Mayner

The hopper looks well, the buildings are distinctly Irish with the bedroom over the archway.

Irish Steam A twenty year survey1920-1939 O S Nock David & Charles 1982 goes into a considerable level of detail on the 400 including the reasoning behind the differing nature of the re-builds http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Steam-O-S-Nock/dp/0715379615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429862494&sr=8-1&keywords=irish+steam+o+s+nock Nock was a professional railwayman who wrote widely about British locomotive practice Irish Steam contains logs of high speed runs behind the original and rebuilt 400 Class and includes a comparison between 800, The Scots & Lord Nelson Classes. Long out of print "A Decade of Steam in the 50s" published by the RPSI in the 1970s covers the 400s from a drivers perspective, if you send me a pm with your personal e-mail I will scan the section on the 400&800 Class.

An observation car. Wonder if its real or fevered imagination

I hope the argument about common Vs separate return wiring is not confusing or putting our less experienced members off. In my experience once the controllers are fed through separate transformers or transformer windings common return wiring using single pole switches is perfectly adequate for most layouts, the system works fine with resistance, variable transformer or electronic controllers including modern Gaugemaster Common return wiring has been the standard in magazine the majority of magazine articles and books on layout wiring publish in the UK and United States during the last 50-60 years an it work. The majority of section switches supplied by manufactures like Peco, Hornby are single pole intended for common return wiring. I have built worked on several layouts large and small which worked fine with common return. The positive and negative flowing from separate transformers through a "common return" does not create a short circuit or any noticeable interference between controllers. I use a 40+ year old H&M Safety Minor unit with variable transformer speed control, a 20 year old electronic hand held controller built as part of a MRSI club project and a new Gaugemaster electronic hand held unit. I usually power one of the hand held unit off the 15V ac auxilary supply on the Safety Minor, the second hand held off a separate 15V ac power supply. Common return may be unsuitable for DC layouts where signalling is used to control train movements and is not recommended for large DCC layouts that are divided into booster or circuit breaker protected sections to prevent the entire layout shutting down if a loco derails or there is a short in one section.

John Allen's Timesaver idea bit more interesting than an Inglenook has stood the test of time http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Timesaver/timesaver-rules.html could be fitted into a fairly space in OO

I am not sure if its simply a case of NIH there appear to have been objections/restriction to sanding in the UK on account of damage to switch and crossing work and trains disappearing off track circuits. UK freight train tonnages are far heavier than Ireland Class 59 & 66 diesels use traction control systems rather than sanding to control heavy trains. The 071s have a reputation of being slippy but capable of putting up high milage between repairs on relatively heavy trains. Re-gearing to reduce top speed and a traction control system would allow the 071s to haul increased tonnage and longer trains. Sandite appears to be the preferred current day option for dealing with poor rail conditions in both the UK & Ireland Sanding the Highland Main line with a converted golf buggy 09:11

The gypsum hoppers seem to have been a joint venture between CIE & the GNR for Kingscourt gypsum traffic in the early 1950s. I was surprised to receive a faded GA drawing for the CIE version of these wagons rather than the more modern hopper when I wrote to the CMEs Office asking for a drawing of a gypsum hopper. Each company had a small fleet about 5-6 each and may have been used between Kingscourt station and the Gypsum factory siding rather than to Boyne Road. Standard CIE wooden and corrugated opens seem to have been the main types in use for traffic to Platin & Limerick & the Gypsum factory siding was out of use during an IRRS trip over the line in the mid 70s. Gypsum traffic later went over to block train operation using a more modern design of hopper wagon dating from the 1970s

Railway tend to use electronic traction systems on locomotives or sandite paste on the rail to control wheel slip. Pair of GE U Boats trying to re-start a stalled 2000t coal train on a grade with the Brightstar wheel slip control system. Reliability and sand an excellent abrasive getting into the wrong places and causing damage increased wear and tear may have been CIE objections to using sanding on locos. Sandite where sand is applied to the rail as a paste appears to be the preferred option for dealing with leaf fall and ice in Ireland and the UK. At one time CIE would run a loco and brake van through the Cork Tunnel to sand the rails for heavy North bound goods trains.

The D301 Class seem to have been pretty camera shy in the 1960s possibly because they were doing very little work. According to the ITG website two were out of service by 1960 and never ran again, the last had stopped work by 1970. An E401 or E421would have been a much better choice for a shunter though its difficult to gauge if there is sufficient demand out there to justify commissioning a decent rtr model, so a repainted 08 is a safer commercial option

Fairly distant recording but interesting comparison between 001s and the small GMs There seems to be relatively little recorded on the 001 class and even less on the B201s which always seemed to be louder accelerating than other locos.

