Mol_PMB

Interesting, many thanks for asking, and certainly makes things easier for bullhead track. Are there suppliers that will 3D-print the turnout bases from Templot geometry? I'm still getting to grips with Templot myself, but I can see the possibilities it opens up.

Very true! In GB there is some history of smaller locos on the main line too, such as Tyseley's 0-6-0PTs, and a 14xx 0-4-2T, even the steam railmotor, as well as several of the better-known BR standard 2-6-4Ts comparable to the NCC Jeeps. But in GB the economics and available paths definitely favour longer trains, higher speeds, and hence larger locos. In Ireland, while main-line paths remain affordable and with achievable timings, and while heritage rolling stock can remain compatible with modern infrastructure, that will be significantly more cost-effective than any 'new' preserved line. I fully agree with the posts above that we need to support existing organisations before thinking of creating new ones.

I apologise if this comes across wrongly, from the other side of the water. I'm thinking about the general interest in various periods of history. In Britain, the golden age of the railways and industry (perhaps 1840-1940) was also a period when Britain had a lot of global power and influence. Although we now realise that our ancestors abused some of that power badly, a great deal was achieved and there's still a lot of interest in Britain about that period in history. Looking back, even the terrible loss of life and sacrifices in wartime are contrasted with the developments in technology and military power which interest so many people. The same century in Ireland was, in many places, marked by tragedies of famine, poverty, mass emigration, civil war, and other troubles. I suspect it's a period that many people would rather not remember or commemorate. That might be why... I've seen similar in China, where there is great celebration of the ancient history, and the modern culture, but the 1940's-1970s era of political upheaval, famine and tragedy is not celebrated, sometimes even taboo.

At this rate the Diesel Day will need to be a whole weekend! More seriously, you’ve done very well indeed and I appreciate there’s a lot more to it than getting the engine started, before the loco is fit to run in service. A lot of paperwork no doubt, as well as the engineering.

Many thanks - that is very helpful. If you do get a chance to scan it properly that would be great, as there's some distortion in the image as posted. It shows the early type of 'Big Boy' with wooden body framing on a steel chassis, as illustrated in these links: Manufacturer's photo in the HMRS collection: From Ernie, an example late in life with sheet material over (or replacing) the planks: A more distant view from the IRRS Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53508884101 The book 'Great Southern & Western Railway' (Murray & McNeill) has only one small page of the rolling stock chapter describing wagons, which includes the following statement, the only one relevant to 'Big Boy' vans: 'In the early 1900s some 19ft vans were put into service of which some were 9ft wide, but the width caused trouble in getting through the doors of goods stores, and the order was not repeated'. Regarding width, Ernie's photo above indicates that the width is very similar to the adjacent vans, which are 8'1" over corner pillars, and the drawing kindly provided by @Broadstone appears to be the same width. The comment in the book may well be true, that the 9' wide vans were not repeated (and I have not found any photos of them), it would appear that several batches of 'Big Boy' vans were produced with the extra length and height but of standard width. Regarding length, there is firstly some doubt about what length is referred to - over headstocks, over body, over buffers... I have attempted to scale from photos such as this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53511622719 and I think the length over headstocks is somewhere between 19' and 19'6", but that approach is imprecise owing to lens distortion etc. Scaling off the drawing should be a bit more accurate despite the slight distortion, and appears to show about 19'8" over headstocks. Hopefully a measure of the surviving (modified) vehicle at Cultra will resolve the main dimensional questions.

