|
Post by metroland on Feb 6, 2011 10:03:21 GMT
Anniversary of date the funding was approved for this section?
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Feb 4, 2011 15:37:45 GMT
Are they all listed structures?
|
|
|
L8/9
Feb 3, 2011 20:10:55 GMT
Post by metroland on Feb 3, 2011 20:10:55 GMT
Acc to LPTB Rollong Stock 1933-1948 (Bradford Barton) they also went to Northfields. I guess with a bit of licence you could run them to Lillie Bridge.
You may need to apply for a new licence of you want to get them to Ruilsip, Neasden or Upminster!
(Same caption says they weren't scrapped until Jan1970, so plenty of scope to run them alongside all sorts)
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 30, 2011 19:29:27 GMT
All were shelters in WW2 except Paddington
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 30, 2011 15:32:08 GMT
Splendid! Modelling should be fun. Brought a smile to my lips. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 27, 2011 20:41:29 GMT
B = Hammersmith?
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 26, 2011 14:48:45 GMT
Afraid these are the most broadside on that I have, most others are even more head on or the other side. Princes Risborough Nov2005: Wendover Oct09:
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 26, 2011 14:29:25 GMT
It entered service in late 2003 as a 2 car set so you could legitimately do this, and avoid critical appraisal of your centre car
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 25, 2011 19:34:15 GMT
Are the toilet facilities available to the public generally? ie no need to pass barriers to get to the toilets.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 20, 2011 14:13:45 GMT
I got to Northwood approx 30mins early. On looking at the non electrified siding/s I couldn't work out exactly how they would manage this. The headshunt seems very short IMHO. Over the next half hour a number of other mourners arrived, and train 775 duly appeared just a few mins late. After drifting into the non-electrified siding, several guys in h-v congregated at the front of the train and.... started to work out how they were gonna do this! I was told there was a diesel generator at the station end of the train to provide some measure of electrical power. I got the distinct impression that no-one had properly measured out the tight dimensions, and exactly how they would get the first couple of carriages out. Once a couple are moved I guess there will be more room, but they did seem to be making it up on the fly!
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Jan 7, 2011 11:59:41 GMT
Thanks railtechnician, very informative.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 27, 2010 20:08:29 GMT
Funnily enough I was going to ask a somewhat similar question. With the impending re-issue of CO/CP stock, is the driver essentially the same bodyshell as Q38 driver?
Ref the Q stock xercesfobe: You're on pretty safe ground having almost any combination of Q23/Q27/Q35/Q38 in a 4 car set. There was even 1 set that had 4 x Q38 cars!
(I have a part built Q23 driver I bought on ebay + 1 x unbuilt Q38 trailer so was looking for another driver myself (Q-anything!) - no idea when it'll get built hence I was searching for something to make 3-car set)
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 24, 2010 15:33:18 GMT
According to news media a couple of days ago the redevelopment for Battersea Power Station has been given the go-ahead. Yes I know older viewers and listeners have been here before like myself, but please bear with me..... The media reports say the area will be served by a 2 stop extension to the Northern line. I'm assuming the intermediate station woud be Vauxhall but I haven't seen it specified anywhere. (Afraid I don't have the erudition to name it whatever the Latin is for 'pie in the sky' )
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 23, 2010 10:04:51 GMT
Thanks it plays now. Nice layout of a period most people don't model.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 23, 2010 9:00:02 GMT
Clip doesn't seem to want to play in either of my 2 browsers!
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 22, 2010 14:25:16 GMT
How are the BR brake vans coupled to the vandalised trailer car?
I may need to include some stock moves in due course for cars that Acton works can't fix!
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 21, 2010 21:05:12 GMT
Railtechnician: Thanks for that - I've now found the earlier thread about cables etc. I won't be doing underground sections any time soon
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 21, 2010 14:19:20 GMT
I thought long and hard about the Radley hangers which seem a bit large. However there's so much to do and so many compromises to make (for those of us who can't face EM ) that I decided to go with them. Am hoping that in time, when I come back to them I'll be able to weather them in a way which makes them fade into the background a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 21, 2010 13:42:25 GMT
Neilw: Thanks for the pics - I guess we have quite similar solutions. I could never get the grey beams to line up with the side of the cars and my 1938 stock will probably need attention next winter to narrow them down at bogie height. After about 10 cars I got a bit better and although my 1962 stock still doesn't line up precisely with the edge of the car, it is getting there I think.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 21, 2010 13:34:04 GMT
cable wasn't a cable at all but a metal conduit? Not quite - it's the compressed air main. Thanks but am I right in thinking it has smaller cross-section and is made of different material from the other cables? (Am total novice at this kind of technicality).
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 21, 2010 13:15:16 GMT
Railtechnician: Thank you SO much for your detailed reply - I had no idea where to start with this as it just seemed such a black art.
Not sure just how long it will take me to absorb and apply to my layout but I've no excuse now for not knowing what I SHOULD be doing.
