Mayner

Most likely 455. According to a "Decade of Steam" 456 was scrapped early in 1955 (boiler/firebox problems) 457 (large yellow numerals on her side tanks) was transferred to Limerick shortly after the arrival of the diesel electrics and ended up as Goods yard Pilot, 455 remained on the DSER "very run down but still defiantly pounding up Killiney Bank with her six bogies of "Commuters" "

When I was living and working in London during the late 80s-early 90s a work colleague used to take the Sleeper on Friday evenings after work to go mountain biking in the West Highlands, often spoke about waking up and looking out over Rannoch Moor in contrast to the frantic pace of life in London, he used to return on the Sleeper Sunday evenings always arriving on time at work on Monday mornings. We were all young and wild then thought nothing of it used to drive on a 400+ round trip every other weekend to go volunteering on a Welsh narrow gauge railway it was a point of honour to arrive in our destination before pub-closing time on a Friday evening and stay up half the night, these days I don't know how I managed to survive!

Typical CIE passenger train of the 1950s-80s similar in outline but no two vehicles alike! Nearest the camera 1964 Built 6w Heating Van 1356-1371 Series Open Second/Standard-----CIE 1951-54 Stock best described as a MK2 Bredin GSR Bogies constructed using traditional coach building techniques-definitely not a Laminate. 1372-1378 Series Corridor Second/Standard--CIE 1951-54 stock: on Bulleid Triangulated Underframe with Commonwealth Bogies Built 1954. An earlier batch of these coaches 1356-1371 had conventional steel underframes and ran on GSR bogies----definitely not a Laminate Possibly a 1958 built 1449-1496 Series Laminate Open Second/Standard. These were CIE largest/most common type of second/standard class coach during the 50-70s used mainly on main line duties before the introduction of the Supertrains in 1972 The CIE 1951-54 Stock were built using traditional coach building techniques welded steel underframe, timber framed bodies with aluminium body panelling with cover slips. The Laminate bodies were modular construction using composite panels Aluminium skin-Insulation (asbestos?)-Plywood internal lining allowing high volume semi-skilled construction. Interestingly CIE reverted to traditional coach building techniques for it last 100% Inchacore built coaches in 1962-4 1145-1146 Superstandard/First Class and 1444-1448 Second/Standard which ran on Bulleid Triangulated underframes with BR style Commonwealth Bogies. While British Railways designed and built literally thousands of MK1 coaches for all its Regions during the same period CIE built/assembled three different coach each using totally different coach building techniques.

IRM/Stephen, Fran, Patrick's excellent customer service approach makes good business sense and is one of the key principals of Total Quality Management. Looking back over the events of the past 10-12 years what impresses me most is IRM 'founders" strategy of setting up and funding the add-free Irish Railway Modeller news group as a vehicle to promote interest in Irish railway modelling, which in turn provided a springboard for the launch of IRMs first model the CIE Ballast wagon, the directors had the capability to commission the models directly from the Chinese factories without an intermediary after DJ stuffed up, the quality of the first model and doing business directly with the Chinese factories provided the spring board to expand the IRM range of Irish models and more importantly from a business perspective launch Accurascale and enter the UK market, a text book example of business start up and expansion.

Looks better equipped/organised than the East Wall Rd depot during the 70s-90s era when most of the yard was full of cripples/redundant stock. Given the DSER theme how about a spur from the DSER line south of the Dodder into the Ringsend area and a rail connection to the container terminals on the South Bank of the Liffey.

Definitely interested in the CIE Commonwealth bogies if released separately for my Worsley Works Laminates and Park Royal. Wonder how my Park Royal (not bad for a 1st attempt at a brass coach) will compare with the new IRM models BR (BSGV)Vans (34 total) were mainly used on Intercity trains with mixed Craven, Park Royal and Laminate stock. Dutch vans (10 total) tended to be were less common (less popular with Guards) on Intercity Trains. CIE also converted 18 older coaches into TL BSGVs during the mid-late 70s to replace Tin Vans on outer suburban and branch line trains. Apart from a suitable BSGV Van the main item missing to model a conventional 1972-1987 era CIE Intercity train is a Buffet Car.

Explored Penmachno Quarry once and sometimes used the road over the Denbigh Moors and through the Penmachno Valley as a 'short cut" driving from Scotland to Portmadoc. Model seems to follow the route of the NWNG Bedgellert-Betwys-Corwen scheme hopefully someone will bring out a rtr model of NWNGR single Fairlies Snowdon Ranger or Moel Tryfn Funnily enough I was thinking of a similar WHR minimum space layout with Bachmann Baldwin, Kato England loco and Quarry Hunslet based on an junction at Nant Gwynant between the General Undertaking and a line from the South Snowdon Quarry but I already have more than enough on my hands

I love your nicely organised workbench, tools and fixtures, mine looks more like a scrapyard! Nice work with the piercing saw.

