Bloodnok

I think the problem is not just the reduced height in our loading gauge, but the restricted width at the bottom because of our high platforms.

 

This is of course not the first time this topic has come up on RMWeb...

We also have a third issue in the well length between bogies. Taking a Mk3 coach as a pattern, the available space between the bogies is only about half the length of the coach, which means once you add two sets of stairs, you're not actually getting much extra capacity per train length versus plain single deck coaches.

 

The fix for that is instead of using the bogie pattern of the Mk3, start with a shared bogie platform. I've heard suggestions of something like a CARTIC-4 as a base outline (and exploting the small wheels for a lower main floor throughout), but that implies a restriction to only lower speed operations, which feel more thematic to run as single deck with loads of standing space.

 

So I picked the APT bogie centers when I had a go, looking at longer distance work. With the twin pivots and balancing overhang (there's a lot that's ridiculously clever about the APT design...) that gives a much, much longer well space than anything else.

 

However, I still had issues getting it into a sensible loading gauge. The below is W6, which gives 3.965m height from railhead to the top of the coach, and a usefully wide well between the bogies which can still fit 2+2 seating comfortably. The top deck feels very ... tube-train like, and the lower deck also has to have very restricted height clearance, too.

 

This is how far I got along these lines (image dates from 2005):

 

 

I experimented for a while with staggered aisles and a non-flat intermediate floor (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbridge_double-deck_bus for the kind of thing I mean), but eventually decided that a flat floor was probably better for both structural rigidity and the avoidance of trip and head-bump injuries. Remember that unlike the bus, the upper floor walkway absolutely has to be in the middle -- it cannot be at the edge. It is the lower floor walkway that must be put at the edge.

 

I had thought the best treatment of the upper area would probably be to put a bench seat continuously down one wall over where the extra head-space for the walkaway was below. This would disguise the non-flat floor almost entirely, albeit at the cost of some seated capacity upstairs.

 

On the lower floor, a slight duck might be necessary to access the seating from an edge corridor, as the roof would be lower over the seats.

 

After a brief bit of "I wonder how that would look with compartment doors..." nostalgia, I decided in the end that the loading gauge would have to go up by approximately ~20cm to allow for a flat floor.

 

After briefly experimenting with a roof profile similar to an american Bombardier Bi-Level coach, I decided instead to keep the roof-line smooth at the higher level, and this then gave me something that starts to look like this (Image dates from 2011):

 

 

Starting to look a bit more continental in pattern IMHO.

 

Also note the switch to longer windows for those who were using them as a length reference -- and they'd not been cut in yet because I was still tweaking the layout and position of doors and windows when I essentially gave up on this project.

 

Despite the fact the windows and doors aren't cut yet, it does actually have an interior with seats in it (donated from an original Mk3 temporarily to check for size references). Using these at a similar pitch and in a mostly-airline configuration gave a seated capacity of around ~124 in each vehicle. A respectable and worthwhile increase over ~80 from an all-airline Mk3.

 

Add in toilets and HVAC and so on to each vehicle and you'd have to be very creative not to lose some seats. You've also got to watch axle loading here - remember the intermediate vehicle is effectively on just two axles. There's enough space to make the shared bogie a three axle one, although that departs slightly from how the APT would have run, but it might have been a necessary change to cope with axle loading.

 

Then you get the requirement to cater for disabled access, including the provision of a disabled toilet, which would probably force one entire vehicle somewhere to be single-deck throughout. I'd planned one end vehicle would cope with this, but to be honest would probably end up being both.

 

And if you wanted it to be an EMU rather than loco hauled ... good luck finding anywhere to put power equipment along the train.

 

Ditto a catering car -- that's a challenge that would probably require going to single deck, too.

 

If you've then got three single deck vehicles in an EMU with perhaps five cars total, that leaves only two double deck trailers. Not a lot of extra seats per service.

 

I can certainly understand why this hasn't been done within the UK loading gauge before...

I'm not sure how well that could be modelled if one set out to do it from scratch as opposed to removing what was already there as per prototype.

If someone sets out to reproduce this by planning it in as a first class element during layout design it shouldn't be a problem to re-create. It shouldn't need actual track to be laid then lifted -- it should be sufficient to do that in the plan only.

