Aberfan 1908

[Phil Hudson]

Progress photos taken this evening.
The underlay has been laid ready for track laying to commence. I've added the building & structural subframes to check that all works as planned (all demountable). I have a few minor modifications to make to a couple of buildings.

[essdee]

Wow, Phil!

A quantum leap there; 2D to 3D already; coming alive, even minus actual trackwork? That must feel like a major achievement.
Following with great interest....

Steve

[Paul Willis]

Superb stuff! That has real atmosphere already.

Do keep us up to date with progress, as this is really inspirational.

Best,
Paul

[Will L]

Cant help feeling there may be some big advantages to owning a big laser cutter. Either that or its cheeting!

[Phil Hudson]

Cant help feeling there may be some big advantages to owning a big laser cutter. Either that or its cheeting!

Nice thought about owning a big Laser Cutter but well beyond my means. I'd need to do a lot of laser cutting to justify the cost. If it helps I had 22 sheets cut, 19 at 3 or 6mm (ply) 1200x700 and 3 at 3mm (cork) 900x600. This provided enough to do 5 boards covering 4400 x 700 x av150 depth, all the cork underlay, and all the building and structural subframes you can see in the pictures. It worked out at around £100/sheet.
The build time was measured in days but a lot more time went into the CAD & Templot time. If I had built it traditionally I think I would still be cutting plywood at christmas. With my woodworking skills it would probably not be a pretty result!

[DougN]

I'm with you Will.

I keep playing with it as an idea, (I know the other half would say just buy one, she is very supportive of things like this) It would be the time to learn the drawing package that is my issue. I have a mate with a few 3D printers and a laser cutter but I have yet to look more seriously at the possibilities.

[Terry Bendall]

Cant help feeling there may be some big advantages to owning a big laser cutter.

There may well be, just as some people have invested in 3D printers. Others have invested in lathes and milling machines of various sizes. Others still have not got any of these things but still manange to be successful in their model making. In the end of course each of us will decide what we want to spend our money on, assuming that we can afford such things in the first place.

I would not want to be without my lathe and milling machine but everything else that I want to do I can achieve by other methods. Some things will take longer but I happen to enjoy the challenge of making things such as baseboards and buildings largely by hand. Rule No 1 again.

None of that is intended to distract from what Phil had done which is very impressive.

Terry Bendall

[Will L]

Cant help feeling there may be some big advantages to owning a big laser cutter. Either that or its cheeting!

Nice thought about owning a big Laser Cutter but well beyond my means. I'd need to do a lot of laser cutting to justify the cost. If it helps I had 22 sheets cut, 19 at 3 or 6mm (ply) 1200x700 and 3 at 3mm (cork) 900x600. This provided enough to do 5 boards covering 4400 x 700 x av150 depth, all the cork underlay, and all the building and structural subframes you can see in the pictures. It worked out at around £100/sheet.

Glad you took that in the sprit it was intended. The results are very impressive and I would certainly actively consider going this rout if I ever wanted to build again (unlikely I'm afraid). The idea of etching the track plan into the cork I really like.

The build time was measured in days but a lot more time went into the CAD & Templot time. If I had built it traditionally I think I would still be cutting plywood at christmas. With my woodworking skills it would probably not be a pretty result!

We designed a layout in the 80s which was primarily fashioned out out 6mm ply. We did as you did and planned it out sheet by sheet. A fair percentage of it was strait strip so the the wood yard did that. All the profiled pieces were cut as strip too so we just had to hand cut the profile edge. But your right, there was a lot of cutting still to be done (see you in Will's garage on Thursday night). We didn't get the edge tabs to hold the pieces together either. Unfortunately we were a work based group and circumstance changed and we never finished it, although most of the scenic boards existed before we stopped. I still have the plans though, but only on paper.

[Phil Hudson]

I've been busy laying rails in the past week. I've managed to complete the Up & Down lines with the Goods Yard to follow. My back is doing well and my fingers have only been lightly scorched. I bought a head torch to help me see what I'm doing and wish I'd bought one of these years ago.

Some observations:
1. I use cosmetic ply sleepers with PCB sleepers on a 1 in 5 basis. Boards joints, section breaks and turnouts have more PCB sleepers.
2. I decided to stick with my original choice of PECO Code 60 FB rail. I also used the PECO rail joiners which fit the rail and are very discreet but help keep joints aligned.
3. Droppers are Palatine products with 18AWG 7-strand wire inserts which will be soldered to under board TAGS when I do the wiring in a few weeks time.
4. Brassmasters fishplates were soldered to the rail before the latter was fixed in place.
5. Rails over board joints have been cut with a disc with the joint pre-packed with 1mm plasticard. The joints close up nicely when the packer is removed.
6. I've built a number of Ply & Ali Angle cassette units. The ends of Boards 1 & 5 have the transition connectors installed. I plan to make up some brass slides to connect the Cassettes. I'm inspired by the simple solution used by Barry Luck on Plumpton Green
7. I haven't fitted the tie bars yet but at present I'm likely to use the solution described by Norman Solomon in MRJ151 Page 146 since I want simplicity and robustness.

