Cadhay Sidings layout thread
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Thanks all for the interesting comments so far.
My model is set around 1930 so the 1997 regs are a little modern for me, as are the 1950 regs (1955 reprint) Keith has linked!
My issue is how would the railway have dealt with this in 1930 - In fact, given the backwater nature of the branch I'm modelling and the slow roll out of changes across a large system, I suspect we're actually looking for how they would have dealt with this around 1920!!
My gut feeling (and nothing anyone has said so far has altered this) is that the detection would be implemented for the Down signal in this situation (as it is in the facing direction, but even then I'm far from sure as to how it would have looked! Can't even find anything helpful in my 2 volumes of Edward Wallis 1922-34 Southern Infrastructure which are normally very helpful in this type of situation!
It's ironic that the signal here that's straightforward to implement detection doesn't absolutely require it. One further question now springs to mind - if the Up (non-facing) signal does not require detection, would it have been installed or not? It would be easy to do but would the LSWR/SR signalling Engineers have included it where they did not have a regulatory requirement?
As usual, the more you look into something the more complications are thrown up!
Cheers
Chris
My model is set around 1930 so the 1997 regs are a little modern for me, as are the 1950 regs (1955 reprint) Keith has linked!
My issue is how would the railway have dealt with this in 1930 - In fact, given the backwater nature of the branch I'm modelling and the slow roll out of changes across a large system, I suspect we're actually looking for how they would have dealt with this around 1920!!
My gut feeling (and nothing anyone has said so far has altered this) is that the detection would be implemented for the Down signal in this situation (as it is in the facing direction, but even then I'm far from sure as to how it would have looked! Can't even find anything helpful in my 2 volumes of Edward Wallis 1922-34 Southern Infrastructure which are normally very helpful in this type of situation!
It's ironic that the signal here that's straightforward to implement detection doesn't absolutely require it. One further question now springs to mind - if the Up (non-facing) signal does not require detection, would it have been installed or not? It would be easy to do but would the LSWR/SR signalling Engineers have included it where they did not have a regulatory requirement?
As usual, the more you look into something the more complications are thrown up!
Cheers
Chris
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
It's ironic that the signal here that's straightforward to implement detection doesn't absolutely require it. One further question now springs to mind - if the Up (non-facing) signal does not require detection, would it have been installed or not? It would be easy to do but would the LSWR/SR signalling Engineers have included it where they did not have a regulatory requirement?
Almost certainly not, the requirements did not change much between 1930 and 1950, and I don't recollect seeing mechanical detectors for trailing points in the 60s either. Trailing points only normally got detected by shunt signals that read over them facing.
It was quite common for signal wires to have to double back after passing through a detector, just a matter of passing it round a horizontal pulley wheel. The signal wires are not flexible enough to survive that, so wherever they pass round a wheel there would be a length of chain, or more recently flexible steel cable, spliced into the wire.
Regards
Keith
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Thanks Keith
That convinces me that my gut was right. Already have the pulley wheels and chains, it was just a question of how the layout was set out. Your description is pretty much as I'd imagined the layout to have been, but had been unable to find any pics to confirm.
Cheers
Chris
That convinces me that my gut was right. Already have the pulley wheels and chains, it was just a question of how the layout was set out. Your description is pretty much as I'd imagined the layout to have been, but had been unable to find any pics to confirm.
Cheers
Chris
-
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
FWIW I have found a reference for the need for facing point locks on no less a backwater than the Bishop's Castle Railway during an 1895 inspection. The inspector cites the Regulation of Railways Act of 1889.
HTH
David
HTH
David
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
That was before the Light Railways Act, which was dated 1896
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
All of which leads me to the decision to run the DOWN (facing) signal wire UP from the box to the detection, round a horizontal pulley and then back down to the signal. It should actually make for a nice piece of interest.
Thanks all for the info
will post some pics once I get to it!
Chris
Thanks all for the info
will post some pics once I get to it!
Chris
-
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Armchair Modeller wrote:That was before the Light Railways Act, which was dated 1896
OK, how would that affect the need for FPLs on a light railway? I'm asking because I don't know.
Cheers,
David
-
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
The LRA 1896 was mostly concerned with simplifying how the railway was financed and how it obtained its powers to take land, etc. So far as safety was concerned, the BoT was given considerable discretion, and many aspects of railway legislation could be amended or dispensed with, if the BoT agreed, and subject to any conditions they felt appropriate. Details were specific to each order, and hence each railway built, made under the Act. Unless specifically altered by the Order, all normal railway legislation applied [Section 12].
Section 12 of the Act reads
"12 Application of general Railway Acts.
(1)The Clauses Acts, as defined by this Act, and the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall not apply to a light railway authorised under this Act except so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the railway. .
