West Highland Line V4, a 1980's West Highland Line layout

[young37215]

20 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

It’s interesting that those trains seem to have the tankers behind the engine with a barrier wagon. Whereas the 37 era photos seem to have the tankers on the back with no barrier. Does anyone know when this practice changed?

 

20 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Would it depend on whether it was a northbound or southbound working?

 

 

The use of barrier wagons appears haphazard and from the few I have seen there is no obvious reason for the requirement. My best guess would be brake related, could it be that air brakes which are generally viewed as superior to vacum brakes, were deemed not to require barrier wagons?  

 

I cannot see that the direction of travel would have an effect on the requirement for a barrier wagon, I could understand if it was whether or not the wagons were loaded or empty. That said, the vast majority of pictures that I have seen show no barrier wagon. The Mallaig barrier wagon is rather amusing in that the wagons are not seperated from the passengers, just the loco. What does this tell us about BR's view of passengers I wonder?

 

Northbound trains, presumably loaded wagons

 

 

 

 

Southbound trains, presumably empty wagons

 

 

 

 

Or even both directions at the same time!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by young37215

[Matt]

1 hour ago, young37215 said:

 

I cannot see that the direction of travel would have an effect on the requirement for a barrier wagon, I could understand if it was whether or not the wagons were loaded or empty. 

Which is more hazardous? Full wagons full of flammable liquid or “empty” wagons full of explosive gas (depending what has been carried).  Some great photos there - reminds me I need to get on and do my plain grey TTAs that I’ve been stocking up on into BP grey. Of course Hornby announce a new wagon just after I stockpile loads of Bachmann… at least not in the livery I want! (Yet)

[Module00]

Thank you very much for the great and instructive photos. 👍😃

[Module00]

I am happy to see my ancient class 37114 on your layout. 😃👍 

happy for it to run on your awesome layout. 👌😊

[GordonC]

On 21/01/2023 at 07:01, young37215 said:

 

 

The use of barrier wagons appears haphazard and from the few I have seen there is no obvious reason for the requirement. My best guess would be brake related, could it be that air brakes which are generally viewed as superior to vacum brakes, were deemed not to require barrier wagons?  

 

I cannot see that the direction of travel would have an effect on the requirement for a barrier wagon, I could understand if it was whether or not the wagons were loaded or empty. That said, the vast majority of pictures that I have seen show no barrier wagon. The Mallaig barrier wagon is rather amusing in that the wagons are not seperated from the passengers, just the loco. What does this tell us about BR's view of passengers I wonder?

 

Northbound trains, presumably loaded wagons

 

 

 

 

Southbound trains, presumably empty wagons

 

 

 

 

Or even both directions at the same time!

 

 

 

 

 

My question of northbound or southbound was relating to whether the tanks were at the front or rear of mixed trains. I was guessing there would probably be a reason either for adding on or removing the tank wagons. I certainly dont remember ever seeing tank wagons in Glasgow Queen Street, so were they dropped off en-route? In which case it would probably be easier having them at the rear

Edited January 22, 2023 by GordonC

[BoD]

59 minutes ago, GordonC said:

I certainly dont remember ever seeing tank wagons in Glasgow Queen Street

Im guessing, from the photographs I have seen, that they would go to and from Fort William in one of the regular freight trains and then be tagged onto a passenger train to Mallaig

Edited January 22, 2023 by BoD

[meanach]

On 21/01/2023 at 08:24, Matt said:

Which is more hazardous? Full wagons full of flammable liquid or “empty” wagons full of explosive gas (depending what has been carried).  Some great photos there - reminds me I need to get on and do my plain grey TTAs that I’ve been stocking up on into BP grey. Of course Hornby announce a new wagon just after I stockpile loads of Bachmann… at least not in the livery I want! (Yet)

Snap! I got as far as half finished TTA with etched top walk ways and ladders plus replacing the springs with white metal. Now Hornby have announced a superior TTA but not the 80s B.P ones. 

[03060]

Having looked through several thousand images in search of the Class B like tanks and in the words of U2 ... I still haven't found what I'm looking for !

