Mayner

The current IE Loading and Structure gauge is detailed in Appendix 3 of the IE 2018 Network Statement http://www.irishrail.ie/media/ie_2018_network_statement_(final_version).pdf. As far as I know the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau (BRMSB) was an industry body that has long ceased to exist. The BRMSB standards were developed following WW11 in an attempt to develop common wheel and coupler standards, but the Bureau did not have the same level of influence as the National Model Railroaders Association (NMRA) in the States. At the time major manufacturers like Hornby, Trix and Tri-ang preferred to maintain their in house standards in order to maintain market share and competitive advantage. The "4mm & 7mm scale societies" in the UK may have developed Loading and Structure gauges for their specific areas of interest. The EM Gauge Society developed a table of Standard Dimensions for 4mm scale including a typical British loading gauge and structural clearances based on the "Model Railway Handbook 7th Edition https://www.amazon.co.uk/Model-Railways-Handbook-Railway-News/dp/B001G888TK & information in Railway Modeller and Railway Engineer. British and Irish railway companies tended to develop and establish loading and structure gauges in isolation, the Great Northern section of IE still has a more restricted loading gauge than other sections of IE despite a programme to increase clearances in the 1990s.

Lough Swilly Transport Ltd seems to have offered direct road freight services between Donegal and the UK. The company appears to have operated between 1983&2004 and had a registered office in Dublin and may not have had a connection with the LLSR. The Lough Swilly Transport tractor and covered trailer were fairly modern and looked like they were set up for logistics work, possibly for line haul work for parcels traffic between Donegal and major centers in the UK.

Funnily enough the first time I saw a Bus Eireann coach (complete with Red Setter logo was in London . Another bizarre moment was passing a Lough Swilly Transport tractor and trailer unit on the M6 in the West Midlands, for a moment I though the LLSR had gone into cross-channel haulage. CIE/Bus Eireann used UK based contractors to operate services to and from London and other destinations in the UK. At one stage the coaches bore Bus Eireann branding.

I haven't been able to find any direct reference to a GNR(I) G Class 2-4-0. O.S. Nocks "Irish Steam" indicates that GNR(I) had 75 4-4-0s & 9 2-4-0s in service in 1916. The GNR was formed by amalgamation in 1875-76 the 4 H Class built in 1880-1881 appear to be the sole 2-4-0s introduced by the GNR(I), the H Class are supposed to be based on a Dublin and Belfast Junction design. Its possible the GNR (I) G Class were a pre-amalgamation design, each of the amalgamating companies are likely to have had 2-4-0s for passenger work the question is which company Dublin & Drogheda, Dublin & Belfast Junction (Drogheda-Portadown) Ulster Railway or Irish North Western? While some INWR & Ulster Railway 0-6-0s lasted into the late 1940s the remaining 2-4-0s would have become pretty much redundant with the introduction of large S, S2 & Compound 4-4-0s and the light weight U Class type from 1912 onwards.

Good work! The Chester Club set the challenge exhibiting Dingle in Dingle so to speak, and you have beaten them by a fair margin on the mileage front. Might even re-awaken some interest in modelling the West Cork in West Cork.

I always had a soft spot for Gort, most of the yard was retained and used for storing redundant wagons after the end of wagon load traffic. A lot of cement and possibly fertiliser traffic in later years appears to have been in connection with the merchants yard which was at a lower level than the railway, I remember watching a forklift off loading bagged cement off a train parked on the main line and delivering the pallets direct to the merchants yard. Adding a head shunt improves the operationally flexibility of the station as a train from the Athenry direction can now enter the Ardrahan-Gort section while a train is shunting the yard. I would be inclined to reverse the crossover from the main line to the yard to allow a train from Limerick to run directly into the headshunt/layby and shunt clear of the main line. A further crossover controlled by a ground frame could be added further out to allow North bound goods trains to depart without setting back into the station. There was a similar arrangement for south bound cattle specials from the Up yard in Tuam This allows two trains to cross at the station while a goods is recessed in the layby or shunting the yard, a common arrangement on the Galway Line and Mayo Road. Goods yard head shunts were fairly uncommon on the Limerick-Sligo line, Ennis & Tuam being the main exceptions, I guess traffic traffic levels never justified the investment.

Blackham Transfers http://www.blackhamtransfers.com/ have produced custom transfers including green & yellow snails, solid and stencil wagon numbers. Provincial Wagons are on their list of Blackham Transfers current customers. Blackham transfers are rub-on similar to Letraset and have the advantage of no carrier film, I am still working from a stash I bought about 20 years ago Both Blackham & SSM will produce custom transfers which is a lot handier than applying individual letters/numbers for things like wagon & coach numbers, tare and load lettering.