Some months ago I built a Rail Tester....some plasticard, a pair of wheels, some brass rod and tube and as much lead sheet as I could pack into the two halves. It has an improvised gauge and the wheelbase is extendable. It has done a good job for me in the past week.

I have plenty of rolling stock in storage boxes waiting to be used. I couldn't resist bringing out a few items for a photo shoot. The 6-wheel Siphon is one of my oldest peices of rolling stock. I think it dates from 1975 when I had just finished my O Levels. It was used on my fathers OO model railway but like a lot of the stock I built in those days (mostly kits but some scratch built), it has been heavily refurbished.

[Phil Hudson]

Soldering rail into place leaves a lot of nasty flux residue. I mixed up some BiCarb of Soda and IPA applied with an old toothbrush. I'm sure I'll need a second and third go at this to get the rails and PCB sleepers good enough for a paint finish at a later date.

[BrockleyAndrew]

Hello Phil,

Very much enjoying the thread. I really like the way you've positioned the scenic break on the viewers right hand side further along from the bridge. For a start, the bridge and subsequent sort of cutting? is an interesting feature and the houses in front give a lovely sense of depth and complete the overall setting. If you'd finished at the bridge before the houses it would be so much less interesting.

Have to say I like the way the layout looks in basic monochrome wood (big fan of B&W photography). As others have said, it already has atmosphere even roughly (or indeed laser precisely!) knocked up.

Andrew

[Phil Hudson]

Progress continues at a good pace.
I finished the track laying a few days ago and I'm reasonably happy with the result. More work is required and I can see things that need improvement. I'm not resolved on how to do the tiebars as yet and I'll deal with these shortly.
I've now made a start on the wiring and a couple of photos show work in progress.

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Phil,

Apologies in advance if this is a 'thicko' question ( ) but .......

Please can you explain to me the purpose of the two extra rails on the crossover in the lower of your two track postings above. One looks like a catch point but I do not understand the other one.

Cheers,

Richard

(edited to get name right)

[grovenor-2685]

Both are catch points, since a vehicle needs to be caught before fouling the running line no matter which of the two converging tracks it is on.
This arrangement was fairly common where a siding fan started before the clearance from the running line was reached.

catch points.jpg

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Keith,

Both are catch points, since a vehicle needs to be caught before fouling the running line no matter which of the two converging tracks it is on.
This arrangement was fairly common where a siding fan started before the clearance from the running line was reached.

Thank you. I cannot recall ever having seen an arrangement like that before - it makes sense now I have looked at the overall plan.

Cheers,

Richard

[bécasse]

I cannot recall ever having seen an arrangement like that before - it makes sense now I have looked at the overall plan.

It was, in fact, an incredibly common arrangement but, of course, such fans of sidings are now in themselves great rarities. There would only have been a single ground signal, aligned to be visible from both sidings and located before the toes of the traps.

[Phil Hudson]

The traps leading from the goods yard are a good spot but I'll go back to basics.

The 1908 track layout is essentially as it was laid in the 1880's, presumably with signalling and interlocking of the period using McKenzie & Holland equipment. I suspect the RR/GWR did little with the layout thereafter other than simplifying the goods yard in later years. I started to develop a full signal box layout and locking chart but something didn't feel right. The lovely picture of Aberfan c.1900-1905 presented a puzzle in that the northern crossover visible beyond the bridge didn't have ground discs. I presume movement here between lines was signalled by the signalman using a green flag. Based on this I concluded that the widespread use of ground discs was not the norm in this period. Line of sight is clearly important so a driver or fireman who cannot reasonably see the signalman's green flag needs some help in the form of a ground disc.

With this logic in mind I developed a simplified signal box layout (my scruffy sketch) based on 15 levers and three S4 kits from the S4 stores in due course. Up & Down lines are defined with Distant, Home, Starter & Advanced Starters 1-4/15-12. Since the north crossover 6 didn't have ground discs I decided not to add ground discs for the south crossover 7. The crew of a stationary engine parked on the down line beyond the bridge and waiting to enter the goods yard probably didn't have direct line of sight with the box, therefore I added ground disc 9. The entry point into the goods yard is 10 and this needs a trap to prevent anything rolling back onto the down line from the goods yard. The space between 10 and the first hand worked turnout is very limited and as others have noted, a double trap set within the first hand levered turnout is not uncommon in such circumstances. This was my reasoning for doing this on my layout. I'm not fully resolved on the need for a ground disc signalling movement from the yard onto the down main. Since this was right in front of the box and didn't't happen often I've decided to omit the ground disc although I could be persuaded otherwise. It would 11 in my signal box layout if added.