However I did I did come across this photo in Ernie's Railway Archive which, although not 100%certain, shows two Class A version of the Revolution model at the rear of this train. 1977 though I'm afraid.

 

 

Regards,

Ian.

[03060]

.... and on the same page of Irishswissernie's Callander and Oban album, I found this from 1980, it seems that the Ferryvans have been breeding !

 

 

[BoD]

2 hours ago, 03060 said:

.... and on the same page of Irishswissernie's Callander and Oban album, I found this from 1980, it seems that the Ferryvans have been breeding !

 

 

Interesting.  I don’t recall seeing them in photographs of moving freight trains (or many of the 16t minerals for that matter).  Having said that is it not true that apart from Glen Douglas the vast majority of freight is photographed north of Tyndrum

[young37215]

 

On 21/01/2023 at 08:24, Matt said:

Which is more hazardous? Full wagons full of flammable liquid or “empty” wagons full of explosive gas (depending what has been carried).  Some great photos there - reminds me I need to get on and do my plain grey TTAs that I’ve been stocking up on into BP grey. Of course Hornby announce a new wagon just after I stockpile loads of Bachmann… at least not in the livery I want! (Yet)

 

A valid point which is affirmed by reference to other threads on RMWeb. This leaves braking type/capacity as the most likely reason I can think of for barrier vehicles. Irrespective of the reasons I am happy that there are enough examples of oil tanks on the WHL without barrier vehicles to carry on running without them.

 

 

14 hours ago, GordonC said:

My question of northbound or southbound was relating to whether the tanks were at the front or rear of mixed trains. I was guessing there would probably be a reason either for adding on or removing the tank wagons. I certainly dont remember ever seeing tank wagons in Glasgow Queen Street, so were they dropped off en-route? In which case it would probably be easier having them at the rear

 

The only scheduled mixed train to run on the WHL in the early 1980's ran between Fort William and Mallaig with the freight element mainly comprising fuel oil for the Mallaig fishing fleet. The freight was always conveyed at the rear of the train in both directions which was marshalled at both Fort William where I have seen both the station and Mallaig Junction Yard used for marshalling purposes, and again at Mallaig for the return. The fuel carrying TTV wagons were loaded at Grangemouth, tripped to Glasgow and transported between Glasgow and Fort William in one of the 3 daily weekday freights. The empties returned in the reverse of the outward journey. 

 

1 hour ago, BoD said:

Interesting.  I don’t recall seeing them in photographs of moving freight trains (or many of the 16t minerals for that matter).  Having said that is it not true that apart from Glen Douglas the vast majority of freight is photographed north of Tyndrum

 

The 16T minerals were regularly used for coal traffic which declined through the 1980's. 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

Hi Rob,

 

Were the FTW-MLG tanks TTV or TTG (vacuum braked with through air pipe/AFI brake)? If they were vac only, how did they work with the FTW- Mossend freights which, I understand, were air braked?

 

Andy

[03060]

Well, as we're looking at 16t wagons on the WHL, this one was a w/end find for me and taken in 1983 falls nicely into Rob's WHLv.4 timescale .... Adrian Hancock was in the right place at the right time to capture this ex.Works Class 27 014 shunting 16t minerals carrying domestic coal at Crianlarich.

 

 

Simply Beautiful !

Edited January 24, 2023 by 03060
Loco No. Added.

[young37215]

On 23/01/2023 at 04:43, 03060 said:

.... and on the same page of Irishswissernie's Callander and Oban album, I found this from 1980, it seems that the Ferryvans have been breeding !

 

 

 

Terrific picture but more like 1983 or 84 because the bay platform lasted until 1982 when rationalisation saw it removed, the station track layout simplified and the signal box decommissioned. It is interesting that there are 2 ferry vans, I think that is the first time more than 1 has been seen in a picture?

 

11 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Hi Rob,

 

Were the FTW-MLG tanks TTV or TTG (vacuum braked with through air pipe/AFI brake)? If they were vac only, how did they work with the FTW- Mossend freights which, I understand, were air braked?