Harcourt Street would be extremely ambitious for a first layout particularly if your planning to scratchbuild a model of the station building which would be a major project in itself. Its probably best to consider what aspects of model railway do you enjoy the most before deciding on the type of layout and space available. Harcourt St, Milltown Viaduct and Dundrum Station would take a lot of space, time and effort to build in OO, but would fit in half-three quarters the space in N. The station while relatively compact in length (excluding the fitting between Albert Place and Hatch Street, the was almost as wide with the carriage sidings/goods yard fanning out half the distance between Harcourt Street and Earlsfort Terrace. The late Desmond Coakham published an excellent article in the Harcourt St line in CIE days which includes photos and trackplan of Harcourt St. Railway Byelines Annual No5 published Irwell Press 2002 who may be able to help.

I remember a priest working himself into a lather during a sermon (the late 60s) about how the World was coming to an end, after seeing a young couple and not being able to recognise the difference between the sexes because they were both wearing long hair and denim jeans. I was only a kid at the time, but it of those lightbulb moments about not believing everything your told by people in authority

Many years ago a model railway club member remarked that the only thing missing was a Kango Hammer as the O Gauge group carried out track laying on a new layout. The group went about their tracklaying with as much finesse as a full scale track gang using a full size hacksaw and 20oz hammer to lay and pin down Peco Flexi-track. The larger the scale the closer you get to the real thing I use a graphic paste for lubricating the rail joints on the Garden Railway though its supplied in a small tube by LGB rather than a 5 or 10 Gal drum by RS Clare https://www.rsclare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RS-Clare-Rail-Brochure.pdf

I am not sure if TPOs ran on the WLWR line, at the time the daily Limerick-Sligo train was usually operated as an AEC railcar set, the Limerick-Galway train was a loco hauled (A Class) Mail based in Limerick possibly with a TPO. The late 50s built Bogie and 4W TPOs may have struggled to provide cover for all mail trains before the line closures of the 1960s Possibly a cripple shunted out of a train (especially with the net) en-route from Limerick Works to Sligo or Athenry, ex MGWR TPOs appear to have been in use on the Midland until the (very) early 60s.

Stewart Hine wrote about "route feeding of track power" as "Linked Section Control" in Model Railways Magazine during the 1970s, I had tried variants of the system using relays and manual switches on a number of layouts down the years. I am not convinced that the accessory switch on the Seep PM 1 would be reliable enough to operate the relay. I use a similar "route-feeding" arrangement using "Blue Point" manual point controllers https://ppw-aline.com/collections/blue-point-manual-turnout-controller using push rod control, on a small end to end layout eliminating the need for section switches or a control panel. The "Blue Point" has a built in DPDT switch, I use one pole for section control using common return wiring, the second to change frog polarity with live frog points, the power is routed "backwards" through some of the points which are controlled using manual push rods (bicycle spokes) I use hand held controllers (1 Gaugemaster, 1 custom made) which plug in to DIN sockets on the layout fascia 1 socket for main and 1 socket for yard working. I will probably use a similar system using the accessary switch on Tortoise point motors http://www.circuitron.com/index_files/tortoise.htm for power routing if I get round to building a new layout.

There is a photo of a Macroom 4w 5 Compt. coach coupled to a Macroom 6W 5 Compt coach in "Irish Standard Gauge Railways Tom Middlemass 1981. Curiously the 4 wheeler appears to have been fitted with gas lighting at some stage (by the GSR or GSWR?) while the 6 wheeler retains oil lighting. The panelling detail above the windows on both the W&CIR and Macroom coaches appears similar possibly with Metropolitan supplying coaches to both the W&CIR and CMDR

My impression of a W & C I Rly five compartment Third Class Carriage based on the Metropolitan drawing of the 1879 Second. Apart from the harder seats ,Third Class passengers would have had less legroom than those that could afford a First or Second Class ticket with an internal compartment width of 4'10" and poorer lighting with 4 compartments sharing two Oil Lamps. In GSR days the Macroom had a 5 compt. 3rd with a similar lighting arrangement though with gas rather that oil! I will place higher-resolution copies of these drawings in the resource section.

Although mainly interested in the Midland I bought a copy of a GA drawing of a WCIR 4w "Second Class Carriage" to get a better understanding of the type of 4 wheel carriages bought by Irish companies during the 70-80s. There is also a more modern WDLR 4w brake in the catalogue which is probably next on the list. I decided to "colour-in" the drawing to give an impression of the WCIR 'lake livery' and provide some contrast between the paneled areas and mouldings, I tried to re-produce the graphics in a similar style to the 1879 original The coach had an overall body length of 25' on a wheelbase of 14' a similar length to the WDLR Brake and 4 compartment 4w coaches built by the GWR in the early 1900s. The most interesting thing about the coach is the absence of brakes! the coach was introduced long before power braking and block working became compulsory. . The coach is listed on the drawing as 799 (a worker or order number) no other order numbers are listed on the drawing, its difficult to establish at this stage whether the coach was a one off or part of a larger order. I suppose the next job is to re-draw the coach a 5 Compartment third.! The panelling style on the ends is not dissimilar to the 4W van coupled behind No 12

Most likely an Up Meath Road Goods hauled by a Cattle Engine. There were three return goods trains between North Wall and Kingscourt weekly during the 1950s most likely departing Dublin on M,W, F returning T,Th and Sat with the loco shedded over night in Kingscourt. Traffic to Dublin appears to have been mainly bricks from Kingscourt and general goods traffic from Navan with light traffic from intermediate stations. There is a photo of a Cattle Engine on an up-goods passing Gibbstown during the same era in a "Decade of Steam" the train consist (not very long) was mainly open wagons and a couple of vans.