Finding space to do anything in our garage has been like a 3 dimensional chess game, no sooner than I completed the baseboard framing for the Irish broad gauge layout than it became covered by other unfinished products and models.. Thankful these days there has been some progress. Progress with other projects finally freed up space to clear the traverser and about 12' of baseboard, while the N gauge will probably be returning to the house by Christmas. Anytime between 1890 & 1963? 650 Class and perishable (6w bk3rd, horsebox and string of meat vans. I will have to find a permanent home for the watertower. 1960s Night Mail, heating van TPO 3 fitted H Vans, to connect into the Galway-Dublin Night Mail at Athlone or Mullingar I have a photo somewhere of a mock up of a Midland station and AEC railcar set. At this stage I am toying with the idea of a U shaped layout with a Mayo Line or Limerick-Sligo crossing station in this area buildings possibly buildings based Ballymoe or Kiltimagh entering as a double line through station from traverser with road bridge view blocker before entering single line section to terminus on opposite side of room. Like idea of mixing MGWR & GSWR (ex WLWR) lines possibly one road GSWR bullhead other MGWR flatbottom rail. Variety of MGWR & GSWR steam power and rolling stock. Baseboards are open frame construction with trackbed supported on risers so the ground contours are both above and below the railway, possibly with some bogland and a river crossing (lattice truss bridge?) on the connecting section between the two stations .

Test builds nearly complete, some minor changes to the artwork to get the cab interior to fit and I had forgotten the ashpan sides leaving a lot of daylight in the area between the driving wheels! 657 (MGWR 33 Arrow) as rebuilt with superheated boiler in1925, before receiving a saturated (original style) boiler and presumably GSR cab in 1939, rebuilt with CIE Y superheated belpair boiler 1953! Loco is on a OO Chassis. Funnily enough I have only found a photo of one superheated loco (23 Sylph) in this condition fitted with tender coal rails. Which indicates that at this time coal was of high quality and the superheated locos very economic of coal and water which was the whole point of the exercise. 654 late GSR/CIE condition. Originally MGWR 23 Sylph this loco went through four re-builds/changes of boiler between 1924 & 1959 and eventually ended up with a Y Class superheated Belpair boiler the model covers the 1939-59 period. I assembled this loco lat week in a bit of a hurry and haven't bolted the back end of the loco to the chassis with the cab sitting a bit high. The kit includes parts to build the loco with either MGWR or GSR/CIE condition including alternate cabs, boiler fittings, leading axle springs, tender coal rails or coal plates. There was a lot of detail variation between individual locos as the class was overhauled/re-built by the GSR & CIE particularly around cab handrail location and rivet detail. Handrail and rivet locations are half etched on the inside of the cab side sheets and drilled out or embossed to taste by the builder. 3/4 front view 21mm gauge loco. 21mm Chassis with inside valve gear & Mashima motor & Hi-Level Road-Runner+gear box fitted. I have assembled the chassis with an equalising beam suspension system rather than as a compensated or sprung chassis for comparison. Rear view of the chassis, I seem to have mislaid the gear wheel for the final drive! Motor is an old stock Mashima 12x20, the 10X20 motor is considered to be a better motor and currently available through High Level. Gear ratios are pretty much a personal thing the 650 Class were mixed traffic rather than express passenger locos, 40:1 or 53:1 should provide reasonable torque and range of speed for these locos. Wheels are vintage Mike Sharman and unfortunately no longer available, Alan Gibson Workshops supply suitable wheels to an EM or S4 profile and extended 1/8" driving axles.

Great piece of railway, I walked through one of the tunnels and had a look around Kells Station over 30 years ago. There is an article in one of the "Steam Railway" magazines in the early 1990s with an inspiring photo of a J15 at Glenbeigh Station in the early 1950s though I can't seem to find it. I would not get too hung up on having historically accurate locos and stock if you are just starting out in building a layout. You can always use modelers license with the line staying open like the similar Mallaig & Kyle in Scotland and running your own choice of locos and stock.

Much the same as driving on the motorways in Ireland with hedgerows too high to see the scenery! I think the main draw of the Grand Hibernian like a cruise ship or resort holiday is having your own stateroom and not having to move into a different hotel every night!