 

Andy

 

Excellent question to which I do'nt know the answer despite having pondered and researched it for several years. Given the number of tankers seen in many of the pictures of Glasgow to Lochaber freights I cannot see how they could have been all through piped because this makes the train effectively unbraked. My best guess is that there was a split of wagons with vacum braked through piped wagons for the Mallaig cargoes and the rest air braked. In the event of a large Mallaig cargo then that could run as a standalone vacum braked train which should not have been a problem for the dual braked 37's. Of course if someone more knowledgeable knows different.....

 

Paul Bartlett's website indicates that the TTV fleet went through a programme of air braking in the early 80's which would mean a split of air and vacum wagons being available. 

 

 

 

 

[mallaig1983]

1 hour ago, young37215 said:

 

Terrific picture but more like 1983 or 84 because the bay platform lasted until 1982 when rationalisation saw it removed, the station track layout simplified and the signal box decommissioned. It is interesting that there are 2 ferry vans, I think that is the first time more than 1 has been seen in a picture?

 

 

Excellent question to which I do'nt know the answer despite having pondered and researched it for several years. Given the number of tankers seen in many of the pictures of Glasgow to Lochaber freights I cannot see how they could have been all through piped because this makes the train effectively unbraked. My best guess is that there was a split of wagons with vacum braked through piped wagons for the Mallaig cargoes and the rest air braked. In the event of a large Mallaig cargo then that could run as a standalone vacum braked train which should not have been a problem for the dual braked 37's. Of course if someone more knowledgeable knows different.....

 

Paul Bartlett's website indicates that the TTV fleet went through a programme of air braking in the early 80's which would mean a split of air and vacum wagons being available. 

 

 

 

 

Wasn’t there an oil terminal at FW? Between Mallaig Junction and the station (and currently used to service the class 73s). I wonder what the requirement for this terminal was as it certainly seems that a decent amount of traffic went there. The tanks going to this depot could easily be TTA  and I’ve always understood (although I’m happy to be corrected) that the tanks that went on to Mallaig were TTG. Photos show the tanks between Craigendoran and Fort William either as there own train or as part of a speedlink mixed freight but I have no knowledge of how the TTGs were formed into these consists. Would there be TTAs sandwiching the TTGs or would the TTGs sit directly behind the locomotive with air braked wagons at the rear? How many unbraked wagons wagons could run without a braked wagon between them? I remember in the 80s on what is now the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway we had an unbraked but through piped coach that had to run between two braked vehicles. This would mean that if another through piped coach had of been added it too would have had to have been marshalled between two braked vehicles. Now if that was the norm on the big railway then quite a lot of shunting would have been required at FW! I just have to assume that my example was specific to the WHR’s LRO. 
It is a very good question though.
 

[billywhizz]

Hi @mallaig1983 you volunteered at the WHR in the 80’s? We may have met? 
Regards,

Bill. 

[mallaig1983]

44 minutes ago, billywhizz said:

Hi @mallaig1983 you volunteered at the WHR in the 80’s? We may have met? 
Regards,

Bill. 

I was in my teens back then and only managed a couple of weeks a year. I was C&W manager there 2001 to 2009. Were you still about then?

[billywhizz]

8 minutes ago, mallaig1983 said:

I was in my teens back then and only managed a couple of weeks a year. I was C&W manager there 2001 to 2009. Were you still about then?

I’ll drop you a PM. Don’t want to derail Rob’s excellent thread

[young37215]

9 hours ago, mallaig1983 said:

Wasn’t there an oil terminal at FW? Between Mallaig Junction and the station (and currently used to service the class 73s). I wonder what the requirement for this terminal was as it certainly seems that a decent amount of traffic went there. The tanks going to this depot could easily be TTA  and I’ve always understood (although I’m happy to be corrected) that the tanks that went on to Mallaig were TTG. Photos show the tanks between Craigendoran and Fort William either as there own train or as part of a speedlink mixed freight but I have no knowledge of how the TTGs were formed into these consists. Would there be TTAs sandwiching the TTGs or would the TTGs sit directly behind the locomotive with air braked wagons at the rear? How many unbraked wagons wagons could run without a braked wagon between them? I remember in the 80s on what is now the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway we had an unbraked but through piped coach that had to run between two braked vehicles. This would mean that if another through piped coach had of been added it too would have had to have been marshalled between two braked vehicles. Now if that was the norm on the big railway then quite a lot of shunting would have been required at FW! I just have to assume that my example was specific to the WHR’s LRO. 
It is a very good question though.
 