(2)Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act and to any special provisions contained in the order authorising the railway, the- general enactments relating to railways shall apply to a light railway under this Act in like manner as they apply to any other railway; and for the purposes of those enactments, and of the Clauses Acts so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the railway, the light railway company shall be deemed a railway company, and the order under this Act a special Act, and any provision thereof a special enactment. Provided that a light railway shall not be deemed to be a railway within the meaning of the Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1842, and that no duties shall hereafter be levied in respect of passengers conveyed on a light railway constructed under this Act in respect of the conveyance of such passengers upon such railway."
The full original wording of the act is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/59-60/48/enacted. The current version of the Act, available on the same page, is somewhat different due to subsequent amendments.
In practice many such lines were worked 'one engine in steam' so no signalling was present anyway. So far as I know fpls were always required on passenger lines [which not all were], and if not OEIS then staffs were required. Interlocking could be dispensed with in some circumstances, but strict conditions were then applied. Continuous brakes on passenger stock were required officially, but some lines are known not to have paid a lot of attention to this... If a main line railway built, or took over, a light railway, it is reasonable to assume that any signalling would comply with that company's normal standards.
Noel
Section 12 of the Act reads
"12 Application of general Railway Acts.
(1)The Clauses Acts, as defined by this Act, and the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall not apply to a light railway authorised under this Act except so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the railway. .
(2)Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act and to any special provisions contained in the order authorising the railway, the- general enactments relating to railways shall apply to a light railway under this Act in like manner as they apply to any other railway; and for the purposes of those enactments, and of the Clauses Acts so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the railway, the light railway company shall be deemed a railway company, and the order under this Act a special Act, and any provision thereof a special enactment. Provided that a light railway shall not be deemed to be a railway within the meaning of the Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1842, and that no duties shall hereafter be levied in respect of passengers conveyed on a light railway constructed under this Act in respect of the conveyance of such passengers upon such railway."
The full original wording of the act is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/59-60/48/enacted. The current version of the Act, available on the same page, is somewhat different due to subsequent amendments.
In practice many such lines were worked 'one engine in steam' so no signalling was present anyway. So far as I know fpls were always required on passenger lines [which not all were], and if not OEIS then staffs were required. Interlocking could be dispensed with in some circumstances, but strict conditions were then applied. Continuous brakes on passenger stock were required officially, but some lines are known not to have paid a lot of attention to this... If a main line railway built, or took over, a light railway, it is reasonable to assume that any signalling would comply with that company's normal standards.
Noel
Regards
Noel
Noel
-
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Thanks Noel. In reading the history of the Bishop's Castle one can see how far the rules got stretched right up to abandonment.
Cheers,
David
Cheers,
David
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Latest update photos follow:
Finally got onto some more scenic stuff
Most of the landform is now sorted
The Up Home signal is now installed
One side crossing gate now fitted (and moveable from below!)
Painting and first pass static grass now begun
At least it's starting to look like something now!
Finally got onto some more scenic stuff
Most of the landform is now sorted
The Up Home signal is now installed
One side crossing gate now fitted (and moveable from below!)
Painting and first pass static grass now begun
At least it's starting to look like something now!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Looking very nice there! I have found that doing bulk areas of things such as landscaping I grassed and installed about 20 trees on my OO layout made a huge impact very quickly and it encourages more work.
I did that about 5 weeks ago and then went and did some 1:1 landscaping for the next couple of weeks.... big impact rather cheap but allot more painful to the muscles! Must get back to some modelling.
I did that about 5 weeks ago and then went and did some 1:1 landscaping for the next couple of weeks.... big impact rather cheap but allot more painful to the muscles! Must get back to some modelling.
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling
Still not doing enough modelling
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Been busy detailing the landscape and laying fence posts this week. Progress is shown below:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:15 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
That is really starting to look smashing. Nice work on those hills!
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Been planting trees on the bank over the last few days. It's an attempt to get the feel of a SW England deciduous woodland in June!
Next up fence wiring - I think fine thread (which I've used before) will be ok for the field fence but I feel something finer would be better for the railway fence. Any suggestions?
Next up fence wiring - I think fine thread (which I've used before) will be ok for the field fence but I feel something finer would be better for the railway fence. Any suggestions?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
CDGFife wrote:Next up fence wiring - I think fine thread (which I've used before) will be ok for the field fence but I feel something finer would be better for the railway fence. Any suggestions?
Model Signal Engineering (now part of Wizard Models) are now offering .07mm stainless steel signal wire. There's an illustration of this in the current edition of the News, and, allowing for the absence of sag, it looks pretty good to me - and eminently affordable!
Fine gauge fishing line might be another option.
Like what I see in the pictures. Forgive the carping criticism, but the ironwork (spectacle casting, balance lever + pivot, ladder, etc. ) on your signal looks very close to black to me. The HMRS livery register for SR/LSWR suggests that dark grey would be appropriate up to 1936, with a lighter grey coming into increasingly widespread use thereafter. Worth a wash of grey in the appropriate places to tone down the blackness, perhaps?