Another question on a related issue if I may: Ref the lineside cable runs of the 50's era - am I correct in thinking that at the time they would have been newly installed, the top cable wasn't a cable at all but a metal conduit? (On my layout I've used brass rod sprayed with grey primer to represent this, with 'cables' on the lower 3 runs).
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 20, 2010 18:22:48 GMT
To those of you who are about to start your models, don't worry if you get some details wrong. It's a learning experience, and if you're lucky you can dig up a reference to justify what you've done. I always thought the 4th rail in stations should be away from the platform unless it's impossible - eg centre road at White City. I just stumbled on this reference to the original Osterley station in 1930. Lo and behold the outer electric rails are along the platform side, even in the days when it was open for passengers. www.disused-stations.org.uk/o/osterley/index.shtmlAre there any other examples out there of things which would normally be 'wrong' but for which there's an actual example?
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 20, 2010 15:27:00 GMT
I'd completely forgotten that the issues of clearance with the outer rail weren't just about the grey beam but also the replacement Metromodels bogies. It's tricky getting close enough to get the detail and keep focus but hopefully this is what I mean: You will see that the grey beam which has been cut and re-glued is actually wide of the 4th rail but the edge of the 'square' replacement bogie underneath is very close to rubbing the outer rail. I hope you all won't mind me repeating a pic from other thread but to give an almost side-by-side comparison, here is 'normal viewing distance' where the incorrect position of grey beam doesn't show:
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 19, 2010 20:27:37 GMT
The station building looks like it has continental origins but also resembles some on the Southern such as at Chertsey, St Denys and Netley. These fingers are getting mighty itchy..... Thanks for the comments. I wondered how long it would be before someone picked up on the station building! One of the layouts that inspired me was one by a German called Abermymach (that's the layout not the German). It was in RM in the 1980's a couple of times (I said I'd been armchair modelling for a long time). Anyway he'd been to Wales a few times and been smitten by the GWR (well who wouldn't be?) At the time, there was no internet, and very few British kits in Germany so he resorted to bashing Kibri, Vollmer, Faller etc, and made a good stab at a welsh GWR scene using German kits, modified. It got me to thinking that in the Victorian era a lot of buildings in UK and Germany and USA were quite similar if you're careful what you pick. Obviously some designs are very Teutonic, and some north American stuff just doesn't suit. However it did broaden my horizons to keep thinking about these possibilites. A lot of station buildings in London and SE during the railway mania years were what I call 'Italianate Town House style' - no idea if that's the correct architectural term but that's what I call it. I was looking for something of this ilk when I stumbled across a Kibri admin building - which is what this is. I feel this represents a fairly important station building of an appropriate era, or how the directors would have wanted their line to be perceived - grandeur on a budget! I need to do some more anglicisiation but that's for the future. The roof has tiles laid in diamond fashion rather than traditional UK style. I was going to change the roof tiles, and probably will eventually. However, in the interim I realised the GWR had roof tiles like that, and Slough still does. Not sure if the Met or LNWR ever did. I haven't found such a reference yet - if I do I'll have a chance to be lazy and leave it! Yes I take your point about resin buildings from Hornby/Bachmann. Great things to start with - either no mods needed, or very little.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 19, 2010 12:41:18 GMT
Chop the pick up shoes off EFE side bars! No-one notices from normal viewing distances, especially if the train's moving. I think this view shows my outer rail is higher than running rails. Ref the distance, this is very much trial and error. My tube trains are all re-bogied with Metromodels replacements which run MUCH better. It does mean you have to cut the collector beams off EFE models and file/glue them to the outside of the replacements. A few thou can make a difference. All I can say is 'position the outer rail just a bit further outside the running line than true scale'.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 19, 2010 11:16:40 GMT
Metman and Glyn, thanks for your comments – I feel a longish reply coming on! To Glyn (and anyone else thinking about taking the plunge) JFDI. It’s not until you actually start handling things and trying to get your layout to ‘look’ right that you’ll really get to grips with the compromises that are acceptable to you. Eg Croxley depot has all those white rail ends which look the part in a depot area. On my track I have none. Technically some rails maybe ought to have them but if I get it wrong when some are painted and others aren’t it’ll probably look botched. So I have none. I wouldn’t say either is right or wrong but these are some choices you simply can’t make until you see your layout taking shape in front of you. (Glyn: I wouldn’t raise the centre rail. I’ve already found one problem with it as low as it is now. I have an Ivatt 2-6-2T for operating the branch shuttle (when the branch gets done – fortunately track is laid). The Bachmann Ivatt has a metal ‘lump’ underneath the centre-line which fouls my middle rail – never a problem of course with BR track. There are other types I could run but in latter years the Ivatt 2-6-2T was on Chesham branch). Ref sleeper spacing: Ugh where do I start? It’s another banana skin! The basic issues are that I didn’t know about it until long after I’d laid the BR track, but we’re