 

The majority of the oil traffic north of Crianlarich ended up at Fort William oil terminal, a 2 road affair off of Mallaig Junction (as it was called in in the 80's). The depot still operates being run by Scottish Fuels. It received regular rail deliveries of various refined oil products until 2017 when all deliveries were very sadly transferred to road transport. There is no reason why this depot would not have been served by TTA's, only the Mallaig bound wagons needed to be vacum braked. 

 

To the left of the first picture and just visible in the second are a number of oil storage vessels. The third picture shows the proximity to the junction, the siding on the left leads to the terminal.

 

 

 

 

[03060]

On 27/02/2017 at 15:37, young37215 said:

Further progress at Crianlarich where I have managed to get the northern scissors junction to feel about right. The points will be operated using my new Megapoints controller and servos, I hope these are as straightforward as the Youtube videos show!!. I also need to work out how to wire the scissors correctly to avoid polarity conflicts.

 

 

Additional trackwork at the southern end of the station to complete the sidings has been added and pinned in place. On reflection the old engine shed needs to move northwards which means the siding needs shortening. Despite this the overall profile of the station is beginning to create the feel of the location that I seek.

 

 

Track has also been laid and pinned in the fiddle yard. It will probably get tweaked when operations commence but for now I have something to work with and can start planning the point motorisation fest project. In the back ground Glenfinnan station sits in its revised position and in the far distance a roughly located Garelochead station and trackwork can just be made out.

 

 

 

Hello Rob,

 

In my frustration to emulate some of the successful operation that both the Chris Thorp layout design (in N gauge) and your own WHL v.4 have achieved I'm once again back to looking at trying to fit Crianlarich Upper (and maybe Lower) into my room and have been looking at trying to include the older 'scissor' junction at the Northern end of the station rather than the newer, simpler style of 2 point layout.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the early thread photos are still missing since the website meltdown and I can't quite make up my mind from later photos as to how you've created 'the right feel' to the junction as mentioned above in Posts 10 & 14 (p.1), sometimes a point looks like a LH in one photo but then possibly a Y in another. As you've used Peco code 75 and I'm using the Peco code 55 N gauge system I'm hoping that the geometry is similar. Any chance of a quick explanation as to what you ended up with, please ?

 

 

The side of the junction from FW looks reasonably straight to me into the platform face (after a slight curve in from the bridge over the river) but it then seems a bit tight with the pointwork I have to create the flowing sweep and gap for the platform from the Northerley platform face, although I'm still trying different combinations to see which looks and works best.

Both photos from Ernies Railway Archive / JM Boyes.

 

Apologies for the non 1980s photos but surprisingly I was struggling to find many clear shots of the junction.Sorry also if you are still on holiday, there's no rush for a reply.

 

Kind regards,

Ian.

Edited January 30, 2023 by 03060
Photos added.

[jwphillips]

Couldn’t easily see any previous discussion but wondering whether you’ve run Metro Cammell

Class 101 sets on WHL v.4? If not seen already https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/18252

[young37215]

9 hours ago, 03060 said:

 

Hello Rob,

 

In my frustration to emulate some of the successful operation that both the Chris Thorp layout design (in N gauge) and your own WHL v.4 have achieved I'm once again back to looking at trying to fit Crianlarich Upper (and maybe Lower) into my room and have been looking at trying to include the older 'scissor' junction at the Northern end of the station rather than the newer, simpler style of 2 point layout.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the early thread photos are still missing since the website meltdown and I can't quite make up my mind from later photos as to how you've created 'the right feel' to the junction as mentioned above in Posts 10 & 14 (p.1), sometimes a point looks like a LH in one photo but then possibly a Y in another. As you've used Peco code 75 and I'm using the Peco code 55 N gauge system I'm hoping that the geometry is similar. Any chance of a quick explanation as to what you ended up with, please ?

