Traeth Mawr -Painting Season, (mostly)

[Donw]

Hi Chris

 

On the off chance you haven't yet heard of this publication:

 

Scan-cambrian.jpg

 

Lots of information on wagons, colours, lettering, dimensions, dates, loads etcetera.

 

Useful but not a lot of detail on the Barmouth area especially in pre-group days. I bought a copy when it came out and chatted to Mike about Barmouth but he had no further info.

[CKPR]

Thanks Sierd,

I know it exists and watched a copy on eBay but I have not actively sought one as funds are going elsewhere at the moment.  However, Christmas is only just under 8 months away. 

I think I've just bought that copy off Ebay ! What an excellent and informative book.

[ChrisN]

I think I've just bought that copy off Ebay ! What an excellent and informative book.

 

CKPR,

I think I only watched it so I am glad I did not bid as you now have it.  I always look at what I am bidding for and see if there is a possibility that someone I know on here is bidding.

[corneliuslundie]

To be honest I decided not to bother mentioning Mike Lloyd's book. It is very good for some parts of the Cambrian, but there is little information for the Barmouth area. Essentially it has two sections: wagons seen on the Cambrian which originated outside, and wagons owners based on the Cambrian. It is out of print. Amazon has three copies at 19.50, 25.00 and 51.70!!! I am sure cheaper copies must come up from time to time.

 

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

To be honest I decided not to bother mentioning Mike Lloyd's book. It is very good for some parts of the Cambrian, but there is little information for the Barmouth area. Essentially it has two sections: wagons seen on the Cambrian which originated outside, and wagons owners based on the Cambrian. It is out of print. Amazon has three copies at 19.50, 25.00 and 51.70!!! I am sure cheaper copies must come up from time to time.

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  I will keep an eye out on eBay and see if it turns up as a price I am willing to pay.

 

On a brighter note, my Welsh Country Cottages has arrived and is very useful.  I think my other one has been dispatched but it is being repatriated from the States so may take a while.  Thank you and John for pointing me towards these two.  As John said they are detached but I am sure those that do not have chimneys or windows at the ends would work as terraced, or I could just do two or three detached.  I will have to see what space I have.

[ChrisN]

The last two weeks have been busy with a son's house move, grand child's birthday and just general stuff.  I have done a little modelling and have nearly finished a fire grate.  When that is done I will continue with the house.  I have finished a range but when I went to put the pictures up I found that there were no photos so it will go up once I have done that.  However, all things being equal I will get the boards up again this week and finish putting the cork down.  Then it will be track laying time!

 

I am using Peco track and have decided that I will improve the sleeper spacing as per Andy Y in BRM and Anotheran on Doxey End.  Anotheran used 5.5 mm spacing.  On the front of 'A New history od the Cambrian...' the track is very clear.  It has ten sleepers to a rail length, and then the sleepers at the end of the lengths are closer together.  The information I found was that the rail lengths were 24ft.  I then calculated for ten sleepers in 24ft that the spacing should be 6.7mm allowing for the width of the sleeper.  This for practical purposes will be 6.5mm. I will make a jig as Anotheran did.

 

So any comments?  If not then in a week or so I shall start attacking track with my friend Stanley.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Edited May 2, 2015 by ChrisN

[sp1]

Doesn't the spacing need to be closer to 5.5mm though for visual reasons? : Peco sleepers are narrower than they should be, so 6.5mm might be too wide to look 'correct' even if they are not 'correct' , if you see what I mean.....

[Anotheran]

Chris,

 

I originally looked at 6.5 mm but decided it looked a little too wide with the narrowness of the sleepers and also the narrow gauge. So I went with the 5.5 mm that Ray has used on Camel Quay. Having just this morning seen CQ again at Bradford I can still say it is one of my favourites and the trackwork is probably the best use of Peco that I have seen. I'd recommend a look at the CQ thread before you commit to a spacing. But as the track is always going to be a slight compromise I'd say that the right spacing is the one that looks right to you.

 

Regards, Neil

Edited May 3, 2015 by Anotheran

[tanatvalley]

I know your period is 1895 stretching to 1914. Just outside this period is the Jim Richards collection of photographs of mainly wagons that he took in 1924 at Barmouth, Penmaenpool and Dolgelly. They are in the HMRS collection and can be found using the Search Form, choose 'Location' and 'Collection'. Just by looking at this collection illustrates the variety of wagons that reached this part of Wales.

 

Alan

[Donw]

I know your period is 1895 stretching to 1914. Just outside this period is the Jim Richards collection of photographs of mainly wagons that he took in 1924 at Barmouth, Penmaenpool and Dolgelly. They are in the HMRS collection and can be found using the Search Form, choose 'Location' and 'Collection'. Just by looking at this collection illustrates the variety of wagons that reached this part of Wales.

 

Alan

 

Wouldn't the wartime pooling and the grouping have made a difference?  There are not many clear pictures taken pre WW1 that I have seen.

Don

[ChrisN]

Doesn't the spacing need to be closer to 5.5mm though for visual reasons? : Peco sleepers are narrower than they should be, so 6.5mm might be too wide to look 'correct' even if they are not 'correct' , if you see what I mean.....

