Bucket of Steam

The way that the main chassis has that carefully sculpted thin cross section at the right hand side suggests to me that this is the front of the engine. If that part was intended to fit under a cab, or a bunker, I would expect the top edge to be flat. If we assume ( dangerous ) that the buffers are mounted on the centerline of the right hand end of that thin section, and that the buffers are a normal height above rail level, then can we calculate what diameter driving wheels would be required to hold the buffers at normal height. ( of course it's possible that the buffer centerline is above footplate height, like some Southern engines). A quick visual suggests that would mean very small diameter driving wheels, so probably not a sensible idea.

Well that's just being mean. If you can build one with five arms how can I claim it's impossible for me to build one with a single arm. ( does look tasty though thanks for posting it. )

Thanks Mike, I'm happy that a simple trap like that will do the job. I was looking at photos today, and traps seem to vary in complexity. Some being almost a complete turnout with a frog, some as per the photo above, but with switch rails on both sides ( but no frog ). Regarding the somersault signal. If I can make one that works then I will, but I think initially I will use an 'off the shelf' one. A somersault one would certainly add character though.

I'm sure whoever designed the etch had no idea how many hours of entertainment it would provide decades later.

I'm kind of tempted to try printing the photo onto thick paper, and then cutting out and folding up, and see what it looks like.

I had an early etched kit where the coupling rods didn't match the chassis by at least a millimetre. I didn't notice until I tried quartering the wheels and wondered why the coupling rods wouldn't fit. i seem to recall it was an Armstrong Goods.

Nick, Hmm moving the platform to the front is a major change, but it would I will have a look at how practicable it is, bearing in mind the boards are already built. I'll have to think long and hard on that option. Mike, Dam, I was hoping you wouldn't mention somersault signals, but I guess it was bound to happen . haha. I will study what you have both written. Meanwhile I made this 'trap point' for a earlier layout, which had to be scrapped. Hopefully something similar will do for the traps on the new layout ( it needs a dummy actuating mechanism ).

I wonder if it might be an Atlantic? The coupling at lower right could be for a 4 leading wheel bogie. The two curved cutouts at the right of the chassis etch could be clearance for the bogie wheels, with the smaller two wheel bogie attached at the left hand end of the chassis. Is it possible to measure where the connecting rods would put the cylinders , based on either driving axle?

Mike, thanks for your reply, It will be GWR 1930's ex Taff Vale. I'm looking again at if there is any way to provide a proper shunting spur as Nick and yourself have suggested. Currently every option I try looks very awkward and 'train set' like, but i will continue trying. Thanks very much for the advice on the trap on the exchange sidings, I will fit a trap, or move the exchange sidings behind the proposed 'Trap A' on the sketch.

This view illustrates the two left hand boards laid on my dining room floor, with the single slip in approximate position and shows that there is not much space available behind the slip ( or above the slip if you are looking at the sketch ). Please excuse my rough and ready woodwork. Carpentry is not my strong suit. The boards do fit neatly together but I have left a small gap for this photo, so that the position of the board join is clear. I will start a proper thread in the layout forum for the layout in due course.

Thanks James. I will take a look. Always interested to see how other people solved the problems I haven't thought of yet.

Thanks Nick, I am aware that ideally the colliery engine shouldn't need to run into the loop. I had looked at doing something similar to what you suggested, which I think I mentioned in my third post. Space considerations mean doing that would have the following consequences:- The curves at the left side of the layout would be tighter, and/or the gradients would be steeper in order to allow the bridge where the colliery line crosses over the single line to remain where it is while the platform road moves further forward to accommodate the colliery headshunt and exchange sidings. There would be very little space between the backscene and the colliery headshunt and its exchange sidings. My thinking at the moment is that these factors would compromise the visual impression of the layout more than allowing the colliery engine into the loop line, ..... but I'll look at it again. The trackwork will be mainly Peco but I'm not happy with the small radius of their slips, so the single slip will be Tillig. Their single slip looks reasonable but the double slip has a peculiar solid chunk in the middle of it, so I really want to stick with the single slip. The shunt signals I will think about what you have written and try to visualise it. Best Regards Ian