-
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Splendid work! That looks like a railway in a landscape with all the textures and changes in elevation that make for a good layout. Dare I say inspirational?
Cheers,
David
Cheers,
David
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3042
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Very good progress indeed!
I particularly like the first and the last pictures. Definitely and aspect of "trains in the landscape" to those two.
Cheers
Flymo
I particularly like the first and the last pictures. Definitely and aspect of "trains in the landscape" to those two.
Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk
www.5522models.co.uk
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Thanks all for the comments
Glad you're enjoying the pics - you can see my progress (by then) first hand at Scaleforum
Thanks John, you are correct it's black - this should teach me (although I doubt it!) to double verify my data. MSE instructions for SR ex LSWR say black with "some parts pale grey from later BR days". It also says verify with proto-photo and all my 1920s/30s signal proto-photos are Black & White where Dark Grey looks like Black so I was pretty happy to go along with it instead of doing some proper legwork!! I will on reflection dark grey the ironwork - thankfully I made the signals removable!
Your prompting reminded me I have some of the MSE signal wire (bought at Scalefour North for my signal wires!). Just dug it out and it should be excellent for the Railway fencing. Sag should be helped by the two (looks like) galv intermediate spacers in between each concrete post. Will try it on the most hidden section of fence by the stream and see how it looks.
Thanks
Chris
Glad you're enjoying the pics - you can see my progress (by then) first hand at Scaleforum
John Palmer wrote:the ironwork (spectacle casting, balance lever + pivot, ladder, etc. ) on your signal looks very close to black to me. The HMRS livery register for SR/LSWR suggests that dark grey would be appropriate up to 1936
Thanks John, you are correct it's black - this should teach me (although I doubt it!) to double verify my data. MSE instructions for SR ex LSWR say black with "some parts pale grey from later BR days". It also says verify with proto-photo and all my 1920s/30s signal proto-photos are Black & White where Dark Grey looks like Black so I was pretty happy to go along with it instead of doing some proper legwork!! I will on reflection dark grey the ironwork - thankfully I made the signals removable!
Your prompting reminded me I have some of the MSE signal wire (bought at Scalefour North for my signal wires!). Just dug it out and it should be excellent for the Railway fencing. Sag should be helped by the two (looks like) galv intermediate spacers in between each concrete post. Will try it on the most hidden section of fence by the stream and see how it looks.
Thanks
Chris
-
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
John Palmer wrote:CDGFife wrote:Next up fence wiring - I think fine thread (which I've used before) will be ok for the field fence but I feel something finer would be better for the railway fence. Any suggestions?
Model Signal Engineering (now part of Wizard Models) are now offering .07mm stainless steel signal wire...
I'm not sure I'd want to catch my fingers in fencing made of that stuff!
-
- Web Team
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:03 pm
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Tried the MSE wire and also EZLine. Both look much the same but I found the EZLine much easier to get tensioned because of it's stretchiness, so that's what I've gone with. The photos below show the resultant fence now with Galv Steel spacers added. Almost a shame most of it won't be seen when the woodland area in front is completed!
Please excuse the squint-ness of the signal post - it's half removed for the re-painting referred to earlier in the thread!
Cheers
Chris
Please excuse the squint-ness of the signal post - it's half removed for the re-painting referred to earlier in the thread!
Cheers
Chris
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
The photos look lovely - both realistic and attractive. Have you given any though to how you'll light the layout for exhibition? If you can reproduce the warmth of these picture then it will be very nice to watch.
-
- Posts: 884
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:11 am
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
Yes, extremely interesting to see this project developing.
Make Worcestershire great again.
Build a wall along the Herefordshire border and make them pay for it.
Build a wall along the Herefordshire border and make them pay for it.
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:37 pm
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
My plan for lighting at present is to use LED ribbon, but I'm not sure (as have not tested yet) which of the whites available will look best.
The layout is currently set up in our sitting room with a single north-facing window providing the daylight. The bulb in the overhead light is an energy saving type, although most photos are taken in daytime so I'm not sure how much the O/H light contributes. The photos are all taken on my smartphone - I find it amazing that this quality of picture can be achieved on something that is effectively a second function (i.e. it's a phone with bolted on camera!), but there you go.
If anyone has thoughts on type of white light for overhead layout lighting I'd be interested to hear
The layout is currently set up in our sitting room with a single north-facing window providing the daylight. The bulb in the overhead light is an energy saving type, although most photos are taken in daytime so I'm not sure how much the O/H light contributes. The photos are all taken on my smartphone - I find it amazing that this quality of picture can be achieved on something that is effectively a second function (i.e. it's a phone with bolted on camera!), but there you go.
If anyone has thoughts on type of white light for overhead layout lighting I'd be interested to hear
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 2423
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am
Re: Finally Made A Start in P4!
This layout will be on display at Scaleforum this year. Just one good reason for everyone to come along.
Terry Bendall
Terry Bendall
Return to “Layouts and Operations”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests