Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in 00

[sandwich station]

It's coming together nicely John but I think your gnome sitting on the end of the platform, is a little on the large side. Merry Christmas.

[St Enodoc]

It's coming together nicely John but I think your gnome sitting on the end of the platform, is a little on the large side. Merry Christmas.

Yes, his hat is out-of-gauge I think.

[Stubby47]

In the last pic of #1226, I can't help thinking the point would have, in reality, been merged more into the slip, to ease the reverse curve into the siding.

As seperate units, the slip and point look slightly rtp.

 

All completely beyond my skill level and in no way a criticism of your excellent trackwork.

[Barry O]

That gnome has obviously found a good home to go to...

 

Merry Christmas to you and Veronica!

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

In the last pic of #1226, I can't help thinking the point would have, in reality, been merged more into the slip, to ease the reverse curve into the siding.

As seperate units, the slip and point look slightly rtp.

 

All completely beyond my skill level and in no way a criticism of your excellent trackwork.

That's a very fair observation, Stu. It's one of the consequences of not being able to follow the precise layout at Par. On the prototype the two Up Sidings led off opposite ends of the Loop so the two tracks in the goods shed faced opposite ways and there was no point at the Up end leading to both sidings, as shown in this low-resolution diagram:

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1061-2.gif

 

I couldn't replicate this on the layout as there just wasn't enough room without making the sidings, and the clear length of the Loop, too short (the points at the Down end of Platform 3 and the Loop are not Y points, for the same reason) and shunting too complicated given the short distance between Porthmellyn Road and St Enodoc. In fact the clear length of the Loop is just about 1200 mm, which is enough to shunt the Tavy Jn/Truro Class K goods and the branch goods in each direction. Consequently, the reverse curve on No 1 Siding was unavoidable. As ever, it's a compromise and one of the several reasons why Porthmellyn Road is not named Par on the layout. I do agree that it looks a bit odd though.

 

There are a couple of photos on Flickr that show the original arrangement in 1953:

 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4218/34732976374_a720923815_b.jpg

 

and the arrangement in 1970 after the goods yard was converted to handle Freightliner traffic:

 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8350/8176804361_2bf84bfcd5_b.jpg

[St Enodoc]

That gnome has obviously found a good home to go to...

 

Merry Christmas to you and Veronica!

 

Baz

Thanks Baz. He made his way all the way from Austria to Australia a year ago and seems to have settled in quite well.

 

The same to you and H from us both.

[The Stationmaster]

That's a very fair observation, Stu. It's one of the consequences of not being able to follow the precise layout at Par. On the prototype the two Up Sidings led off opposite ends of the Loop so the two tracks in the goods shed faced opposite ways and there was no point at the Up end leading to both sidings, as shown in this low-resolution diagram:

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwf/S1061-2.gif

 

I couldn't replicate this on the layout as there just wasn't enough room without making the sidings, and the clear length of the Loop, too short (the points at the Down end of Platform 3 and the Loop are not Y points, for the same reason) and shunting too complicated given the short distance between Porthmellyn Road and St Enodoc. In fact the clear length of the Loop is just about 1200 mm, which is enough to shunt the Tavy Jn/Truro Class K goods and the branch goods in each direction. Consequently, the reverse curve on No 1 Siding was unavoidable. As ever, it's a compromise and one of the several reasons why Porthmellyn Road is not named Par on the layout. I do agree that it looks a bit odd though.

 

There are a couple of photos on Flickr that show the original arrangement in 1953:

 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4218/34732976374_a720923815_b.jpg

 

and the arrangement in 1970 after the goods yard was converted to handle Freightliner traffic:

 

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8350/8176804361_2bf84bfcd5_b.jpg

 

I love that ground disc in the picture of the pannier - if somebody did that on a model railway (hint) they'd get a right telling off from some folk (not a hint).

 

Have a good Christmas John and family 

[acg5324]

Merry Christmas John and Veronica, I look forward to more instalments in the new year, wish I’d got more done this year.

[Stubby47]

Aha, I understand.

 

Would it be possible to cut the three copper sleepers from the end of the slip and move the point closer, so the switch blades are almost touching the slip's check rails?

[5BarVT]

I love that ground disc in the picture of the pannier - if somebody did that on a model railway (hint) they'd get a right telling off from some folk (not a hint).

What's wrong with it? It's at the toes of the points to which it refers (both sets presumably). (Says he, trying to act all innocent like!)