Ok, here is a very poor sketch of the proposed track plan. The good bits are courtesy Iain Rice ( Varteg Hill ) and the bad bits are mine. Based on Iain's plan, I have added two exchange sidings at the left hand side. These slope down 1:100 away from the station, so I am hoping I can dispense with trap points for them? The line to the colliery climbs at 1:30 and i have allowed for a trap point to protect the big railway. At the right hand side I have dedicated one track for local goods, probably just with a loading bank I have provided a trap point since it connects to the platform line. Below the goods line is the short siding for running round. I might add a water crane on here and maybe a coaling stage. If I have a loco coal wagon on the end of this track I guess it will need its own trap point ? or would the point for the loop protect the platform road? The sorting sidings are primarily for shunting coal wagons, and I'm assuming ( maybe incorrectly ) that the point for the engineering siding protects any wagons going astray here. The engineering siding is mainly there as a suitable place for various permanent way wagons I have. Signals ( Those of a nervous disposition beware... I have probably broken all kinds of rules here ) I have put a junction signal on the approach to the station, with the more important arm for the platform. I am intending that mineral trains will run directly into the loop line. ( I hope that's sensible ) I have indicated a starter on the loop line for goods/mineral trains. This is partly to avoid having coal trains run almost off the visible part of the layout to shunt back into the platform road to await permission to start. I haven't shown the starter for the platform road since, as I mentioned previously, I'm really not sure where it should go. If I put it inside the loop I'm going to lose a fair bit of usable platform length, after allowing clearance for overhang for long vehicles. The colliery line will have a gate to separate it from the big railway. The access via a single slip prevents colliery trains running into the platform road. I'm not sure how engines would be signalled to run onto the colliery line and its exchange sidings. Maybe by a ground signal ? I haven't indicated any ground signals because I'm not sure what would be required. I guess there would be ground signals protecting the exit from the goods siding, from the sorting sidings, and the engineering siding... ? Any comments and advice are very welcome. Hopefully not 'start again ' . Ian Edited to add: I realise I haven't indicated any signal to allow colliery engines to cross the single slip into the loop line. Not sure if a ground signal is appropriate here . I was thinking colliery engines would be made to wait until specifically flagged by the signalman, hence why the signal box is located right by the crossing.

Lots of replies that I will read through carefully. My apologies for the delay in posting a track layout sketch. There are a couple of areas where I'm still considering the arrangement of pointwork, and I don't want to waste peoples time getting advice on a specific track arrangement if I then go and change it. Of course I will still be happy to alter the track arrangement if feedback says it's not right. One specific question has arisen , on starter signal placement. To get the longest platform length it would be useful if engines be held next to the signal box, almost at the end of the run round loop. This poses a problem of where the starter signal should be? It could be next to the loop track , but I was considering having a separate starter on the loop for mineral trains. It could be a short distance past the loop pointwork, but I'm not sure if that's 'legal' since an engine might be allowed to run up to the signal awaiting it being pulled off, and would meanwhile be standing right on the pointwork which might not be set for it. Perhaps the is some possibility that the engine could wait until flagged to proceed by the signalman, but I get the impression that this was for little used moves, and so unlikely to be used for starting regular passenger trains. I know a sketch will help to illustrate this question, and again I am working on providing one. Thanks all. Ian

I found this youtube video of Barry Luck's Plumpton Green very informative. At about 3 minutes in the lever interlocking mechanism is shown..

Thanks everyone for the replies. I will take a look at the Moreton Hampstead signalling thread. I have the greatest respect for anyone able to design and build working interlocking. I know i don't have the skills to do that. I think my priorities for the layout are, in order of importance :- 1 Reliability 2 Operational interest 3 Realistic appearance ( within the constraints of OO and limited space ) 4 Finally building and using all those kits and materials I have accumulated over years when I had no space for a layout. I am working on the track plan as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Sorry I wasn't implying that interlocking was weak in any way, more that an experienced signalman wouldn't try to pull the wrong lever. I take your point about inexperienced signalmen though, and I'm in no doubt that interlocking is an essential safety measure on a real railway.

Many many years ago i used to work with a fitter who was imaginary about 30% of the time. His nickname was 'the ghost' because he was always disappearing.

Thanks for responding. I had considered some electrical interlocking similar to what you describe, but I think if I did that I would need some sort of mimic panel to highlight the fact that the point hasn't moved because the electrical interlocking prevented it. Alternatively i was thinking maybe an annoying buzzer could sound if I try move a lever that should be locked. I'm an ex-network engineer myself, so I tend to find complicated ways of achieving apparently simple things.

