Mol_PMB

I’m wondering about a couple of lorries for my layout, as there are road loading bays as well as rail. In the 1950s/1960s, which marques would have been seen in south-west Ireland? I think I’ve read somewhere that there were tariffs on imported complete vehicles and so some firms did final assembly in Ireland, so those would be more common. Looking at a few CIE vehicles of the period, a lot of them seem to be AEC, and later Leyland, badged. https://www.kennellyarchive.com/media/f9ca4dec-d916-4807-ac6f-f3922db8b86d-liebherr-cranes-at-fenit But there are also some Fords, not obviously CIE in this case: https://www.kennellyarchive.com/media/6a85dd4e-67e4-4138-a03a-b5a1cd5c7f7a-unloading-grain-in-fenit For this sort of size truck, is my choice basically AEC / Leyland or Ford? And were there particular models more common in Ireland? What other options would there be? I think in the 1940s, GSR/CIE had a dominant position in the road transport business and the role of independent firms was quite limited. I expect that had changed a bit by 1960. Would independent hauliers and/or industries have been more significant than CIE by this time, or was CIE still dominant?

Thanks. I do want to tweak a few dimensions and I'll need to improve their structural strength with more bracing inside. But a big benefit of drawing them on CAD and then laser-cutting them is that I can make another set with minimal effort. I'm also still finalising a few ideas about both ends of the layout, with the option to slightly shorten one building and add some more trees in half-relief at both ends. I'm away from home for a couple of days so I'll mull it over and make a decision when I'm home.

I think the ex-MGWR 'hearse' van used for pram traffic on the W&T survived in use into diesel days, so that would be the most likely tail traffic there. I haven't seen a photo of it hauled by a railcar, but if there is one it would fit nicely in this thread.

I probably have a suitable WTT to answer your question, but I’m now away from home for a couple of days. Someone else might get there first. The van is looking excellent.

Looking superb - an inspiring build and some useful tips too.

A bit more progress with the backscene and the building mock-ups. I'm getting close to what I want now. Broadside view: Main mill buildings; I've shortened the nearer one by one bay: The loading bay near the exit to the fiddle yard: And a gricer's eye view: Which can be compared to this view of the real thing:

The trees look very effective. Hopefully I can achieve something similar with mine.

I don't need these, but I will say they are the perfect points for a small O gauge layout and at a good price. The geometry of the Peco Setrack O gauge points is too sharp radius and doesn't make good crossovers, while the normal Peco points are way too long for a small layout. The 48" radius of these Marcway points is fine for most things, unless you want to run express stock. I've used these Marcway 48" points on my MSC 'Inglenook plus' layout.

Superb!

Correct, as is your maths.

Using a couple of your other photos, here's a view looking the other way: The lines diverged after the bridge, as shown in this IRRS photo taken from the bridge: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53813452669/

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!