Bucket of Steam

If you've seen the Right Track 19 Layout planning and design DVD they show an example with 2mm buildings on a 4mm scale layout to provide perspective. A key trick they use is to put a row of trees ( seafoam ) in front of the 2mm buildings to diffuse the view slightly which helps to disguise the change of scale. 

Note that the worm gear supplier has updated their listing, and the worms now have a 2mm diameter hole which won't fit on the motor shaft.

3 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

File transfers?  Your were lucky! In 1973 my data was on stacks of card and if I didn't want to sort them by hand I had to write Fortran programs on punch cards . That were real work lad! 

 

Mike. Thanks very much for explaining this so patiently.

David,

Funny enough the file transfer was done with each computer sending files to what appeared to it,  to be a printer, and reading from what it thought was a card reader.  The computers were about 150 miles apart , and connected by a slooooow telephone modem.

Wow, this is a complicated as trying to do file transfers between an IBM mini computer and an ICL C03 system ( before TCP/IP ruled the world.)

David,

I know nothing about French railways { but I found the Burt Lancaster film 'The Train' fascinating  ).  I'm sure i'll be running more trains than would be typical for my little branch line, but there again my little 4mm figures have nothing else to do to occupy their time hahah

6 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Mike

Thanks for this very clear explanation.

I hope this isn't going OT from Bucket of Steam's original query but, though I'm no expert on signalling, my grandfather wasa  signalman and as a child I was allowed to visit his box so I do find this fascinating though often confusing. 

 

I've been looking through the signalling and track diagrams in the OPC volumes on "Selected Great Western Stations" and the GW did seem to be rather fond of advanced starter signals on single track lines presumably where shunting moves commonly used the main line track. Many had more than that with a starting signal, intermediate advanced starting signal and an advanced starter. Kingsbridge had an up main and an up bay starter at the platform ends, an up main advanced starter and an up main outer advanced signal with a subsidiary shunting signal- something that also seemed quite common for the GWR at least 

 

The bit I don't understand is that the home signal protecting the station was often closer in than the advanced starter. Why was it not at the outer limit of shunt where it would have protected any shunting moves within the station limits? Was that simply because it would have put the distant signal further from the box than the maximum distance over which signals were permitted to be operated (though that wouldn't seem to apply to termini with fixed distants)?

 

David,

Please feel free as far as I'm concerned it's all on topic and very interesting stuff.

Mike,

Thanks for your reply.

Wow I'm going to have to write all this stuff down, it's invaluable!  As someone with no experience of working on the real thing, without guidance I'm liable  to make mistakes. No lives are at stake on my model if I get things wrong, but I would much rather get them right, and importantly, know why they are right. Things like signal provision are far easier to ask some questions and get professional advice, as you have given, rather than get it wrong and have people point out the error after everything is firmly glued down.

Cheers

Ian

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.  So based on what you wrote it's best if I leave enough room between the home signal and the pointwork, to enable run round without passing the home signal.  ( I must admit I was thinking about starter signals when I wrote 'home', but you have covered that too, so thanks for that.  I'm distracted by needing to cut some thin strips of plywood, I'm hoping to finish baseboard building with all my peripherals still attached...)

Ian

26 minutes ago, RailWest said:

There seems to be some confusion here.

 

Any shunt movement going outside of the Home would be going in the opposite direction to that controlled by the Home, so that signal would remain 'on'. Coming back past the Home is a different matter :-)  'Token release' would apply only to signals for moves /towards/ the signal line, not those coming off the single-line.

 

Provided that the signalman 'blocks back' to the signalman at the far end and gets approval (Block Regulation 7(a)(i) ), then no token needs to be withdrawn (unless the shunt move was going forward to access a siding that was controlled by a GF unlocked by the token) . The movement would pass the relevant starting signal at danger under specific authority from the signalman (hand-signal and/or verbal instruction).

Mike,

For the shunt outside the home signal, presumably the home signal would have to be cleared to allow the engine to pass it . I know you covered the ground signals at the goods yard end, but would there be any ground signals at the signal box end ( apologies if you mentioned this before ).

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Mike

Just my curiosity (I'm currently trying to get my head round the difference between UK & French block working) but does that permission involve locking the token machines so that a token can't physically be issued for the single line section while shunting onto it is happening?

I think if the home signal has the be cleared for this movement, then the token machine would need to unlock the levers, so maybe a token would be would be taken out while shunting takes place??

Thanks Mike,

I'll consider what you have written. I don't particularly want to add signals that are not really needed, ( because the more there are, the greater the risk of damaging one when track cleaning etc.)  but I understand what you wrote, that there is an opportunity for one with the slotted catch point. 