 

Steve,

Thank you.  It is something that I had not thought about.  It is the difference between 'being right' and 'looking right'.

 

Edit: To get name right!

Edited May 3, 2015 by ChrisN

[MikeOxon]

Don,

Thank you.  It is something that I had not thought about.  It is the difference between 'being right' and 'looking right'.

I guess if you want to 'be' right, then you have to go P4.  In OO, it's a case of trying to 'look' right, as far as is possible.  Having done some scratchbuilding, I have come to appreciate the compromises that the commercial manufacturers have to make.  The gap between OO wheels and outside frames is a particularly difficult problem to manage visually.

[ChrisN]

Chris,

 

I originally looked at 6.5 mm but decided it looked a little too wide with the narrowness of the sleepers and also the narrow gauge. So I went with the 5.5 mm that Ray has used on Camel Quay. Having just this morning seen CQ again at Bradford I can still say it is one of my favourites and the trackwork is probably the best use of Peco that I have seen. I'd recommend a look at the CQ thread before you commit to a spacing. But as the track is always going to be a slight compromise I'd say that the right spacing is the one that looks right to you.

 

Regards, Neil

 

Neil,

Having read both threads, yours and CQ I must have missed, or more likely forgotten, that you had considered 6.5 spacings and decided on 5.5.  I basically did my calculations from scratch after having read around to find the length of rail.  What struck me most on the picture was not the spacing between sleepers for the rail length but that the two sleepers at the ends of the rails were closer together.  This is something that I will replicate, and before you ask, no I will not glue on replica fish plates.

[ChrisN]

I know your period is 1895 stretching to 1914. Just outside this period is the Jim Richards collection of photographs of mainly wagons that he took in 1924 at Barmouth, Penmaenpool and Dolgelly. They are in the HMRS collection and can be found using the Search Form, choose 'Location' and 'Collection'. Just by looking at this collection illustrates the variety of wagons that reached this part of Wales.

 

Alan

 

Alan,

Thank you for the pointer.  I can tend if not careful to spend ages looking at things or for things on the net and not doing anything so I deliberately restrict myself so to know where to look is useful.

 

Wouldn't the wartime pooling and the grouping have made a difference?  There are not many clear pictures taken pre WW1 that I have seen.

Don

 

Don,

There have been several threads, well at least two, that have discussed 'foreign' wagons on pre-group railways.  It is probably true that the mix of wagons was greater after WW1 and grouping but I shall look at the pictures alongside other information and try and get a feel for what I can run.

[ChrisN]

I guess if you want to 'be' right, then you have to go P4.  In OO, it's a case of trying to 'look' right, as far as is possible.  Having done some scratchbuilding, I have come to appreciate the compromises that the commercial manufacturers have to make.  The gap between OO wheels and outside frames is a particularly difficult problem to manage visually.

 

Mike,

Thank you.  I am not certain that I am too bothered about being right,  I just thought that I ought to work out the correct spacings, but did not consider the other limitations of Peco track.  As I said to Neil I would like to replicate the narrower spacings at the rail joins but I have never worked with flexitrack before, well apart from 009 crazy track pinned to the board, and I have never ballasted before so even looking right might be difficult.

[Donw]

Don,

Thank you.  It is something that I had not thought about.  It is the difference between 'being right' and 'looking right'.

 

Doesn't the spacing need to be closer to 5.5mm though for visual reasons? : Peco sleepers are narrower than they should be, so 6.5mm might be too wide to look 'correct' even if they are not 'correct' , if you see what I mean.....

 

Not me to thanks the post came from Steve.

My view engineer likes to get it to scale and starts to fret because the track gauge is wrong. Artist does what looks right mind you no two artists can agree what looks right

 

Don

[ChrisN]

Doesn't the spacing need to be closer to 5.5mm though for visual reasons? : Peco sleepers are narrower than they should be, so 6.5mm might be too wide to look 'correct' even if they are not 'correct' , if you see what I mean.....

 

Hi,

Thank you for the comment, not sure why I thought it was Don.  I will try and do a mock up before I make a template and see what it looks like.

[Quarryscapes]

Getting there on the axleboxes, I'm just waiting the results of a test in Shapeways' new Extreme Detail material, but it is taking forever (The FUD part of the order is done, the FXD part is still processing!) In the meantime they are available in bulk in FUD on Shapeways. 

I could stock up and begin selling the FUD ones, but guaranteed as soon as I stock up on them the FXD ones will arrive and I'll wish I'd released those instead! 

[Quarryscapes]

Oh, I've taken delivery of a load of HMRS drawings - the Aston goods GA amongst them. It's not a great copy but should prove useful. 

The rest are all for wagons. You may like to know that No.s 1750-1799 listed in a previous post were built in 1896, so my wagon number plate etch for 2 planks isn't going to be much use to you! 

[ChrisN]

Getting there on the axleboxes, I'm just waiting the results of a test in Shapeways' new Extreme Detail material, but it is taking forever (The FUD part of the order is done, the FXD part is still processing!) In the meantime they are available in bulk in FUD on Shapeways. 