Today I have received scans of two HMRS drawings for Irish rolling stock, which I had requested a few weeks ago. Their initial response to my enquiry was very quick, within hours, and they said it would take a few weeks to get them scanned. That occurred within the expected timeframe and now I have these two. It will take another week or two for the images to go live on the website; obviously I can't post them here as they are HMRS copyright: https://hmrs.org.uk/hmrs-32404-6-plank-10-ton-9ft-6ins-w-b-16ft-11ins-o-b.html https://hmrs.org.uk/hmrs-32405-10-ton-9ft-6ins-w-b-17ft-5ins-o-b.html They are excellent quality drawings, circa 120MB .tif files, very large and clear, well-dimensioned and detailed including wheelsets, suspension, buffer and drawgear springs etc. The lettering details are also shown. They also include copious notes and some later annotations. They come from the Metropolitan-Cammell archive and illustrate wagons built by their earlier constituent the Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Co. Drawing 32404 (10 ton 6-plank open wagon, steel frame) covers GSWR order B7S53 of 1920, for 150 wagons numbered 10360 to 10509. They are in accordance with the IRCH drawings but the MC&W drawing has much more detail than the published IRCH drawings. [We know from other sources that the last 20 of these were ordered on behalf of the CB&SCR and became their 631B to 650B] Drawing 32405 (10 ton covered goods wagon, steel frame) covers GSWR order B7S54 of 1920, for 130 wagons numbered 15340 to 15469. Again they are in accordance with the IRCH drawings. Neither of these are 'Big Boys'. The IRCH steel-framed vans were similar in appearance but smaller than the 'Big Boys'. In due course I'll put together a thread of photos and info on the steel-framed IRCH vans, and then I'll look at tackling the 6-plank opens. Meanwhile I am continuing to research the 'Big Boys' and in the absence of a drawing I'll measure up the surviving similar van at Cultra in August.

It was there half an hour ago - offering class 89s at less than $100, for example. Edit: Still there now, in fact:

Here are a few photos of the 2-track sector plate on my O gauge shunting layout, which is built into a bookcase. The sector plate was an afterthought, hence the rough edges! But hopefully these photos show how it works; either track on the sector plate can access either track on the scenic section.

If possible, I'd recommend a multi-track sector plate, as it will give you more opportunities to exchange stock. It does require the tracks on the sector plate to be curved though. I'll see if I can get some photos of the one I made for my O gauge shunting layout.

Your last point is a very good one, that I had overlooked. In reality, 1430 was a silver coach, but it wasn't a Park Royal - it was one of the early laminates. Of course the laminates were naturally silver, unless painted. Whereas a Park Royal would need to have been painted silver. Here are some being built: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/54251537558/ The bogies and underframes were painted silver, though they quickly got filthy: https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53506776188/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishrailwayarchive/53505733947/ BRAY, 185 6Sept1955img106 | Ernies Railway Archive | Flickr Photos of the laminates under construction show them in unpainted aluminium; it appears that the later ones that entered service in green were only painted when complete and mounted on bogies. https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000303796 https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000304461 https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000304517 Thanks for the link to the photo at Arklow - It is tricky to interpret. It could be silver but it's not entirely conclusive - it could be freshly-painted light green and a more flush-sided coach catching the light more than the panelled coach in front of it. I'm sitting on the fence with that one! There are some other puzzling photos which appear to show silver coaches of non-laminate types, such as this one where the second coach is an ex-GSR type but looks more silver than green: What we need to find is a clear photo of a 'main line' Park Royal around 1956-57. They can be distinguished by the toilet windows and water filler pipes.

Very nice! Were any Park Royals silver when new? My gut feeling is no, and I have never seen a photo of one, but the IRM model description suggests that the mainline 10 were silver, and Fry built a model of one in silver…. If this is a myth it would be good to put it to bed, but maybe it really happened?

Would these have been in village shops on bus routes?

Minor update on the prototype Palvan, which now has both body and chasses complete and in grey primer. Ciarán has very kindly provided me with a high-quality scan of the photo which has a grey one in the background, and whilst still not 100% clear it gives me enough clues to work out the livery and lettering style. So my prototype palvan will be finished in grey. Not the very pale grey used with the roundels, but the mid-pale grey latterly used with snails - it is clearly different in shade from the adjacent normal palvans. One marking that is clear in the image is the 'Vac Brake' stencil, which is in the style applied in the mid-1960s on the pale grey/roundel livery. The location of the number on the door is also visible, the same as on the green prototype palvan (but not quite the same as the production palvans). The number is not legible so I will either have to use the number from the green one, or guess! There does not seem to be any logo, either a snail or a roundel, and given what I can see I think it would be visible if it was there (certainly the roundels on the adjacent normal palvans are obvious). There was a brief transition period between the two in the early 1960s when neither was used; road vehicles and containers had block letters C.I.E. but locos, carriages and some wagons emerged without a logo in this period - and it's quite plausible this prototype palvan was repainted at that time. That's probably too much detail, but I'll be quiet for a few days now as I'm about to arrive in Scotland for a few busy days working.