Quite a treasure throve, especially the loco drawings and makers photos.

The politics behind extending the Dublin and Meath to Armagh and further north are fairly complicated. There were completing proposals for inland (via Navan and Armagh) and coastal routes between Dublin and to link up with the Ulster Railway at Portadown during the "Railway Mania" era of the 1840s. Later post "Railway Mania" era schemes included plans to extend the Navan-Kingscourt line beyond Armagh to connect with the Belfast and Northern Counites at Cookstown. A line to Cookstown would have allowed the MGWR to tap into brick and coal traffic from the Tyrone coal field and tourist traffic to an from Portrush over the Derry Central between Macfin-and Magherafelt. The D&M/N&K plans for a Kingscourt-Castleblaney-Armagh line appear to have been serious enough to locate Kingscourt Station at the bottom of a hill at distance from the town laid out as a through station. The N&K basically appears to have run-out of money when they reached Kingscourt and the MGWR was highly unlikely to subscribe capital to building branch lines preferring the locally owned companies or the Government take the risk. The GNR would not have wanted a MGWR line entering its territory and blocked a Kingscourt-Castleblaney line by building the Carrickmacross Branch. if you have access to the IRRS library GR Mahon wrote an excellent series of Journal Papers on Irish Railways during the 1860s-1870s during the 1970s including the Dublin & Meath and Navan & Kingscourt and proposals for extending to Armagh and further north.

I haven't tried static grass, I still use Woodland Scenics medium and coarse turf scatter on pva glue on plaster bandage, with rubberised horsehair and Woodland Scenics foliage for hedge and bushes. Not looking bad after 10 years dust fall out! Used 'Fine Turf" scatter for the roadway on the Roadside section medium and coarse turf for grass/ground cover. This scene was inspired by a section of line where the road & tramway ran parallel with a canalised river. Again not looking bad after 10 years

Without going into too much detail its unlikely that shifting production and distribution to Ireland or the UK would lead to a reduction in the price paid by customers for our 3D printed wagons. Basically its cheaper to print our wagons in New Zealand and Asia than in Europe. Higher printing costs are likely to cancel out any savings on shipping if I moved manufacture and distribution to Ireland or the UK. The bottom line is that 3D printing is only really suitable for prototyping (one offs) or low volume production which comes with a higher price tag than a similar mass produced item.

The semi-circular pipework at the front of the smokebox was a distinctive feature on Atock locos until re-built re-boilered from the early 1900s onwards. The pipework disappeared from the E Class and conventional smokebox doors were fitted when the locos were re-boilered from 1912 onwards. 556 is basically in MGWR condition with the exception of the GSR number plate and loss of its MGWR name and number. I think the pipe and flexible hose may have been for powering water pumps and other accessories rather than steam heating purposes

I went down the direct sales Shopify route because sales and distribution through IRM and retailers like Marks, Rails and Hattons would have resulted in a significant increase in the price point of our models even before UK or Irish vat was added, which would not have excatly helped sales. The underlying problem is the relatively low level of demand for Irish pre-Liner Train era wagons and the fact that a kit or 3D printed model cannot compete on price point with a mass-produced plastic injection molded Far-Eastern models. Initial feed back when we sent samples to model railway clubs in Dublin was that people 'could not see the point" of paying a higher price point for an accurate model of an Irish wagon than they could buy a rtr model of a similar British Rail wagon at a lower price.

I designed the MGWR 2-4-0 kit with a single piece fold up chassis for OO that could be assembled in 21mm gauge as a conventional chassis with separate frame spacer. I designed the GSWR 52 Class with a conventional chassis with OO & 21mm frame spacers. The majority of my customers are experienced kit or scratchbuilders or people who want a model of a particular loco regardless of the chassis design. Interestingly I sold more MGWR 2-4-0s than GSWR 4-4-0s most likely because I produced 3 variations of the 2-4-0 kit and only 1 variation of the 4-4-0 rather than the fold up OO chassis.

Interestingly Tarmac UK cement/building product traffic of 9M tons annually is roughly 3 times heavier than CIEs total annual railfreight traffic during the 1970/80! https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/11387-tarmac-renews-rail-freight-contracts-in-uk Ironically railborne cement traffic was in decline in the UK and increasing in the UK during the late 1980s-mid 1990s with the situation reversing following privatisation in the UK. The UK freight flows tend to be heavier and over longer distances than in Ireland which gives rail a competitive edge over road leading to investment in modern high capacity wagons by rolling stock leasing companies, subsidised freight access charges after privatisation has lead to four 'open access' operators competing to haul bulk cement and building traffic. Difficult to see a similar situation developing in Ireland because of the relatively short distance between the major Cities and the Cement Plants and IRH loss of market share to Quinn, Lagan north of a line drawn from Wicklow to the Ox Mountains.