Nothing that I know of in rtr form, most of earlier British hoppers were replaced by BR designs which were larger/quite different to the eariler wagons. Falcon Brass which had a reputation of being difficult to build produced an etched kit of an LNER hopper, Cambrian produced, produces? a GWR Herring http://cambrianmodels.co.uk/wagon_kits_4mm.html looks similar to the wagons used by the GSWR/MGWR wagons, there was an article and drawing of the GNR(I) ballsat and gypsum hoppers and plough van in New Irish Lines.

More a comfortable lounge with informal sealing similar to the observation cars on the Festiniog and Welsh Highland Railways but far less to observe in the way of scenery than on the Welsh Narrow gauge lines. I saw the Belmond train a couple of time while in Ireland, my impression was that the observation car was more to provide a common space for guest to socialise and break the cabin fever of their roumettes or state rooms rather than a true observation car, there is very little to "Observe" in the way of scenery on the Belmond train's regular routes The MK3 coach structure is not really suitable for a true observation car like FR 2100 or a Vista Dome. https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Carriage_2100#/media/File:2100.jpg

The GNR(I), GSWR, MGWR & DSER appear to have had broadly similar trains of ballast hopper and plough vans by the 1925 Amalgamation. Apparently the GNR, MGWR & GSWR started to modernise their p.w. departments in the early 1900s using cut stone ballast from a central quarry on each system and ballast trains with steel hopper wagons and plough vans. The MGWR p.w. dept went through a further re-organisation with the introduction of the Bretland Track Re-laying Machine in the 1920s and sold a surplus ballast train to the DSER. The ballast wagons and plough vans were bought from suppliers in the UK, the GNR & GSWR hoppers were similar in appearance, the MGWR were more low sided and fitted with hungry boards by CIE/GSR to increase capacity.

Looks like Letterkenny shed. There is a story of 4-8-0 No 12 being pulled out of the shed for a photographer (after Burtonportline working ended) with the aid of a wire rope. The story went that No14 was left outside as they did not want to risk two locos on the turntable. The LLSR Letterkenny good yard remained open for goods traffic served by the CDJR after LLSR goods operations ceased in the early 1950s.

A 3D printed E421 by Valve Design is available on Shapeways. An E401 is also available from the Valve Design Shapeways store. https://www.shapeways.com/product/ED2F7SGHT/cie-e-class-421-oo-scale?optionId=40683661 I motorised the loco using a custom built Bull-Ant mechanism from Holywood Foundry in Australia and detailed the loco with my own etched overlays and SSM custom decals. I used a highbuild auto aerosol primer-filler to compensate for the coarse texture of the Shapeways WSF material and used the etched overlays to improve the standard of detail. Georgeconna's superdetailed one gives an idea of what can be achieved with the Valve Design model. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122675-shapeways-e-class/ http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122675-shapeways-e-class/

There were a similar loading bunkers at Lecarrow on the Mayo Road and Goraghwood on the GNR (I) which were probably built in the early 1900s when the three companies introduced steel ballast hoppers and plough vans.. Timber would have been the most economic way of building a bunker, before the use of reinforced concrete and later structural steelwork became cost effective. I wonder what became of the massive timber posts and beams when the structure was demolished, it would have been a crying shame to burn all that good structural timber.

Last weekend I finally bit the bullet and lifted the track on the old Binghampton modules and started work on the new L shaped layout. The Old. Yard throat and downtown modules. The fact that I never detailed the twin bridges in the middle is a good sign that something was not quite right! The blue spigot and socket arrangements are DCC concepts baseboard alignment dowels. Baseboard framing was 16mm ply all joints were initially pinned and glued. Stripwood reinfocement added after 15 years!. Baseboard top 3/8" ply salvaged from a 21mm gauge layout started around 1984-5 but abandoned when I moved to the UK in 86! Layout was originally wired for cab control converted to DCC c 2001, point motors are Seep with microswitches to actuate Peco-electrofrog points, control was by Triang/Hornby levers. System basically operated reliably with problems. Mock up of eastern side of town. Staging tracks in background behind buildings industry tracks interchange with another railroad in foreground. Foam ground sheet material as track underlay. Baseboards are from a 21mm dock layout I started building about 6 years ago, space was too tight for 4mm and made mistake of spacing parallel tracks too close with side swiping problem on 3' radius curves. Mock up of CBD area! Baseboard edge is in front of foreground buildings. I did not have space for most of the foreground buildings and the loco shed on the last layout. Most of the buildings were bought/assembled a long long time ago. Loco shed mid 1980s and has not been used on a layout. The design evolves! T/ The interchange has morphed into a variant on the Timesaver switching puzzle that can be operated independently or as part of a larger layout. The yard has a short run round long enough for 4 cars and 4 industries to switch including including a coal depot (elevator), warehouse, grain elevator and interchange track. The coal depot is reached by a back shunt to make itvthat little bit awkward to switch. There is enough room behind the buildings/scenic break for a 3 road staging yard each road long enough for 10 cars and a pair of locos. Downtown area. This section is more tricky on an L shaped board. The track layout is basically a main and run round track, 2 road loco depot with turntable and 2 industry and a mileage track. The basic Idea was that a train arriving from the staging would propel back to the yard on the east side of town to pick up or set out cars, return to the loco depot for servicing before departing for the staging as the return service, with a separate switching job to switch local industries and work between the two yards. There has been some shuffling about of buildings, but I feel the original arrangement with the CBD buildings in the foreground and industry/loco depot in the background works better visually, though I will probably place the foreground buildings on a removable sub-base to avoid damage during normal operation/switching. The railroad is set in upstate New York/New England paper milling and timber processing, metallic and non-metallic mining were important rail served industries, while potatoes (Sate of Maine reefers) and bulk and bottled milk for New York and Boston were significant traffic up to the 1960s Although the layout has to fit in to a restricted space in a bookcase, I am thinking of making a pair of removable sections to turn the layout into a dogbone continuous run to take to exhibitions.