I haven't done this myself, but I'd agree the front splashers will definitely need attention; I suspect that the insides of the tanks can be thinned if necessary to provide clearance. Of course you'll also need to modify aspects of the chassis like the brake gear. I do note that High Level Kits make an etched chassis for the Bachmann Jinty. Although not for 21mm gauge specifically, it's possible that it would make an easier starting point than modifying the Bachmann chassis? At least if you built it with the P4 frame spacers, the frames would be the correct distance apart. Jinty | High Level Kits Hope that helps Paul

While looking for something else in Ernie's albums, I stumbled across this nice photo showing a pair of Worsley Works laminates - the green ones in this Enterprise set. Thought I'd post it here as inspiration...

The body is now ready for cleaning and painting. Still a few details to add to the chassis. Whilst I'm expecting IRM to produce the production series Palvans (26000 series), I'd be surprised if they do one of these prototypes. But by sod's law, it will be announced the moment I've finished this one... I still haven't decided whether it will be grey or green, but a coat of grey primer is the first move whichever.

Since whatever I build will be in 21mm gauge and I'll have to make my own turnouts, I can design the geometry to fit the space available and the style of the prototype. I have just downloaded Templot - there will no doubt be a learning curve once I get to grips with it! But I've managed to set my track gauge and standards, so that's a good start.

As ever in modelling, there are many schools of thought! One of the main benefits claimed for a resilient underlay is sound-deadening, and this is probably true, especially for a layout with relatively lightweight baseboards that can amplify sounds and vibrations. On the other hand, if you then ballast your track with stone ballast stuck down with PVA, that makes it pretty rigid and probably counteracts most of the benefit of the underlay. Having said the above, this is exactly what I usually do! Some people use ground cork and Copydex (or other rubber-based glue) for ballasting, so that the track remains flexible. One thing to avoid is using pins to nail down track on underlay - this definitely contributes to uneven track geometry and would worsen pickup on rigid locos. My view is that the the typical underlay (3mm cork or foam) is sufficiently stiff that it won't be compressed noticeably by a loco, even a heavy one, and so I wouldn't expect an improvement in pickup though that. Personally I like my track to be a little higher than the trackbed, making it easier to represent ballast shoulders, trackside cess drains etc. Underlay is a convenient way of lifting it a few mm, purely for appearance. I tend to use 3mm thick cork underlay. I have a friend who uses 3mm dense foam sheet with great success. Open-celled foam (as once supplied by PECO etc for track underlay) is a bad idea as it deteriorates over time. As for fixing rails at board joints, I'd say these need to be rigidly and firmly fixed to protect them. As an alternative to copperclad, some people use brass screws screwed down into the board and then the rails soldered to them. If you did want a flexibly-mounted baseboard joint, a possibility would be to terminate the tracks an inch short of the baseboard edge, and have a short removable section to bridge the gap. You would need a couple of teaspoons of loose ballast applied each time the layout is erected.

Good thoughts, thanks David. I think most modellers have to do some compression in length, and the key to making it work successfully is to keep the relative positions of the main features about right. I think that's possible with taking a couple of feet out of Fenit, but trying to squash it more than that would lose both the character of the place and the ability to run trains long enough to look right. I'm not very comfortable with truncating the layout at the station footbridge. At the moment I'm thinking that my original idea of modelling the pier could be done quite well (though still compressed) in my space. It's not such a 'pretty' scene as there are acres of concrete, and of course it's freight-only. Another disadvantage of the pier is how to deal with empty/loaded wagons because in reality all the freight was transferred to/from ships and that's difficult to represent in model form. That aspect is solved if modelling the station, because the empty wagons disappear off to the pier fiddle yard and come back loaded (or vice versa). For now, I'll postpone the decision and keep building wagons!