I could stock up and begin selling the FUD ones, but guaranteed as soon as I stock up on them the FXD ones will arrive and I'll wish I'd released those instead! 

 

 

Oh, I've taken delivery of a load of HMRS drawings - the Aston goods GA amongst them. It's not a great copy but should prove useful. 

 

The rest are all for wagons. You may like to know that No.s 1750-1799 listed in a previous post were built in 1896, so my wagon number plate etch for 2 planks isn't going to be much use to you! 

 

Alan,

Thank you,

Is the date clear on the FUD axel boxes?  Will you sell them as a pack altogether or will you be able to buy different dates.  If it is a pack altogether then I am sure some boxes will have had superficial damage to them. 

 

At least I know what numbers not to use on my wagons, which is helpful.  Also, how are your underframe etches coming on?

[MarkAustin]

Mike,

Thank you.  I am not certain that I am too bothered about being right,  I just thought that I ought to work out the correct spacings, but did not consider the other limitations of Peco track.  As I said to Neil I would like to replicate the narrower spacings at the rail joins but I have never worked with flexitrack before, well apart from 009 crazy track pinned to the board, and I have never ballasted before so even looking right might be difficult.

Remember, Peco don't make OO gauge track. They make HO gauge. Aimed at the much larger US market, with thinner sleeper closer together.. If you want real OO track you need someone like C&L.

 

Mark A

[ChrisN]

Remember, Peco don't make OO gauge track. They make HO gauge. Aimed at the much larger US market, with thinner sleeper closer together.. If you want real OO track you need someone like C&L.

 

Mark A

 

Mark,

Thanks.  To be honest I am trying to make what is quick and easy and what I know into something that will look better.

[corneliuslundie]

The figure for sleeper spacing you give is interesting. "Way back then" the spacing between sleeper centres was often 3ft with those close to the joints rather closer. Sleepers were usually 8in wide so that makes 2ft 4in between sleepers, or 9.3mm. I agree that with Peco sleepers you will need to close this up to look right but it is interesting that your observations from the photos are so much different.

 

For GWR track specs there is some information buried in the very interesting blog on the Basilica Fields layout project at https://basilicafields.wordpress.com/. An inner city London layout but with a lot of information squirrelled away on it. Use the menu bar at the right.

 

One source, if you can get them, is sometimes the Inspecting Officers' reports prior to opening, though the more recent ones give less information. Certainly they usually give the type of rail used and the lengths, and sometimes the sleeper spacing as well, sometimes noting that half round sleepers were used (they didn't usually last long).

 

I'm putting this non Cambrian info here because I know that some of the regular readers are modelling the GWR.

 

Jonathan

[Donw]

I seem to remember that the sleeper spacing was reduced as the engines increased in weight. This cause problems with interlaced timbers as the spacing reduced there was insufficient space to interlace the timbers and have enought ballast to make it stable. When they moved from interlaced to longer timbers replacing them they started to get problems some chairs being on a skew so they needed to increase the width of the timbers this was also affected by the bigger chairs for heavier rail. There was a lot of development of PW around the turn of the century through to the grouping. Probably didn't affect the cambrian much though. It's track was mostly light and so were the engines. 

If I were intending to use Peco I would definitely go for code 75 I know code 100 can look reasonable when ballasted and painted but code 75 with wider sleeper spacing would look much lighter and more suitable in my opinion.

 

Don

[ChrisN]

The figure for sleeper spacing you give is interesting. "Way back then" the spacing between sleeper centres was often 3ft with those close to the joints rather closer. Sleepers were usually 8in wide so that makes 2ft 4in between sleepers, or 9.3mm. I agree that with Peco sleepers you will need to close this up to look right but it is interesting that your observations from the photos are so much different.

 

For GWR track specs there is some information buried in the very interesting blog on the Basilica Fields layout project at https://basilicafields.wordpress.com/. An inner city London layout but with a lot of information squirrelled away on it. Use the menu bar at the right.

 

One source, if you can get them, is sometimes the Inspecting Officers' reports prior to opening, though the more recent ones give less information. Certainly they usually give the type of rail used and the lengths, and sometimes the sleeper spacing as well, sometimes noting that half round sleepers were used (they didn't usually last long).

 

I'm putting this non Cambrian info here because I know that some of the regular readers are modelling the GWR.

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Those observations are interesting.  Not wishing to advertise but the book is here.  When I first calculated the spacing I thought that the rail length was 30ft which gave something like 8mm spacing.  As Anotheran's spacing was so much smaller I looked again for information and in the same book I found somewhere the rail length was 24ft.  If you are saying sleeper width was 8" then the Peco sleepers at 3mm is about right.  This is interesting. 

 

I am assuming that the picture is pre 1900 which on any other railway with the loco and stock it would be but it is difficult to see the coaches, if they are all over green then it puts it well into the new century.

 

Edit: Thank you for the link.  It is a blog I follow but have not read all of the older posts.

Edited May 7, 2015 by ChrisN