 

The issue we see all too often is when a decision is made to introduce a section of removed track at the scenery stage, after the plan was finalised and the track is laid. There's always a tell. A curve that would be too tight. Junctions with impossible geometry or too little space. A clearance issue with a bridge or retaining wall. Something like that.

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but do we know any more about the DCC Concepts (Legacy Models?) points yet? I'm looking for layout planning type information - approximate length of point, departure angle, etc...

Why does it "suit Bachmann" when it's not Bachmann?

 

So that it shows up in the search results when someone searches for "Bachmann 37".

Unless anyone can think of any other ideas.

 

First thought would be to support the inner cut end with a new leg from below - coming up just inside the helix. Scenic treatment of the above-baseboard solution could be a bit of a challenge right in front of that level crossing...

Thanks Adrian, not sure if that will work for DCC,

Generally this is done by removing the connections between the blades and the frog, and instead bonding the blades to the adjacent stock rails. The polarity of the frog is then switched separately. This means any under-gauge wheels that happen to touch the blade won't cause a short. (Note: this isn't a DCC specific problem, you can see it with analogue control too, just that the effects are contained to a single loco).

 

but could use a Peco microswitch attached to the tie bar to change the frog polarity.

... or just use the DPDT switches (which already have double the number of contacts needed to do the job) which have been used at the other end of the tube in this example?

and a shot of my AL5 in a similar position

85.JPG

 

... and when are the wires going up on the model?

For me, one of the most fascinating aspects of this thread has been the range of interpretations of and suggestions for Gordon's plans. However, this debate could last several more years and I suspect there are many like me who are looking forward to the project progressing to lots of trains running.

 

Yes, I've been fascinated by the range of suggestions, and how some make the cut, and others don't...

 

There is also an important lesson in here for those of us like me who can plan for ages and never actually build anything - at some point, the plan must be considered finished, a commitment needs to be made, and wood needs to be cut. A working railway with some compromises in it is better than the ultimate perfect plan that hasn't been built yet...

In view of the fact that the A5T is designed to run on gas oil, I'm surprised it hasn't been designed as a cab forward.

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

 

No - it's designed to "look like a steam loco" to the general public. Certain potential improvements have been thrown out because they would require a change in appearance away from what the public thinks a steam loco looks like. A cab-forward arrangement would significantly affect the appearance, so would most likely be rejected on those grounds.

I think we've just found the secret to Jim's prolific output - if I lay off the beer, maybe I'll get more done!!!

 

Doesn't always work like that - I don't drink, and I'm still prevaricating about my layout rather than getting on with it

Under ROGS any previous enabling Acts and Orders continue to have effect - thus if a railway was granted a Light Railway Order the terms of that Order still apply.

 

Absolutely. But as I understand it, no new Light Railway Orders have been granted since 1993, and there are several preserved railways now running on a TWO rather than an LRO.

(Snip details of just how complicated the process is)

 

And in most cases I would suggest that it would be a waste of time and money unless - as in the case of the GCR for example - the Railway is able to derive some commercial benefit from running at higher speed (which is very unlikely to be even considered for regular services in my view).

 

There is a lot of work involved, and the use of a "competent person" at many of the stages means it will be an expensive procedure. Most preserved railways would never recoup the cost.

It would be a mistake to do all that work without knowing that a.) there is a benefit to achieve, i.e. some additional revenue that could be obtained, and b.) that there is a reasonable chance of success.

Several of the larger preserved railways seem to have done this - I know the SVR and the GCR have both operated at higher speeds (but not in passenger service).

 

I can't remember which railway it was that did the study I am remembering, but I do recall that they did do research into potential ridership. They were in the relatively unusual position of having genuine traffic to tap into - a lot of preserved railways are preserved precisely because there isn't much if any traffic for them...

The GCR makes money mainline testing - 37 255 takes wagons at 60mph up and down the mainline at times for testing! The advantage the GCR has is that it is a 'mainline' in terms of alignment so it was designed for higher speeds.

 

While mainline alignment is undoubtedly an advantage, the typical branch line alignment is good enough for more than 25mph. The report I read said 40mph was the required speed to become competitive - and I'd expect most branchlines to be able to match that over much of the alignment.

 

I don't think there's anything stopping a TOC running over a heritage line to extend a service!

 

If we ever see something like that, I'd say it's more likely to be an open access operator - TOCs are rather tied down to their franchise commitments. It is not unknown to see the service pattern and rolling stock as part of the franchise spec - leaving very little room for extra services.

With reagrds the NYMR's Whitby service being there for the community - what happens if someone in Pickering wants to travel on a Tuesday in February? The railway isn't running then. Plus the train takes and hour and a half, Yorkshire Coastliner will get you there in an hour, and out of season too, and the car will do it in much less than that too if it's quiet and for less than the £21.00 fare on the NYMR.

 

Hertiage railways are tourist attractions; they may add to their communities economies but they aren't there to serve local passengers. Tourists, daytrippers and holidaymakers are the target groups; these people are happy to pay £21 for an adult fare and take three times longer on the train than in the car. For them it's about the overall expereince and not just a means of travel.

 

A preserved / heritage railway is best viewed as a destination, rather than as transport. People go to the railway. They might get off at a few different stations and wander about for a bit, but the purpose of the trip is to visit the railway. It is not a form of transport (where the purpose of the trip is to visit something else, and the train is the method of getting there).

 

The only railway I know that operates a regular transport service as well as being a tourist attraction is the RH&DR. It's been a tourist attraction since the day it was built, so I'm not entirely sure it can be classed as "preserved", but it does operate a year round diesel hauled service, and even has a contract to provide school transportation.

 

I don't know of a standard gauge preserved railway that has successfully provided a transport service. I distinctly remember reading a study somewhere written by a railway that considered it. They concluded that 25mph was insufficient to provide a worthwhile service, and that 40mph would be required. IIRC the study was based on using a DMU and selling tickets on the train to minimise required personell. I don't recall the study looking into any possibility of actually running faster than 25mph - it was considered an immovable obstacle.

 

The question then, is "why 25mph?".

 

The standard answer is "The Light Railway Order". The legislation that introduced LRO's dates from 1898. The legislation allowed "Light Railways" to be built with significantly lower track standards. The 25mph speed restriction was imposed to allow for the lower track standard.

 

However, Light Railway Orders were made obsolete in 1993 - anything since then has been done under the Transport & Works Act (1992) via a Transport Works Order. This contains no such stipulation about speed. Quite a few preserved railways already have TWOs. Some of these already run at higher speeds - but never for passenger carrying trains, and most only while closed. I'm not sure exactly what the restrictions are that are causing this, but it's certainly not the track standards imposing the restriction any more.

 

As far as I can make out, it's a case of doing a risk assessment, writing the relevant legal paperwork, and submitting it to the right place. It has been suggested that 40mph would be achievable with the provision of secondary door locking and working AWS, but to date no preserved railway has felt it important enough to do the risk assessment, engage the lawyer and prepare the paperwork...

Good point. I don't think I've even heard of anyone modelling an actual preserved/heritage line that exists in 12" to 1' scale, with all the right carriages and locos. Imagine trying to model the Bluebell Railway accurately...

 

Can't vouch for accuracy, what with not having been to the bluebell recently (having moved to Australia it's a bit of a trek for me now), but have a look in this thread

There's a huge difference between modelling a real preserved railway and creating a fictional preserved line.

 

Modelling a real location on a real preserved line (with the locos and stock that are actually operated there) is just as much a challenge as doing the same with any other railway line anywhere in the world.

There will generally be a lot of variety, particularly in locomotives - including things not seen together outside of preservation, in liveries which are decades apart. You also see locos that would not have hauled passenger trains in revenue service, hauling passenger trains. What you don't see is operational freight trains, nor anything running quickly - as far as I am aware, no British preserved line has permission to operate at above 25mph, despite several having pway which has been judged up to standard for 55mph operation (and being permitted to operate at this speed while closed to the public).

This type of model would be fascinating to create, but also hard. Managing to get a model of each of the locos that are present, in the right condition and livery, would be a serious challenge. There would be a lot of kitbuilding, kitbashing and probably some scratchbuilding involved. The coaching stock may well be easier - a lot of it is BR Mk1, after all, and those are fairly well catered for in RTR, though modifications may need to be made for an accurate model of the vehicle in question. Then there's all the random stuff, quite often in a state of disrepair, that is to be found lurking around. I haven't seen a preserved railway yet which doesn't have at least one vehicle with a tarpaulin lashed over the roof. This kind of stuff will require lots of heavy weathering and modifications.