also back again to compromises of having 4mm models on top of HO track. I first came across the sleeper spacing issue in an American mag, which was talking about sleeper spacing in sidings being wider than main line. From the vertical view of disused coal yard you can see I incorporated this into my disused siding and headshunt. For my BR goods yard lines I did rip some lines up and try relaying a larger area with wider spacing but I was never happy so I’ve reverted to normal sleepers on Code100. What I’m trying to do is create cameos to take focus away from the detail. Eg track gang working on fresh ballast so there’s no reason for that area to be perfect After all OO is sleight of hand in the first place so why not run with it? I’ve got a lot of time for Scalescenes as he really ‘goes for the look’. Also his kits are great in that you can do something fairly easily that looks good, and if you have the interest and determination you can put a lot more in to make them great. Can you hear a BUT coming? He’s absolutely right about the sleeper spacing, but I don’t think he’s done 4-rail? Trouble is, there’s a risk of mixing 4mm/1ft standards and OO (ie HO gauge track). When you see his properly spaced 2 rail track it looks good – only trouble is it maybe puts some newbies off having a go? WHY ISN’T THERE AN OFF THE SHELF OPTION FOR OO? (They will be saying?) (Maybe Code 75 is correct, but I guess Code 75 in itself will be off-putting as it’s ‘finescale’) Now, when you plonk Code 100 in dead centre of 4’2” track (which OO is-ish) because of the illusory nature of OO in the first place, my feeling is that it looked pretty good with the Peco sleepers. Good enough for an armchair modeller of 30 years to think I’ll run with it! As I’ve spent 30 years in the armchair, my first proper layout is clearly not top drawer, but if I compare the 4-rail lines in the pic above with recent pics of Rickmansworth and Chesham. I have to say I’m not convinced that properly spacing the sleepers to 4mm scale with sit happily with 3rd and 4th rails. My gut feel is that if you’re going to properly space the sleepers then you need to add the fiddly bits of getting scale 3rd and 4th rails, insulator pots, ramps etc. I’d love to be wrong, but given he’s talking about 2-rail track, I don’t think you can DIRECTLY apply the lesson to 4-rail, unless you make everything scale on not OO? Maybe that calculation of 24 sleepers per 60' needs some sleight of hand to make it 'look scale without actually being scale?' And finally: Glyn mentioned clearance of the outside rail. One unexpected benefit of my method was that I found it quite easy to lift the outside rail and reposition slightly. If you’ve got say every 4th or 5th sleeper with a track pin coming into the outside of the sleeper, the tops of the pins are superglued to the Code 60 rail. If you gently lift a few inches, it all comes up with one springy piece of rail with spikes already attached. Carefully press them down closer or further away and hey presto you changed the outer rail clearance without too many tears. (Sorry guys I’m not gonna lift a section and photograph it…………….) Now, do I need to repaint 2,000 sleepers a lighter colour - my brain hurts
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 18, 2010 18:22:02 GMT
Compromises or not, it's always satisfying to get complex trackwork with the 'right' feel to it.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 18, 2010 18:06:40 GMT
I would have thought code 75 rail would be more prototypically correct, based on the assumption that LU uses lighter flat-bottomed rail than UIC60. Then again it has to be said that bullhead rail would be even more correct - shame it's not exactly readily available. Another reason for doing BR/LT With the Kings X Widened Lines, Gunnersbury-Richmond, Outer Met areas, Watford DC Lines, Bromley-by-Bow to Upminster, and others, there's almost always a prototype for something you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 18, 2010 18:02:47 GMT
Have a look on P34 of January's Railway Modeller, there is a layout using the Peco conductor rail and pots and it looks very good. As you say the problem of 00 being too narrow to scale could be exagerated by the extra two rails, but I think this looks pretty good (only marred by the pots not being on adjacent sleepers as they generally should). I'll take a look. Good job my layout only has pots (of sorts) on the outer rail ;D That reminds me of City Road. Anyone remember that? It was inspirational and for a short while on the circuit at same time as John Polley's then new Abbey Road. It's funny what you notice on other peoples' layouts though. IIRC on City Road the insulator pots on both 3rd and 4th rails were on the same sleeper which wouldn't happen. (Not claiming my layout is perfect it's just how easy it is to look over someone else's and spot things straight away).
|
|
|
Post by metroland on Dec 18, 2010 17:55:01 GMT
In the end we are all modeling our own interpretation of the real railway and without exception all layouts are full of compromises. I was not initially going to use Code 75 track for my Croxley layout however my mate who helps with the layout suggested we did and I could see his point. Happy modeling all and remember it a relaxing hobby for us all to enjoy. ;D Xerces Fobe Tell me about it!!!!! I decided long ago to stick with Code 100 as I had various bits of stock. Then I had to decide between Electrofrogs and Insulfrogs. Also I wanted medium and/or large radius points where I could for the BR lines. Initially I laid Insulfrog points and have since ripped most out them out when I recognised the virtue of electrofrog, and how to wire the layout. I only have 1 insulfrog in a key position where I simply can't work out how to wire DC around this particular problem. (Much too much stock to chip all locos with DCC.....) The medium and large radius points were great with BR stock. Much better looking than having small radius everywhere. Then I had some tube stock motorised and the small wheels started to fall into the big holes in the Vee. Happy days...........
|
|