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

I love that ground disc in the picture of the pannier - if somebody did that on a model railway (hint) they'd get a right telling off from some folk (not a hint).

 

Have a good Christmas John and family 

Quite right Mike - posts #1164, #1167 and #1169 refer!

 

All the best to you and yours too.

Merry Christmas John and Veronica, I look forward to more instalments in the new year, wish I’d got more done this year.

Thanks Andy. Having seen your own latest post there should be nothing stopping you in 2018!

[St Enodoc]

Aha, I understand.

 

Would it be possible to cut the three copper sleepers from the end of the slip and move the point closer, so the switch blades are almost touching the slip's check rails?

Stu, thanks for that suggestion too. As you might expect I looked hard at that as well. In the end I used two fewer long timbers than at the other ends of the slips. I could probably have got closer but now we come back to your original comment regarding RTP - the slip and point were built as separate units so in that sense they were RTP. Bringing them much closer would have been a bit of a faff getting the tiebar on the point to clear all the other gubbins. Doing so probably would only have saved about 10 mm of width so I would still have needed a reverse curve in some form. I think I can live with it.

 

All the best to you and yours for Christmas.

[St Enodoc]

What's wrong with it? It's at the toes of the points to which it refers (both sets presumably). (Says he, trying to act all innocent like!)

Paul.

Paul, Mike can explain better than I, but here goes. The disc applies to moves from the spur (next to the hut) to the Branch platform (where the loco is standing at the far end), the Loop next to it and the siding where the coaches are coming from. A loco standing on the spur in rear of the disc would be foul of the running line between the main lines and the Branch platform.

[5BarVT]

I should be put on the naughty step for my comment: it wasn’t as innocent as I made out! You’re dead right for Porthmellyn Road as your siding is long enough to leave stock in. At Par (from what I can see on the reduced pdf) there isn’t a trap so nothing can be left in the spur - my take is that the spur would be to get a loco between the Branch and the Loop without blocking the Up Main (in the days before Auto trailers and DMUs). I guess there would be a box instruction to cover leaving the empty before making a move to/from the Mains, not quite sure how the signalman could see though. Looking in more detail at the pdf, I don’t think the disc does apply to the toes in the branch to main connection as there might be a possibility of leaving a train in the wrong place inadvertently so going right out behind 15 shunt on the UM would be required for anything too long for the siding. Must get round to joining SRS to get access to the full copies.

Happy Christmas by the way!

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

I should be put on the naughty step for my comment: it wasn’t as innocent as I made out! You’re dead right for Porthmellyn Road as your siding is long enough to leave stock in. At Par (from what I can see on the reduced pdf) there isn’t a trap so nothing can be left in the spur - my take is that the spur would be to get a loco between the Branch and the Loop without blocking the Up Main (in the days before Auto trailers and DMUs). I guess there would be a box instruction to cover leaving the empty before making a move to/from the Mains, not quite sure how the signalman could see though. Looking in more detail at the pdf, I don’t think the disc does apply to the toes in the branch to main connection as there might be a possibility of leaving a train in the wrong place inadvertently so going right out behind 15 shunt on the UM would be required for anything too long for the siding. Must get round to joining SRS to get access to the full copies.

Happy Christmas by the way!

Paul.

That's exactly how I read it too Paul. As far as I can tell, at Par the spur is only there for running round a train in the Branch platform. On my layout as you say it doubles as a storage siding so it will be fitted with a fictitious trap point. The disc (21) applies only to the spur, not to moves from the main line to the Branch platform.

 

All the Up end connections from the mains, the double slip (but not No 1 Spur) and the whole of the Down and Branch platforms were track-circuited, which would help but not solve the problem of the signalman not being able to see.

 

I think you mean 10 shunt not 15, probably not clear on the low res version. 10 is the shunt from the UM to the Up platform, Branch platform or Loop/yard, whereas 15 is the top one of the three stacked discs for backing moves from the DM to the UM across 11 points (which I haven't got room for on the layout).

 

I bought the high-resolution CD from SRS - you don't have to be a member for that.

 

All the best for Christmas and a good New Year when it comes, as they say in your part of the world.