 

In essence, doing it properly is hard. And it's going to be nearly as hard to get this atmosphere in a fictional setting too - you can eliminate the scratchbuilding element, but you'll still be kitbuilding ex-industrial locos, making restoration project coaches with exposed frames and bits of tarp, and having all the same weathering challenges.

 

Unfortunately, the words "fictional preserved line" have a rather different image associated with them. The image that appears in my head when I hear "fictional preserved line" is that of: Pick from whatever you like off the shelf RTR, don't weather it ("Because the society keeps it clean"), and match it with a short train of any coaching stock you want, also unweathered. Operate said line in an unprototypical way, on an unprototypical track layout. In other words, it's a train set. It gets better though - the people I've encountered who claim to have a "fictional model of a preserved railway" are using "It's a preserved line" to try to explain away faux-pas that real preserved lines couldn't even dream of getting away with. One example I've seen had several 66s running "in" and "out" of the preserved line on freight (and without stopping), and a variety of DMUs operated by several different TOCs, up to and including long distance types, running right into the societies main platform - including operating through services, apparently, as they'd come and go from both sides. That isn't a model of a fictional preserved railway, it's a train set, with all the trains the owner likes on it. (And described as a train set, it really is a great one. But a model of a fictional preserved line it isn't.)

 

Consider this: after all that work doing a fictional preserved line properly, you'll have a bunch of people read those three words and dismiss it out of hand like it's one of the latter type, and the people who actually have one of the latter type will be thinking "Just like mine". Nope, doesn't sound appealing any more. Far easier to model a fictional slice of service railway instead...

why they didn't go for that type of design on the prototype i will never know. IMO it looks better and holds a better practicality

 

Probably cost. IIRC the objective of the 14x series was low cost - both to build and to operate. Using the suspension arrangement they did probably saved them a lot of money and weight - and lower weight will mean less fuel and thus hopefully lower operating costs.

(Random note: IIRC the suspension arrangement used was developed on HSFV1, which has recently been found and preserved, having previously been assumed scrapped!)

 

If they were going to build a conventional bogie passenger vehicle at the time the 14x series were introduced, I'd expect it would have looked a lot more like a 153, only maybe with two cabs the same size, rather than the large and small that the 153 ended up with.

It's interesting to think about what might have happened had the proposed buyout occurred. IIRC a group of Japanese businessmen wanted to buy 'lines west' shortly after closure. The plan was to turn it into an express freight route - taking containers from ships arriving on the west coast straight across the mountains. Dropping all other service along the line, and as a result of this (and fixing the track!) having the fastest shipping time across the mountains of any railroad. Apparently, a major factor in why this didn't go ahead was the anti-Japanese sentiment in the US at the time.

Obvious diesel-era "What-if" would be if internal BR politics hadn't cut short the WR's foray into diesel-hydraulic traction. We'd have seen more Westerns and Hymeks, with the equivalent reduction in the numbers of 37s and 47s. The 50s quite possibly are never even built.

 

I think that last one's a bit of a misnomer - to get the 50s never built, you need to bring the electrification of the northern stretch of the WCML and the 87s earlier, as the 50s were built for this line, and transferred to the WR later.

 

In that scenario, the National Traction Plan would probably not have resulted in the early elimination of either the Hymeks or Westerns, and it's quite likely that at least the Swindon-built Warships would have lasted a few years longer as well. Possibly all three classes get air-braked, and some Hymeks and Westerns might have gone ETH. Warships would have been like the 40s, largely confined to freight except on summer Saturdays. Pairs of 42s on Freightliners, anyone?

 

If you are going to airbrake and ETH the Westerns (airbraking fair enough, but ETH? On a hydraulic? How exactly?) and planning to keep them on later may have meant the 50s get transferred somewhere else. I'd hazard a guess at the ECML - not as a replacement to the Deltics, but to release other locos on passenger work onto freight.

 

(50s have the edge over 47s on passenger work, but 47s have higher tractive effort, which is key to freight performance).

 

OTOH, my 'what if' in this territory is what if the westerns had been airbrake converted and deboilered for freight usage. Westerns have high tractive effort, so would make good dedicated freight locos, particularly with a spot of re-gearing. At about the point westerns were being run down, BR was desperate for heavy freight locos (hence the rush job order for 56s), so it's not too far a stretch to see them cascaded onto freight en masse...

 

Either of these options would mean less rush on the 56 order, so probably significantly less 56s. This may have subsequently meant a larger order for 58s.