Regarding shunting:- Thanks, that's very useful information which I will be sure to file away for operating the layout in due course.

Thanks Mike,

I don't think we discussed an advanced starter. Would that be visible on the model? ( it's about five  feet on the layout between the approximate starter location and where the bridge hides the exit from the visible part of the layout ( so about 125 yards assuming no compression ). This is further than I would expect any any shunting movement would go toward the bridge, especially since I don't want shunting moves going under the bridge. So I would expect station limits would end about where the bridge is.

i would probably site the advanced starter a short distance before the bridge, so that it doesn't cast a shadow on the 'sky'.

Thanks Nick,

That's an interesting idea. It leads me on to considering the dummy point rodding which i would like to include on the layout, so I will need to arrange point rodding for either a trap, or to lock one end of the double slip.  i suspect there might also be point rodding running down the slope, and away under the bridge for a trap at the bottom of the hill ( which will be imaginary unless I win the lottery and buy the house next door).

Thanks Nick.  I appreciate it's similar to what you were suggesting, and I'm happy that you guys have saved me from going too far down the wrong track, as it were. I wasn't able to make it fit with standard turnouts, and hadn't considered using a double slip. The space that the double slip saves is just enough to get things to fit.

I'm thinking there will be a gate between the two slips, and probably a trap there as well since, if the double slip is not interlocked, there needs to be a safety measure to prevent accidental moves endangering trains in the station.

Okay I might be able to bring the platform forward enough to run a colliery headshunt behind it, with a double slip handling the exchange sidings and link to the single slip as per David's suggestion. It would be tight though with not much scenery between the colliery headshunt and the backscene. Would a double slip be likely for a colliery line? ( I was expecting they would use the simplest possible track components. )

David I'm not sure what the purpose of the short loop you have created? Is this to get rid of the single slip? I think the single slip fits in well so I'd like to keep it ( plus it was quite expensive ).

Basically I'm suggesting as per photo above, but with the platform and headshunt about four or five inches to the left. So David's suggestion but retaining the single slip.

I still think the arrangement without the colliery headshunt 'flows' better though.....

David,

I don't have a Peco singe or double slip, so I have used a diamond crossing which hopefully is a similar size. There is a gap between the single slip and the diamond ( double slip proxy ) as I don't have many short lengths of track. Again you can see how the stream and baseboard join restrict where pointwork can go also, significantly,  the colliery headshunt ends up about an inch from the back of the layout.  

Whichever plan is used, the colliery loco will always at the 'station' end of its train. There will be no run round on the colliery line and the miners will need to walk from the station to the colliery. It's not a long walk as the colliery will be over that empty section of baseboard at the top left. I think running a miners train up that short distance would be pushing credibility too far.  I might run miners trains, but they will be bringing in miners from the next station or two down the line. 

Ok, here are a couple of photos to of temporary track placed on the boards, laid out on my dining room floor, to illustrate the current plan. I have used Peco code 75, but the actual layout will be built with Peco bullhead ( points curved to fit ) The small gap between the single slip and the point above it is roughly where the colliery trap point and gate would be. You can see the exchange sidings are quite short, and the stream and baseboard join restrict where pointwork can go. They echange sidings are about as long as the tracks under the colliery screens will be, so long enough, but any shorter is going to look silly.  Please excuse all the mess and sawdust as I have been working on the legs for the layout. 

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

Interesting.   From the sketch it does not look do able with ready to lay track, some of it looks about 12" radius.    I had lots of operating fun with exchange sidings on my old layout and that was with Triang "Pollys" and the like as Colliery locos.   I would suggest keeping colliery locos to their own tracks.   A long headshunt  / trap to arrest loaded trains coming down the 1 in 30 on wet days would be good.  Proximity of platform isn't an issue, passengers use it at their own risk and compensation for a death was only about 50 quid.   I don't see the use of sorting sidings at the terminus, surely all traffic would be to from the colliery so sorting would be further down the line where traffic flows diverged.  I  would go with separate sidings as per doodle.

Colliery loco appears at 30 mph wheels locked and slides to half way along back of platform.  Pushes train back beyond points and hauls out empties from siding. then attaches fulls and pulls pushes fulls in. Now with empties (No brakevan)    Loco the runs to far end of headshunt and accelerates as fast as possible to storm 1 in 30.   Maybe needs a couple of tries.

GW loco leisurely eases fulls out of sidings and pushes empties back in.   Driver goes to the pub.

Coliery passenger could use back of platform, Peckett and Clarrie and Annabel   Have to gravity shunt to run round. Bit of a challenge?