There is no legal requirement to fence a railway in New Zealand. In recent years (since the railways were re-nationalised!) Kiwirail have fenced areas where trespassing has been a problem. The branch to the Waitoa Dairy factory(once part of the main line to the East Coast & Thames is rural with trains running as traffic requires. The crossing of SH 26 near Morrinsville (7:47) and a similar crossing of SH 1B are unusual as open crossings of Trunk Roads and a very busy freight line with approx 30 trains daily running a line speed (100Km/h). Basically crossing signals in New Zealand are automatically operated by an approaching train, the railways in New Zealand would probably have to close down if the Government introduced a requirement to fence lines and install monitored crossings similar to the UK or Ireland.

I just blow up EM gauge Society point templates to 21mm gauge to maintain the prototypical crossing angles and switch lengths . The other alternative is to have a play with Templot software http://www.templot.com/ which includes 21mm P4 p.w. design. Templot includes an "irish EM" with a reduced gauge to compensate for the slightly wider EMF wheelsets, though I personally have not had to reduce the gauge below 21mm though clearances between splashers in some steam locos can be tight. Forget Hornby/Peco Streamline point geometry for handlaid track, The Peco Code 82 and Atlas range are a more accurate starting point with prototypical crossing angle than a radius. From experience a point with a 1:6 crossing angle and an A switch is about the minimum full size or model for a typical Irish 4-4-0 or 0-6-0 locomotive, a full size 2' gauge 2-6-2T loco and 1:20.3 scale DRGW 2-8-2 tender locos. One of the main reasons OO persists is that the narrower than prototype gauge allows enough running clearance or slop in the chassis to allow a large steam loco like a Duchess, Black 5 or Merchant Navy to go round a 1st or 2nd radius curve. If you want a continuous run layout EM and P4 demand larger space than an equivalent layout in 00. Unless you restrict yourself to short wheel base 4w or short bogie locos and stock 1st & 2nd radius curves are unlikely to be a runner in 21mm gauge. In 21mm for normal main line stock 900mm is generally accepted as a min-radius where the EM gauge standard is used 1200mm with the S4 standard. Its probably better to stick with OO if you want to build a large layout in a restricted space or where your focus is on operation rather than building and modifying stock. Mounting the layout near eye level and using finer scale track OO gauge bullhead track like SMP or C&L reduces the visual effect of using OO gauge track for an Irish Broad gauge model and save a lot of time and potential frustration trying to adapt rtr locos and stocks. If the compromise of OO is unacceptable and 21mm to EM or P4 Standards un-achievable an alternative would be to develop an "Irish Coarse Scale Standard" based on OO Gauge proprietary wheel and track standards and either narrow the gauge or widen the bodies and running gear to provide enough clearance for the wheel sets.

I haven't tried running EM profile wheels on P4 track, so I can only take the author of the articles advice at face value. I think the issue started with intermittent derailments when the authors grand children were visiting, similar problems occur on a high proportion of model railways regardless of gauge or standards when there are visitors about. Visually there is little difference between 21mm point and crossing work laid to EM or P4 standards, the plain track will look exactly the same. The only real difference is that flangeways are 0.32-0.35mm narrower in P4 than EM not exactly noticeable at normal viewing distance. Building large complex 21mm gauge layout in a short space of time is basically out of the question unless you are a Tony Miles that has the ability to recruit and manage a team of to build and operate a large layout. I am not sure if the S4 Society currently supply track gauges and axles suitable for 21mm gauge.