Edited December 25, 2017 by St Enodoc

[The Stationmaster]

I should be put on the naughty step for my comment: it wasn’t as innocent as I made out! You’re dead right for Porthmellyn Road as your siding is long enough to leave stock in. At Par (from what I can see on the reduced pdf) there isn’t a trap so nothing can be left in the spur - my take is that the spur would be to get a loco between the Branch and the Loop without blocking the Up Main (in the days before Auto trailers and DMUs). I guess there would be a box instruction to cover leaving the empty before making a move to/from the Mains, not quite sure how the signalman could see though. Looking in more detail at the pdf, I don’t think the disc does apply to the toes in the branch to main connection as there might be a possibility of leaving a train in the wrong place inadvertently so going right out behind 15 shunt on the UM would be required for anything too long for the siding. Must get round to joining SRS to get access to the full copies.

Happy Christmas by the way!

Paul.

 

The disc doesn't apply to the Main to branch part of the double slip - the switches are on separate levers - so it definitely only applies to the switches coming off the spur.  

 

Technically there is nothing to prevent an engine standing on the spur while something is put across its bows but as you say there was probably some sort of Instruction prohibiting the stabling of vehicles in the spur.  And there might even have been something in the 'box Special Instructions regarding use of theh spur for engines running round although I would wonder a bit about that unless the local DI had put a request to the District/Divisional office to ask for it to be included because unless the 'box diagram showed the position of the ground disc very accurately it's unlikely the people writing the 'box Speciai Instructions would have been aware of the situation

[St Enodoc]

Well, I've been and gorn and done it. Yes, I started the Porthmellyn Road lever frame today.

 

First I cleaned the 54 brass levers with a soft cloth and isopropanol to remove any grease. Next, I masked the turned handles and the lower part of each lever, including the blind hole that will house the ball and spring to hold the lever in the normal or reversed position. This left a length of around 20 mm or so to be painted. The black ink identifies the front of each lever, so that if (when) the paint runs that should only be on the sides or the back.

 

I also cleaned the etched lever numbers, which will be brush painted with a black etch primer.

 

I then sprayed every lever with an aerosol etching primer. This and the top coat colours all came from the local motor spares shop.

 

There are two yellow levers, nine blue ones (of which one will have the lower half black - this being for the motor points at the entry to the Down Goods Loop, which don't have a separate lock) and a round dozen black ones. The remaining 31 are red.

 

Conditions weren't ideal, as a bit of a breeze had got up after lunch, but I managed to apply the first coat of each colour. The blue and black might not need another coat but the red and yellow certainly will - in fact the yellow might need a further couple. That will probably wait until Friday, as tomorrow Peter the Cornishman and his brother John, who is on holiday from England, are going to pop in for a little play.

Edited July 20, 2023 by St Enodoc
images restored

[St Enodoc]

A very good afternoon with Peter, John and Charles who came over as well. Rather than "a little play" we decided to work through the new sequence which, with the clay workings added, has 44 trains rather than the previous 34. Everything went very well and there were only a couple of derailments at the slips. One involved the clay train but after changing the position in the train of the wagon concerned all was well.

 

The whole sequence took about two hours, which was a pleasant surprise - with it being a) John's first session as a driver and b) the first time running the expanded sequence I had expected things to take a bit longer.

 

We found that on occasions more than one train was moving at once, which was nice to see as well.

 

All in all, a good session which, subject to a little bit of tweaking, should go well at the next full running session in January.

 

On the lever frame front, as I expected, the black and blue levers were fine so I unwrapped the masking tape from them. I will put a second coat on the red and yellow levers tomorrow if I have time. Photos to follow, when they are all finished.

[Barry O]

Club shirts to be worn for operator duties?

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

Club shirts to be worn for operator duties?

 

Baz

Why not, for them wot are members!

[St Enodoc]

I asked this question in a separate topic yesterday but no response so far, so I thought I'd try here too. The image in question is the "Down Under Railway Modellers" graphic:

 

"The image in my signature has disappeared. I tried to replace it using the edit function in profile update but without success. Any suggestions?"

 

Thanks.

[chesterfield]

Brunswick green I presume?

[St Enodoc]

Brunswick green I presume?

Not sure which post you are commenting on here - give me a clue and I'll try to frame a suitable response!

[sandwich station]

I asked this question in a separate topic yesterday but no response so far, so I thought I'd try here too. The image in question is the "Down Under Railway Modellers" graphic:

 

"The image in my signature has disappeared. I tried to replace it using the edit function in profile update but without success. Any suggestions?"

 

Thanks.

I have no clue John, maybe send Andy a message.

[St Enodoc]

I have no clue John, maybe send Andy a message.

He's picked it up and is on the case.

 

Thanks.