David,  thanks for taking the time to draw this and for your description. I will study what you wrote and reply in more detail later. Since I tend to go a bit crazy with layout design software  I have been laying out Peco points ( some upside down ) to get and idea what will fit and the likely clearances required. I apologise that my sketch is very rough and was really intended to show the arrangement of points and signals rather than be accurate regarding curvature.

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think it makes a big difference if the signals look right.  On a small layout, with compressed distances getting the signals absolutely right might not help the visual impact but it works beautifully on a layout like Grantham where the compression - when iot has been applied - isn't really noticeable.

 

I'm all in favour of correct signalling but I am far more strongly against incorrect signalling - either looking wrong or not being worked correctly - because it lets down any layout.  But if it looks right and is believable it adds rather than detracts, especially on smaller layouts.

Mike,

I agree with you on the signals ,and I will try to make them look right. There is a McKenzie & Holland Rotating Head Ground Signal Kit on the Wizard models website, which come as a pair. Would this be suitable ( and can I use both of them on the layout)?

I think the more we learn about a subject, the more inconsistencies stand out. For example the film "Zulu" , I always liked that film and would watch it whenever I had the chance ( before the days of video recorders ) this led me to do some reading on the actual battle, where I discovered some significant differences between the reality and the film. For example the character Henry Hook, in the film he is portrayed as a malingerer who becomes an unwilling hero. In reality he was not a malingerer at all. I guess for the film the 'bad guy redeems himself' was an attractive subplot. After finding out about the inconsistencies I found the film much less engaging.

Well, despite a lot of juggling around with pointwork I cannot get a colliery headshunt to fit in a pleasing arrangement. I've tried Nicks suggestions and, while I could get the track to fit, I felt dissatisfied with the visual impression... longer term that means I would be constantly wishing he layout was different... and for me that's a sure sign the layout  wouldn't last long without being ripped up. I'm going to have to go with the colliery loco plated to work just on to the loop track. I should note that this has come about because I am modifying Mr Rice's design, and was not a problem with with the design in the book.

Regarding the lever frame: While I found the Plumpton Green videos really interesting I did find myself wanting to fast forward a couple of times, so it might be best to go for a simplified arrangement of levers rather than concentrate too much on the specifics of the leverframe.

I guess you could say overall I'm going for artistic impression, rather than technical accuracy. ( But I'm still going to try and get the signals looking right ). 

On 24/09/2020 at 16:31, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Good spot, and there's more arising from that. At the left end there are what look to be lifeguards to be bent down, and I reckon if this is a 4mm scale kit the gauge would be 12mm.

 

Isle of Man 2-4-0T?

I see it was already suggested

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

It is only 10 mm over the frames. Would that make it narrow gauge - for 3' or 3'6"? 

 

That's assuming it's 4mm scale. 

interesting idea, maybe an Isle of Man 2-4-0T   I seem to recall there were some  ( was it 5mm/foot) kits.

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The loop signal would be shorter and have a ring on the arm (in GWR style), the platform starter would be much taller and visible over something standing in the loop.  Not at all an unusual arrangement on certain parts of the GWTR but photos suggest it was probably more common on the former Northern Division in later years.  Ideally the platform line signal should be at the end of the platform where it can be seen by the Guard and platform staff and it would certainly not be so dominant scenically if that was the case (and be less likely to be caught as some body reaches over the layout for whatever reason).

Thanks again Mike, I really do appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to help me with this.

i'll put a ring on the goods line signal. I have been reading the earlier and  invaluable thread "GWR Signals and where they go?" , and your detailed answers on there.

Maybe the etch designer was really bored on day, and thought " I know, I'll put a random selection of chassis parts onto an etch, and then watch the fun when people try to work out what it's for."

Thanks Mike,

I'm currently sanding down the firewood which I bought from a well known DIY store for legs on the layout ( never seen so many knots), but I'm still trying to resolve the colliery headshunt issue.

Where you wrote

On 25/09/2020 at 11:44, The Stationmaster said:

The platform starting signal will inevitably be between the platform end - or even on the platform/platform ramp  itself -  it can't really go anywhere else although it could be on the side of the loop furthest from the platform adjacent to the loop starter.

If I put the platform starter adjacent to the loop starter, how would the loco crews know which signal to obey?  ( In the event that a mineral train and a passenger train are standing in the loop and platform roads respectively, and then one of those starter signals is cleared )  would this be covered by some local instruction, or is there some indication on the signals themselves?   I kind of imagining a red faced mineral engine crew saying "well there was a lot of smoke and steam from the two engines, I saw a starter cleared to my left...., and well that's how we ended up on the ballast...."

That's a useful view.  If you were to draw in a bulldog motor outline fitting into the notches provided for it , it would stick up quite high above rail level, so maybe a largish tank loco or large diameter boiler required to conceal it?