Its just about possible that B165 worked over the Derry Road, B141-B177 were all entered service in 1961 and were initially concentrated on long distance and express passenger work. They were more reliable than the Metrovicks and an obvious choice for the Lough Derg pilgrimage trains where a breakdown on the single line west of Portadown would have been highly disruptive. You could always run with the scenario of the Derry Road remaining open with Strabane continuing as a rail head for Donegal with B141s working the heavy cross border goods traffic from Dundalk.

I though it would be useful to apply the EMGS standard to Irish 5'3" gauge to help people weight up the pros and cons of modelling in 21mm gauge and to make an objective comparison between working to P4 or to EM/OO fine wheel and track standards. In particular to dispel the misconception that 21mm EM profile wheel sets are substantially wider than P4 wheel sets and it is necessary to reduce the gauge to 20.2 (Irish EM)or increase clearances between splashers/side frames & w irons to accomodate the greater width. EM & P4 standards were developed by groups of modelers in the UK who aspired to a higher standard of modelling than was achievable with models and components available in 4mm scale during the 1940s and the 1960s. P4 adapted a wider gauge of 18.83 compared with the 18.2 adapted by the EM Gauge Society combined more significantly with more prototypical running tolerances and wheel profiles. Closer running tolerances in combination with finer flanges and wheel tyres demand a more precise standard of baseboard, track and wheel assembly than required in EM or OO. Some form of springing or active suspension is usually required in P4 though not absolutely necessary if working to OO/EM standards. One P4 modeler raised controversy in a recent-ish Model Railway Journal by running stock with EM profile wheels on P4 track in order to achieve reliable trouble free running. 21mm modelers appear to mainly work independently or in small groups and have tended to develop standards on their own initiative rather than through groups. Tony Miles pioneered fine scale 21mm developing a similar set of wheel and track standards more or less concurrently with the P4 Society. Tim Cramer published an article on modelling in 21mm in the Railway Modeller in 1972, using proprietary OO/EM wheels set at a back to back of 19.5mm. I started working in 21mm in the mid 1980s building locos and stock though did not have time or space for a layout. I got involved with the MRSI Loughrea group when I returned to Ireland in the mid 1990s and had a pleasant surprise when my locos and stock some with quite fine wheel ran on Loughrea. Interestingly I had no problems running locos and stock with EM/OO finescale wheels set at 19.5mm back to back through the pointwork on the Loughrea layout, though it was necessary to reduce the back to backs on wagons fitted with older wheels with a coarser profile to 19.3mm which correlates with the EM standard. Note on tyre width and back to back One of the major differences between the P4 and EM gauge standards is that the P4 standard specifies min-max tolerances for back to back gauge and tyre width while the EM standard specifies specific values. Provided the back to back gauge and tyre width does not exceed the standard the overall width of a 21mm OO/EM wheel set is marginally narrower than a 21mm P4 set at maximum tolerance. for back to back and tyre width. In practice Ultrascale , Gibson OO/EM wheel sets do not exceed the 2.27mm tyre width specified in the standard and excessive wheelset width width is unlikely to be a problem. Interestingly the majority of my steam locos are fitted with Sharman B profile wheels (alas no longer available!) these wheels have a tyre width of 2.07mm very close to the 2mm max specified in the P4 standard! I have included WCG or Wheel Check Gauge (Back to back +1 Effective flange) although not identified in the EM Gauge Trackwork Standard In some of his works on trackwork and rolling stock, Iain Rice identified that the "Wheel Check Gauge" (distance measured between the rear of one flange to the face of the opposing flange) rather than the back to back gauge as the vital constant in assuring the correct relationship between wheels and track. The WCG becomes particularly important when wheels with different flange thicknesses are used on a layout (e.g. mixing scale wheels like Ultrascale & Gibson with universal wheels from rtr manufacturers). Scalefour Digest 1 Track and Wheel Standards.pdf EMF Standard for Irish Broad Gauge Track.pdf

The GNR (I) cement vans and CIE pallet wagons had RCH style brakes similar to unfitted BR Mineral Wagons and older tank wagons, i.e. the lever operated the brake shoes on one side only. The most noticeable spotting feature are the double V irons on each side and the absence of a cross shaft and Morton clutch.