 

I'm trying to come up with a circumstance where the proposed class 38 would actually have been built. Unfortunately, even with a lot fewer 37s around, I can't see it - it would mean more 56s or 58s built and deployed on trains that used two or even three 37s, and cascading these 37s down where the 38 would slot in. What you really need to do to justify this is slow down or better still reverse the trend to shed wagonload traffic to road, which is rather hard to justify...

Area riddled with un-mapped mine workings - One house a couple of streets away 'fell down' in a heap of rubble about 4 years ago.

Whilst the pics seem to indicate an OK area, strongly advise that anyone does a check in person, on several days , locally it has a very suspect reputation..

 

Google street view seems to confirm this. If I've identified the house correctly, then to the right is a detached house, and on the right of that is a pair of semis with boarded up windows and doors, and some very very hefty looking bits of wood holding the left hand side up. Given that this one is leaning right, and that one is leaning left, I'd also be very suspicious of the detached house in the middle, too...

Busy layout!

Looks good. Interesting buildings. Nice to see a few Vacs too.

I don't know if you're aware but 50050 shouldn't have the horizontal handrails. It was built without them for some reason.

 

50050 was the first class 50 built (originally D400). It's probably something that got revised in the design after the first one

Was it parcels or mail? I'm working from a very dim memory here but I recall reading about the idea that hauling bulk mail at 125mph and sorting at the destination would be cheaper and more efficient than building new TPOs and sorting en route at 90mph.

 

I'm sure it was parcels - though now I think of it, it's a lot more likely to have been mail, as it was at about the time the TPOs were up for replacement...

A Mk3 one would be interesting too . I suspect it would have been shorter than a standard Mk3 in a similar manner to the shorter M3 based EMUs

 

Depends when you postulate it being built. IIRC there was a rumour spreading at one point that redundant Mk3 sleepers were going to be converted into 125mph parcels vehicles (to run with Cl67s). Obviously as conversions, these wouldn't be shorter...

I take it you mean my scratch built loco, based on a Tomix chassis, and plasticard. I haven't fully finished it yet, it needs a cab interior at each end, and glazing. The body is based on a combination of class 60, 56, and 66 locos, with early BR diesel 'speed whiskers'. I'm still in two minds as to whether or not to change the paint scheme from works grey to Deltic blue. I'm also thinking about nameplates, as I've tentatively named it 'Uhu', which is German for 'Owl' and so follows the BR practise of prototypes being named after birds (with the exception of Deltic!)

 

I'm also thinking about having a crack at another one, possibly a different shape though.

 

And here was me thinking it was inspired by this:

 

It is funny as I am planning to use clear plasticard and spray it but hadn’t thought about leaving it so that you could see through!

 

I'd be tempted to leave lots of large "windows" of clear material in the roof, potentially something like 75% of the surface area. I know in real life they get covered in crap and are therefore not useful at all to look through, but with such a large and impressive depot, I'd want to be able to see inside the shed, and peeking in through the doors, as nice as that will be, won't quite cut it.

 

The roof should still be removable for other reasons - like attending to detail inside, when it's suffered the attentions of an errant loco. Or rescuing the loco, for that matter...

Yes the main track work is SMP flexi with all the point work hand made by the usual method of copper clad construction, hence the score marks. Dont uderstand your comments over the point blades? They are made just normally by filing down the rail both in the main rail and the blades.

 

I thought I saw some hinged blades in places, which is normally an RTR thing. I must have been mistaken. Sorry

 

Point operation is via Seep motors PM4 with the added use of a small micro switch fitted to them for the operation of the electrical switching. The one you can see is a Hornby motor on a Peco switch with spring fitted. The reason was that I fitted the point in the wrong place right over a spar hence it has to be surface mounted.

 

D'oh! There is always one in the most inconvenient place, isn't there . At least there's a convenient space to plant a building to cover it...

The trackwork is sublime. (no pun intended)

 

Yes, it looks very good. The scale and proportion of sleepers drew my eye in particular. Closeup shots appear to show flex track for plain line, and something like score lines on the timbers for pointwork which suggest PCB construction, but the point blades don't really fit this hypothesis - and I also think I spot an above baseboard peco point motor hidden in a shed at one point, which would indicate a mechanism with an over centre spring?

 

What's the secret here?