Mol_PMB

Yes, that's correct. I did try to find out, but a few minutes googling didn't find a definitive answer. I think most of the main lines are presently in 56E1 but I'm not sure what is being used for renewals and new-build now. In most places, rail lasts between 25 and 50 years so the network changes slowly.

Digressing a bit, there are lots of different rail profiles. Whilst rail sections have tended to get heavier over the years there are still many different sizes made for different applications. There's a good overview table here: https://rails.arcelormittal.com/profiles/transport-rails/ And profile cross-sections for each, like this one: https://rails.arcelormittal.com/profiles/transport-rails/european-standards/rail-56e1/ On the full-size railway, rails are classified by weight per unit length, kg/m or lbs/yard. For many years the standard flat-bottom rail used in GB was 113 lb/yard, which equates to 56 kg/m (the 56E1 profile linked above). In general, heavier rails are taller, but this is not always the case. The 56E1 profile has a nominal height of 159mm, which in model terms would be 2.1mm in OO or 1.8mm in HO. The 60E1 profile (modern Network Rail standard) is 172mm high, which in model terms would be 2.3mm in OO or 2.0mm in HO. The 39E1 profile (also known as BS80A) is used on some light rail systems and probably more akin to the older flatbottom rail sections used in Ireland. It's 149mm high, which in model terms would be 2.0mm in OO or 1.7mm in HO. For bullhead rail, the common 95 lb/yard section is 145mm high, which in model terms would be 1.9mm in OO. https://britishsteel.co.uk/media/savi03us/bs-95rbh.pdf On model railways, rails are classified by height, in thousandths of an inch. Code 100 is 0.100" or 2.5mm high, which is pretty good for representing modern 60E1 rail in OO, but oversize for other applications. Code 75 is 0.075" or 1.9mm high, which is more appropriate for older rail profiles and/or HO scale. But it's all fractions of a millimetre, and not so obvious once the track has been painted. Things like track gauge and sleeper size/spacing are much bigger errors in OO. What makes the Code 100 rail look too big in OO is really that the rest of the track is modelled to HO scale. Anyway. back to Ardree Quay...

A lovely photo from Ernie showing an up railcar set on the West Cork lines, hauling a cattle wagon as tail traffic: Note that this is a vac-braked cattle wagon so could legitimately run at the back of the train without a brake van. One doesn't often see photos of tail lamps on goods wagons, but this is a nice example. The leading railcar is a Bulleid wedgehead, identifiable by its body and roof profile.

Super photos as ever! Thank you. I particularly like the last one with tail traffic on the railcar set. The (distant) leading car is a Bulleid wedgehead.

I have spent all day making the backscene, and it's still not finished. How hard can it be to cut a piece of board!? This backscene is a complex shape though, with a step in it along the length, and a curved corner at one end. I decided I needed to make it at this stage and trial-fit to help confirm the exact dimensions of the buildings and to decide a few other issues. For now, I will probably arrange for it to be screwed in place so that it can be removed in case modifications are needed as the build progresses. I also want to seal the board properly, hopefully to reduce warping problems. Eventually it will be fixed permanently. Here is a back view. Note how one of the fiddle yard tracks is tucked partly under the main part of the backscene - this allows me to make the scenic side an inch wider. Here is a front view. The step in the lower part will be concealed by buildings on this side. The angled section on the right hand side will partly conceal the sector plate. This shows how the buildings sit over the top of the step in the backscene and conceal it. I haven't yet done the mockups for the buildings at the near end - I needed to get the backscene made so I could work out the dimensions in this area. At present, the right-hand end looks a bit unsatisfactory, with a 'letterbox' in the backscene. The building behind the tracks will conceal part of that, as well as the awkward interface in the corner. In front of the tracks at this end I'll put in another small panel to minimise the width of the letterbox. Then I will have a few large trees and some undergrowth in the front corner as a view blocker so that the remaining hole in the backscene isn't so visible. There really was a group of trees in this spot, and I hope their height will balance the height of the mill buildings at this end. I have splashed out on some trees from Primo, but they haven't arrived yet. https://primomodels.co.uk/category/deciduous-autumn I may also have a go at painting some more trees on the angled part of the backscene. I'll need to practice on some scrap first, and work out the best approach. I did this on my Swiss layout and it was quite effective, but Spruce trees are a bit easier to paint than deciduous!

I confess I had my tongue in cheek with the 0-6-4+4-6-0 Garratt suggestion - I was thinking along the lines of using common parts with the conventional Beyer Peacock locos on the SLNCR. I hadn't realised there actually was an SLNCR Garratt design sketched out. A 2-6-0+0-6-2 would make a lot more sense technically, but undoubtedly more powerful than was needed. That's made me wonder whether a wide-firebox Garratt would have have been a better bet than Bulleid's design, for the turf-burner brief. Anyway, better get back to East Anglia. Sorry for the digression.

I am very much looking forward to the Manchester show. I’ll keep an eye out for it.

Many thanks John, that’s very comprehensive and helpful. I shall joint my concrete panels accordingly. Going off at a tangent, do you know what that little tank wagon 254A carried?

Indeed. I can picture a modified traction engine pottering along the SLNCR with a few cattle trucks much more easily that I can visualise an 0-6-4+4-6-0 articulated monster!

I never knew the origin of the name. Fascinating! The advantage of a Garrett locomotive over a Garratt locomotive is the much smaller size of layout required.

An excellent talk, thanks to Leslie for publicising and Roger for the talk itself. Sorry I wasn’t there in person, but rest assured I do attend my local Manchester meetings and I may even have had my arm twisted to give a talk next year.

Sounds like an amazing space! Speaking as someone who has started a lot of overambitious layouts and finished few, I would recommend building a module at a time to start with, whilst keeping a grand plan in mind that they will eventually fit into. Don’t try and build 20 baseboards at the start.

A little postscript to my previous notes on the tar tank wagons built by or for CIE. I was having another look through the GNR wagon diagram book today (available to purchase as a pdf from the IRRS) and I've realised that the GNR had some tar tanks as well, some of which were inherited by CIE (and others by UTA). So for completeness I'll describe them briefly. GNR wagon diagrams 56 and 56A show 'Creosote or Tar Tank Car' and are dated 1940 and 1950 respectively. Both show vehicles that are outwardly similar in appearance though with small dimensional differences. They are converted steam loco tenders, retaining their 6-wheel underframe, but fitted with a wagon-style lever handbrake accessible from the ground. The body appears to comprise part of the original tender body, extended upwards into taller rectangular tank. Their capacity is in the range 3425 to 3725 gallons, so a bit larger than the biggest of the cylindrical tanks described above. The laden weight was up to 33 tons (on 3 axles, of course). A total of 5 are listed, the first three were built as engineers' wagons in 1940 but two were transferred to traffic stock in 1950, at which point two more were built for traffic. 'old plate number' 42, engineers # 8192, remained with the engineers. 'old plate number' 48, engineers # 8193, traffic # 6025, went to CIE 'old plate number' 35, engineers # 8194, traffic # 6026, went to UTA 'old plate number' 39, traffic # 6027, went to UTA 'old plate number' 40, traffic # 6028, went to CIE The diagrams (which I can't reproduce here) are well-dimensioned and also show the livery details. The underframes are of the inside spring type of the 1890s, but I haven't been able to work out exactly which type of tender they were. I've no idea how long they lasted in service, but noting their large capacity and the growing need for tar tank wagons in the 1950s, I suspect they ran for a few years with CIE. I'm now wondering where I might find a spare old GNR tender. Having said that, I don't think any of the GNR loco kits include a sufficiently old tender. So far I have failed to find any photos of them. Has anyone else seen one? This photo from Ernie shows a similar type of tender, unconverted. The diagram indicates that the coal rails and flared top were removed, and the plain rectangular tank extended upwards by a couple of feet.

That looks very nice indeed. I didn't get one in John's recent sales push, on the basis that I had no need for a horsebox and it was a bit of an old prototype. Now my FOMO is making me wish I had! At least I've got a 650 class to build. Which is also something I don't really need and isn't very appropriate for my model location. But never mind!

A quick Flickr search produced these: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53813368993/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/51051528111/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/49458836682/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53511735395/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/51370098550/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/50604223122/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/52693318587/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/54251552989/ I searched for CIE 532, MGWR 532 and GSR 532. Note that some of them are in the IRRS archive so can only be seen by members.