

John

On 15/02/2021 at 21:21, Compound2632 said:

 

I've had a look through the available GNoSR accident reports - most are there for the 1880s but not after that. Again, a good few mixed trains, marshalled the same way as those HR ones with the carriages at the rear. The accidents are spread around the GNoSR network. I was quite surprised that for such a small line, virtually all the wagons mentioned were from the home company - I came across just one CR and one NBR wagon; no HR ones. Coal was being conveyed in GNoSR wagons, so I suppose this was coming in to Aberdeen by sea.

 

Maj. Marindin's report on the accident at Kintore on 11 September 1888 includes a table giving details of the loads, destinations, and points of origin of all the wagons in one portion of the train. Of these twelve, eight were carrying coal, including one NBR wagon - the only one not originating from Waterloo. The remainder were one each of lime, grain, casks of oil, and "general". 

One other consideration might be the relationship between private trader wagons and the CR and NB. There were around 30 private traders on the GNSR system but their wagons were registered with either the Caledonian or the NB. Other private traders coming onto the GNSR system from the Scottish coal fields for example would also be regarded as either Caledonian or NB wagons as it was they who held the registrations for them. 

For the modeller this means that a wagon listed as CR or NB may not have either railway company livery but instead be in the livery of the trader.

John

On 14/02/2021 at 23:47, ianathompson said:

 

I find the whole question of shunting time allowances to be interesting.

My Great North of Scotland Railway facsimilie WTT for summer 1911 appears to make no provision for shunting  at all.

Looking at the Macduff branch, as my imagined lines branch off at Turriff, the goods train gets roughly the same timings as a passenger train.

The lack of shunting time seems to have been quite a commom practice in the pre Grouping WTTs that I have seen (mainly published in line histories).

 

I assume that the timings were advisory and that the trains did not keep to them, nor were they expected to.

By implication the timings shown were the very earliest time that a goods train could possible reach a given station.

The relevant staff, including signalmen and  PW track walkers, would presumably know to keep an eye out for its imminent passing once this time had gone by.

I also assume that the goods trains went forward to the next station when it was convenient, provided that they did not delay passenger trains.

 

Reverting to my main interest, the AFK, which may not be strictly relevant here, I run freight trains on the model on the basis outlined in the second paragraph.

Trains are, however, booked a reasonable time for station work but if traffic is light they run early.

If there is a lot of traffic to be dealt with they run late and keep out of the way of more important trains.

 

Ian T

Ian do you have access to the 1914 WTT? There seems to be more of a separation of timings for goods workings as well as clear indications for when train cross at stations. 

There are also specific notes on arranging of 'waggons' in order to avoid further shunting, exchanging with Caledonian and NB which are helpful to the modeller.

The main pick-up appears to be the 9.20 am from Macduff which is timed into Turriff at 10.02 and allowed 11 minutes to shunt. A further note instructs small consignments for the NB route to be placed into wagons for Aberdeen NB or returning empty NB wagons. There is no corresponding instruction for the other connecting railways.

John

On 15/02/2021 at 06:29, Compound2632 said:

 

But passenger timings were never exactly brisk on the Great North, were they?

Don't fall into the trap of considering a small railway to be inefficient. The GNSR ran a very effective timetable including a mainline and suburban services. Like most railways at the time the running of branch lines was done at a pace that today we may consider to be leisurely.

There are a number of images available on the Scottish Line Society archive, which is accessible via any of the line societies. 

John

Woodland Scenics Medium Ballast, which is their HO range, used in 7mm. Johnston's Klear was used to fix it. 

John

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Very strictly speaking, both side brake levers.

Indeed so.

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The change to either side brakes would have been critically important in brining about that difference.

I’m not trying to be picky but the change was to Both Side brakes and away from Either Side. At least as that was understood in the language used in the early 1900’s. 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The committee members were not in a position to make a technical assessment of the merits of individual braking systems, nor would it have been deemed proper for them to make a recommendation in favour of one - this would have been seen as stifling competition. As with continuous brakes: the brake must meet the functionality criteria, whether it's Westinghouse or vacuum (or something else) is a commercial decision.

Agree but the point I am trying to make is that if you want to make the maximum reduction in accidents, with the minimum delay, in a world of single sided braked wagons, You opt to put manual brakes on both sides. You do not need to go beyond that and into the complications of ‘either side’ apply and release. 
 

I also sought to clarify that there was no ban on either side brake arrangements, only a requirement that they meet BoT approval. 1911 rules, schedule 1 point 5. 
 

john