The whitemetal B121 was probably one of the best of the MIR loco kits.

The ESU sound files for the EMD 12-645 non-turbo 74443 is probably the closest you will get to an 001 Class. The As were rebuilt with a 12 cylinder non-turbo engine similar to that used in EMD American Switchers and some export diesels. The tone of the engine is noticeably different to the 16-645 engines used in American road locos. Its good to see a model A Class with correct unequal wheelbase trucks. I assembled a whitemetal MIR A Class about 20 years ago using the trucks and drive from an SD9 I did not realise that the SD40 trucks were closer.

Bit of light relief after the fine detail work on the horsebox. Marking and cutting out the cab windows from .040" plasticard for the large scale 2-8-0 One set cut another three to go. The outline is scored half way through on one side, the diagonals half way through from both sides, than snap out the triangular shaped pieces of waste. Windows cut minimal cleaning up needed. Window frame fits into rebate in cab side built up from 3 layers of plasticard. The 2-8-0 should be back in service later this month once the radio control gear arrives. The loco has been out of service since 2011 after an apparent overload and decoder shut down. I could not find any problem with the motor or the loco wiring at the time, but found a dead short on the motor when I was re-assembling the loco last week, luckily enough I had a spare motor in stock, also replaced driving axle. The loco is in an automotive satin black, but I found an unopened bottles of Floquil Grimy Black, Weathered Black, Gunmetal & Graphite which should result in a more interesting finish. On-board battery power a pair of 7.2v rc-car batteries. Rc-receiver and control gear will be mounted in the tender, misht even fit in a sound unit. Loco in background was an earlier conversion finished in Floquil Weathered Black. 2 AAA batteries on board power Model T Railcar Nearly finished and detailed, have to find the headlamp lenses and missing door handle. DCC demonstration

The SLNCR probably would have got by without spending too much money on the track, a 2-6-2+2-6-2 Garratt would probably have been easier on the track than the indigenous 0-6-4Ts and GNR 0-6-0s. Garratts were used successfully to haul heavy ore and freight trains in Tasmania in conditions similar to the SLNCR high rainfall, sharp curves, steep grades light grades indifferent track maintenance. I think the main problem would have been handling longer heavier trains and finding the money to pay for the locos. The SLNCR did not have the money to pay for Lough Erne & Lough Melvin when they were completed in 1949 and Stormont underwriting the hire purchase agreement for the two locos in 1951. The SLNCR mainly benefited the ports of Belfast & Derry and Merrion Street was unlikely to be willing to subsidise the SLNCR to compete with CIE for Sligo-Dublin freight traffic There was also the little matter of whether the boiler unit or power bogies would fit in the erecting shop at Dundalk Works

The Garratt is mentioned in Neil Spinks' SLNCR book. The 1920s proposal may have been to replace the two Avonside 0-6-2T locos withdrawn around the same time. The SLNCR was skint at the time and bought a pair of elderly GNR 4-4-0s which did not last very long and were in turn replaced with ex GNR 0-6-0s which had worn out by the time the SLNCR went shopping for new locos in the late 1940s. A Garratt appears to have been again considered but Lough Erne & Lough Melvin ordered instead. A Garratt would have appeared attractive in reducing operating costs and train milage, possibly with a single daily goods replacing the two scheduled goods/mixed workings. At least a second Garratt would have been needed as a standby to cover maintenance. Its hard to imagine how a Garratt would have performed or how the SLNCR could have safely handled heavier longer loose coupled trains over those grades and curves.

Its a combination of the heavier rail and deeper ballast that makes modern track more rigid. The move to more rigid track and stock with automotive style springing was driven more to reduce track maintenance costs than by heavier locos with higher axle loads. The choice between axle mounted and frame mounted traction motors with carden shaft drive to the axles is probably a trade off between increased track Vs rolling stock maintenance costs. Internationally most diesel electrics & straight electrics tend to have un-sprung traction motors, the exceptions like the British IC125 power cars & ECML Class 91 electrics were designed for continuous 100mph + running. Once the track is adequately maintained running heavy locos with axle mounted traction motors is not a problem, but even where light locos were used poor track maintenance is a recepie for disaster.

I have used them 3-4 years without any problems, the throw is adjustable the overall design is similar to the Tortoise switch machine without an electric motor. The wiring is similar in principal to that described by DuVaren with the one pole of the Blue Point DPDT rather than a relay used to switch power from the main line to the yard controller.