 

 

The side of the junction from FW looks reasonably straight to me into the platform face (after a slight curve in from the bridge over the river) but it then seems a bit tight with the pointwork I have to create the flowing sweep and gap for the platform from the Northerley platform face, although I'm still trying different combinations to see which looks and works best.

Both photos from Ernies Railway Archive / JM Boyes.

 

Apologies for the non 1980s photos but surprisingly I was struggling to find many clear shots of the junction.Sorry also if you are still on holiday, there's no rush for a reply.

 

Kind regards,

Ian.

 

Hi Ian

 

1973 view of the junction looking north

 

 

I used 2 left hand and 2 right hand points to create the junction as you can see in the picture. The view is from the east with the station to the left. 

 

 

In situ on WHL4, in reality the Fort William line should turn slightly further right.

 

 

I shortened the distance between the junction and the platform by about 50% to make it fit in.

 

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Rob

[03060]

Thanks for these Rob,

 

Yes, that helps tremendously as every inch of space will count and it's surprising how much difference using the different types of points available can make to the positions of the exit roads from the small diamond that I have.

 

From last nights 'pushing bits of track around' on baseboards on the floor I reckon that a "reasonable representation" of the Upper station might just be made to fit diagonally across the room but some thought is still needed to determine how these boards can be intergrated with the others.

 

Many thanks for the quick reply, this current shift pattern that I'm currently on gives me one week off in three, effectively, so I need to utilize that time off more productively than I have been ... before it all changes again.

 

Thanks again,

Regards,

Ian.

[young37215]

On 30/01/2023 at 22:09, jwphillips said:

Couldn’t easily see any previous discussion but wondering whether you’ve run Metro Cammell

Class 101 sets on WHL v.4? If not seen already https://www.railcar.co.uk/images/18252

 

Missed this yesterday in my haste to answer 03060's question. A short answer, No I don't have or plan to run DMU's on WHL4 partly because there is only so much rolling stock I have space for and mainly because I am not a fan of them. My understanding is that they were infrequent vistors to the WHL and if I were to add rolling stock for occassional trains I would go for loco hauled stock such as that used on the SRPS tours.  

 

 

[03060]

On 18/01/2023 at 21:28, jwphillips said:

Absolutely stunning work Rob. This is a serious benchmark. Interested in the use of tank wagons on the WHL. Clearly TTA prominent but wondering if anyone aware of the use of Class B tank wagons into the 1980s? Revolution's forthcoming Class B in N looks very tempting but struggling to find photographic evidence of same

 

Definitive photo of a 35t Class B tank in the same number range as the Revolution model at Fort William (Tom-na-faire) and Oban on p.20 of Cheona Publications No.14 - British Railway Private Owner Tank Wagons (R. Tourret) .... but again 1977 not 1980s.

 

To bring this back to Rob's 1980s thread, it is worth looking deeper into the 5 photos of tank wagons that Rob posted on page 70 of the thread as they contain several different tank designs but with similar TOPS codes within most of the trains.

 

Photo 1 shows at least 2 types, the Black Class B tank barrels being of a totally different design (lagged) to the grey ones, both classed as TTA.

 

My favourite is Photo 2 by Bill Watson though, 37 112 (with it's non standard number position) and 4 'similar' looking (at first glance) tank wagons but actually of 3 different designs, the first 2 having single end ladders (probably numbered in the 56xxx range), the third has (I think) twin end ladders (probably from the 57xxx range) and the last also has twin end ladders but what looks to be a larger tank barrel with side support struts, so possibly a 50t wagon (haven't yet managed to identify this one properly.)

 

Reading the tank wagon's number is the key to identifying these tank designs either to model or buy models of, usually helped by the numbers being on both the barrel ends as well as the sides, as there are many, many detail differences between them .... tank construction, ladders (end side, single or double), walkways on top (none, half, 3/4 , full length), chassis suspension type, etc, etc and that's before we get to braking / TOPS code types and then (finally) .... liveries !

 

I've got several books on tank wagons and it's still an absolute minefield .... but I think that it's worth taking notes from photos as it allows you to build up a better picture and just that bit more variety into the trains.

 

Regards,

Ian.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by 03060
Photo added.