I have another observation. The Board of Trade introduced new regs regarding interlocking and the provision of signals in 1902. I daresay the railway companies were not obliged to immediately upgrade existing layouts and lighter used lines probably never got upgraded. When additions were made post 1902 these works had to be compliant. For example a private siding was added at Abercanaid in 1907 for Thomas Brothers. The Aug 1907 layout I've seen at the PRO for this siding shows ground discs in both directions plus a trap protecting the Up line from strays. Meanwhile the only other ground disc in use at Abercanaid was one controlling exit from the 1880's goods loop onto the down main. I've seen later pictures of Abercanaid where GWR pattern ground discs have been added but this is much later than my timeframe.

Unfortunately I have no photos of the business end of Aberfan and I haven't found any signal plans. Therefore I've had to work it out for myself. I would welcome views on my signal box layout and the locking table. Should I add ground disc 11 signalling exit from the goods yard.

[Phil Hudson]

....and my Locking Table.

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Phil,

Thank you for providing more information about the signalling side of your project, I cannot really comment as signalling is not a strength apart from the limited amount learnt in order to understand Mostyn's requirements in 1977.

I happened across the image of the catch points within a turnout whilst reading through your excellent project and it piqued my interest.

Sharing your approach to this project is certainly appreciated so I look forward to seeing how Aberfan develops.

Cheers,

Richard

[grovenor-2685]

Given the way you hasve numbered the signals I take it that the frame has lever 1 on the left. It would then be usual practice to have the leftmost point the first point in the frame, so essentially you have your point numbering reversed.
If I was numbering it I would change the numbers as follows:
Number, change to,
5, Goods shunt,
6, Goods yard entry and trap,
7, Spare for possible goods yard exit signal,
8, South crossover,
9, Spare for possible shunt across 8 from up platform,
10, North crossover,
11, Spare for possible shunt across 10.

I don't follow your 'rationalisation' of your locks both ways, its rather restrictive to replace them by locks Normal, better to keep as locks both ways IMHO. Small locking tables often put locks both ways in the locks column rather than having a locks both ways column.
It is standard practice for the the locks column to show the reciprocals, ie if 2 locks 7 then 7 locks 2 should also be shown in the table. This is, however not always done for the releases but some engineers prefer to keep both a 'released by' column and a 'releases' column so that the reciprocals are explicit.

[Phil Hudson]

Hi Keith

I see what you mean about the number order. I plan to operate from the front/viewing side and adopted the 1,2,3.... from the left which appears be the normal convention BUT this assumes this view is the signalman's in the box. Of course it isn't and as a result I've reversed the layout. Ouch, didn't think about that.

As for the Locks Both Ways, I cannot recall where I picked up the rationalisation process but it seemed sensible at the time. My layout has a simple plan so the restrictions I have generated may not impede operating. Nonetheless I'll take one step back and include them.

Thanks

Phil

[Terry Bendall]

I plan to operate from the front/viewing side and adopted the 1,2,3.... from the left which appears be the normal convention BUT this assumes this view is the signalman's in the box. Of course it isn't and as a result I've reversed the layout. Ouch, didn't think about that.

This was the problem that Barry Luck had when planning Plumpton Green. Originally the lever frame was going to be at the rear of the layout which would have meant reversing the order of the levers since the actual signal box is on the viewing side of the layout. In the end the frame ended up on the viewing side as well which works very well.

Terry Bendall

[bécasse]

Following the 1873 Act, the provision of signals (usually ground signals or co-acting point indicators) was mandatory at the exit from sidings onto running lines. Traps were also required if vehicles were stabled in the sidings concerned.
Initially this was effectively the sole use of ground signals with other shunt moves being authorised by hand signals from the signalman or shunter, but, as you have surmised, it quickly dawned on railway companies that there were situations where poor sightlines meant that installing a ground signal to control a move was a worthwhile expense. However, for most railway companies ground signals really didn't begin to proliferate until the Edwardian period.

[Winander]

for most railway companies ground signals really didn't begin to proliferate until the Edwardian period

And who were the proliferators David, as an LNWR Victorian period is something I have been contemplating?

[bécasse]

The LNWR never spent money on signalling (in the broad sense) if they could avoid it, even to the extent of dreaming up complex systems of interlocking using Annet's Keys (for which they had been canny enough to obtain a blanket licence when they first became available in 1881).
The signalling plans for the Ashbourne line opened about the turn of the century show the odd ground signal which falls into the "poor sightlines" category but otherwise only those mandated by the BoT. Richard Foster's book, by far the best of the OPC series in my humble opinion, explains the situation quite well.
You can be pretty certain that any LNWR line opened in the Victorian era only had those signals which had to be provided to satisfy the BoT plus perhaps the odd one which made working the layout easier. Even the provision of a covered signal box, as opposed to an open "ground frame", couldn't be guaranteed.