Mispent years volunteering in a civil engineering gang on a narrow gauge heritage railway in the UK and still having the curiosity of a little boy who simply has to know why? Got to know a lot of professional & volunteer railway people, got my hands dirty, enjoyed myself and drank a lot of beer.

While modern diesel hydraulic railcars like the Rotems and CAFs are easy on the track, most diesel electric locos and railcars are harder on the track than a large steam loco as the traction motors are unsprung. With a 2 cylinder steam loco at high speed and rigid track there is a risk of the loco bouncing itself off the track as well as damage to the loco. Most of the track and infratructure problems on IE in the 1990s and NIR arose from a combination of running diesel electric locos and railcars at high speed on inadequately maintained track. I suppose packing and lifting and ballast cleaning is a form of preventative maintenance to prevent this sort of problem developing Ballast cleaning may be the only option where it is not feasible to raise the level of the track due to restricted clearance or at station platforms. Ballast cleaning has the advantage that it can be carried out between trains, important on a freight railway where customers would not tolerate disruption to traffic.

I have an end to end layout with a station with a small yard and loco depot. Two locos can run at a time one on the main line the other in the yard. Two hand end controllers (one Gaugemaster one home made) one to control the main line, the other to control the yard and loco depot. Blue Point Switch Machines http://www.micromark.com/blue-point-switch-machine-turnout-controller-10-pack,8537.html to control points. I use the Blue Point toggle switch rather than section switches to switch control from the yard to the main line controller. This allows trains to run from the main line to or from the yard on the one controller. The loco yard is divided into sections controlled by toggle switches mounted on the layout fascia, this allows a loco to be parked in the engine shed or the turntable track while the yard controller is in use.

They have been about from the 1940s and in widespread use in Ireland and the UK from the 1960s. The modern high output machines with self loading/unloading ballast/spoil wagons are relatively recent development to increase the amount of work that can be completed within a possession and reduce the need to run separate spoil and ballast trains as part of the ballast cleaning operation. The need for ballast cleaning is driven more by the grinding down of ballast and concrete sleepers from heavy traffic than from debris falling on the track. Coal ash is quite free draining and used for track ballast and strengthening track foundations & embankments. Traditionally engineers preferred to add more ballast & "lift and pack" track in preference to ballast cleaning which can sometimes damage track foundations by breaking the crust of compacted fill underneath the ballast. The only cure when this happens is to close the line and re-build from the formation up.

Most of the coaches built from the Mid-1950s to Bulleid's departure including some MK2 Bredins, all the Park Royals & Laminates had triangulated underframes, The idea seems to have been dropped after Bulleid's departure wagons/coaches built from the 60s onwards had conventional underframes. The solebars curve inwards in the area around the bogie pivots. David Malone a pioneering 21mm S4 modeller has built a "hooded van" with a representation of a triangulated underframe and full springing Hooded Van with Bulleid underframe photo © David Malone

Richrua. The SSM GNR SG 0-6-0 or possibly the Bandon Tank would be a better option than the J15 for a 1st etched brass loco kit. The SG is easier to build for a less experienced builder than the J15, the combination of flat running plate, slot & tab assembly and bolt together sub-assemblies simplify assembly. Being a larger loco there is room for a decent size motor in the firebox which can be a struggle with the J15 DLT RM Web thread on building Southern locos contains pretty good advice on building etched and whitemetal kits http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/2359-dlts-sr-locos-a-black-motor-for-torrington/page-24 DCC wise it would be best to try and fit a decoder in the tender or tank loco bunker rather than in the boiler as the boiler needs to be filled with weight if the loco is to pull a reasonable load. Decoder wise a 1 amp N or small HO Decoder like the Lenz Silver Mini+ or Digitrax DN136D will do the job. Lenz decoders are very good, Digitrax have the advantage of being wrapped in insulation so they are unlikely to short against anything. If there is space in the tender a TCS "Keep Alive" or Lenz UPS decoder would greatly assist reliable running over coming issues with power pick up/dirty wheels. Reliable power pick up is important with kit built locos, programming speed steps with kit built locos is not really an issue generally you pick a motor and gearbox ratio to give a realistic low top speed, generally 80:1 or 50:1 with a goods loco.

Model Hump Yard seems to work reliably Gravity shunting where grades were used to assist sorting wagons was quite common in loose coupled days. There is footage of gravity shunting at Sligo Quay in Markle Associates Irish Railway Archive series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRYOlkETWkw Watched OBB sorting containers wagons and Ammonia tank wagons by gravity in Krems about to years ago. A train from the local industries was held on a headshunt outside of the station and wagons released to run down the grade into the yard.

Narrow gauge version of ETM 567 similar machine to the IE Ballast Cleaner in operation in New Zealand.