I'm still mulling over ideas for a layout based on Fenit. After some Guinness-fuelled discussions in the RPSI bar car a few weeks ago, I'm wondering whether the Fenit station on the mainland would be feasible. I tried to model this once before, about 30 years ago, but didn't have enough space or modelling skill to do it justice. The advantage of modelling the station is that there would be some passenger traffic in the form of summer excursions, and a lot of freight wagon marshalling as long trains from the branch are broken up into shorter cuts of wagons to go onto the pier, and vice versa. I'll do a bit of thinking aloud in this post. One problem is that although Fenit (mainland) is a terminus, it's also a through station because the line to the causeway and harbour continues on beyond. Much of the interest of the operation would be marshalling freight trains to and from the harbour, and that would require a fiddle yard both ends (or modelling of both the passenger station and the harbour). I don't think I have space for that. How big is the station itself? Well the ideal scenic break would be the Main Road bridge, where the line is in a curving cutting with steep, rocky sides. At the other end of the station the line runs onto the causeway, and to enable shunting you would need at least a loco-length beyond the toe of the goods loop points, which can be seen just behind 186 in Jonathan Allen's photo here: That distance is 420m in reality, or in 4mm scale model form 5.5m or 18 feet. Quite big, especially when you add a fiddle yard or two! That's what I tried to model in my teens, but I only had about 12 feet length. An alternative scenic break at the Tralee end would be the station footbridge, which would mean omitting the turntable, king points and water tower, but the two tracks under the footbridge could go directly onto a sector plate or traverser type fiddle yard. Illustrating with Ernie's photos, this bit would be missing: And the layout would focus on the station area (this is the view from the footbridge): That distance is 250m in reality, 3.3m or 10'9" in model form. Now we can start to think about selective compression. At the real Fenit, photos indicate that the platform and run-round loop were long enough for 4 bogie coaches, 4 and a tin van at a squeeze. Some trains were only 3 bogies and a tin van though, so it wouldn't be too bad to shorten the platform and loop by a carriage-length. 3 bogies and a tin van would be fractionally over 3' (0.92m) in model form, and freight-wise that length would accommodate 10 wagons and a brake van, which also seems a reasonable train length. From the footbridge to the buffer stop at the end of the platform headshunt would thus be about 6' (allowing for the points and headshunt). Looking now to the sidings, I suspect that the arrangement of 3 turnouts shown in the photo above could be compressed a bit, perhaps to match the reduction in platform length but not by much more. Some of those turnouts are already quite short. So after those 3 points, the goods loop would only really start about 3' from the footbridge. If the goods loop was also made 3' long, then the far end of it would be next to the bufferstops at the platform headshunt, then nearly another 3' would be needed for the goods loop points and headshunt. So the total length of the scenic section (footbridge to the start of the causeway) might be squeezed to 9' (2.7m). The Tralee-end fiddle yard would need to be about 4', but the causeway end could be as short as 2'. Total length 15'. Potentially possible in the living room. Hmm. I will continue mulling rather than actually make anything! From Roger Joanes, an unusually busy moment at Fenit, as G617 takes a break from shunting wagons - it had to shunt the passenger train to release 186, as the train was too long for the loop. And from the O'Dea collection in the NLI archive, a beet-loading scene looking the other way: https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000307416

Very neat work! It will certainly transform the operations. Just a thought - would it be worth having a couple of short, fixed dead-end tracks off each end of the traverser section (flanking the through line)? This would allow you to store spare locos and swap locos onto trains without handling them. They wouldn’t be accessible from all the traverser tracks but should be able to access some of them.

In the first photo, there's an interesting vehicle visible on the left margin. It appears to be a combined goods van and brake van, what would be called a 'Road Van' in GB though I don't know if that term was used in Ireland. I know the CB&SCR had some vans of this concept, but I don't think I've seen this one before. It's quite a long wagon and the long open verandah is distinctive - like a GSWR plough van (or a GWR 'toad'), but neither of those types had doors in the sides of the van portion.

Many thanks Ernie. It looks like these books have a lot of interesting snippets and photos. I've decided to buy the Vol 3 on ebay (at a good discount) and will keep an eye out for Vol 2 at a better price. Cheers, Mol

For what it's worth, I've put some money in the pot and (re-)joined the ITG. Would encourage others to do the same.

Wow, that's impressive evidence of quite how robust the GMs are! Well done for all the hard work and I look forward to my visit to Downpatrick in August.