Off topic for signalling and infrastructure, but on the theme of compromises for the layout.... private owner wagons... One of the reasons for choosing to include a colliery is so that I can run some of the private owner wagons that I have bought over the last decade or so... Now if it were a real colliery I would expect the wagons would either belong to the colliery, or to some of its customers, so there would be a lot of virtually identical wagons, whereas I'm more likely to run a mixture of different wagons even though I know it's technically 'wrong'. If I did run only one private owner livery it would still be 'wrong' as the model is not an accurate model of the real colliery. ( i definitely need those tablets hahaha)

Thanks, I'll try to get a sketch drawn out. I really do appreciate any advice I can get on, well, just about anything really .... but especially on signalling levers, and signals themselves. I would much rather get things right at this stage, rather than tearing things up after i have done them incorrectly. As I mentioned above there are some compromises I will have to accept to get the layout built at all, so i can't promise to follow all the advice offered. As an example of the mess i can get myself into, I just realised this morning that I have glued a baseboard strengthening block right where i need to put a socket to hold a support leg.

Thanks for the reply. My layout will be steam era and therefore using levers to control points and signals just 'seems right' to me. How far I take that toward it's logical conclusion of replicating how the real thing works is where I'm currently pondering. As above there is no way I can arrange mechanical interlocking with the cobalt levers, so there's a practicable limit on how far i can take it in any case. I don't have a drawing of the layout at present. It's all stored in my head, which is from experience the most dangerous place to keep anything important. The design is based on Iain Rice's 'Varteg Hill' design from 'Light railway Layout Designs' . I have made a few changes, mainly around assuming that the station is part of the 'big railway', and the colliery is worked by it's own locomotive. I have added a couple of sidings to exchange wagons between the colliery and the big railway. I have replaced the cassette arrangement that Iain proposed with a conventional fiddle yard, so that longer trains can be handled. Space restrictions mean that some compromises have had to be made, foe example colliery trains will use the station loop line as a head shunt for working the exchange sidings. ( they will be forbidden from using th platform line though ). I'm sure in a real world version it's much more likely that the colliery line would have enough space to work exchange sidings without trespassing onto the big railway, but I just don't have the space to do it that way.

Thanks for the quick response. My layout will be quite small, so 19 levers will cover the whole thing, even if use levers to control the fiddle yard. I think I would get dizzy looking at 72! Good advice on the dummy levers, my layout will be OO, so absolute fidelity is already out of the window, so I agree it's probably crazy to consider using dummy levers. As above the frame will not be large, so I'm not too worried about operator workload. To be honest I'm more worried about operator boredom, which is one of the reasons I was considering spicing things up a bit with a more prototypical lever arrangement, as you say I should probably get some tablets to combat the urge to complicate things..

I would be interested in opinions on using a lever frame to control points and signals on my layout. I have sufficient cobalt levers to make up a leverframe to control my layout. The layout is still at the 'bare plywood' stage but I'm considering where to site the leverframe and how large it should be. I have in mind two different options on how to proceed One option would be to have the lever frame control all points and signals on the layout, including points in the five road fiddle yard, and also some sidings which I suspect would not be controlled from the signal box if it were real. This has the advantage that the whole layout can be controlled from one place. ( The layout is single operator only ) All levers would be functional. In way this seems like the sensible option. The second option would be to try to replicate the arrangement of levers which would exist in the ( fictional ) signal box. If I went down this route I'm sure I would need advice ( lots). I quite fancy this option since, long term, I would like to use a Raspberry PI computer to simulate the next box down the line, in a similar way to Rev Peter Denny did with his 'Automatic Crispin', so working of the leverframe would be more 'prototypical'. A disadvantage is that some levers would be used for dummy functions, such as facing point locks, trap points, and likely ground signals, so those levers would be 'cosmetic'. I wonder how quickly I would get lazy and just not bother throwing those levers? Also some other means would be required for controlling points in the fiddle yard, and the minor sidings. Since the levers are cobalts, no mechanical interlocking is possible, so it's not going to fully replicate how a real signal box works, however I do it. ( As an aside I wonder how often the interlocking in a real box would prevent a lever being pulled? Presumably the signalman would be experienced enough to know which levers to pull, in the correct order, in order to carry out his duties, so is unlikely to try to pull a lever against the interlocking anyway?? Some additional controls will be required beyond the lever frame in any case, for things like uncoupling magnets.

Looks very interesting. Will follow this and see how it develops.