gswr 101

[Glenderg]

Wonder if he ever drove the Guinness & Fert with a 141 for IE.

 

*cue Lord of the Rings music....

 

He can be none other than "The Heuston Driver".....

[jhb171achill]

How did we all get onto this from "GSWR 101"!

[DiveController]

How did we all get onto this from "GSWR 101"!

 

Careful, lads! You're close to straying off topic here=))

[Broithe]

Careful, lads! You're close to straying off topic here=))

 

Well, some of us are prepared to drag it back a bit...

 

[jhb171achill]

Now, there's a loco. Forget yer oul identikit railcars. 2700, 2600, ICR, MED, MPD, 80 class, 70 class, 450.... All oul biscuit tins on wheels.

 

I'm just standing back here now to see what happens. I did leave AEC and Donegal railcars out, before you ask.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jhb171achill

[Mayner]

I couldn't show my face again without something to show for it, so after a weekend of procrastination - or just being too sh... fagged at the end of the day to start modelling, I knocked these up this evening based on the drawings for the brass version.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17574[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17575[/ATTAC

 

I was afraid if I didn't do something in styrene, John might start sending me sticks of rhubarb.

 

 

 

 

 

Alan

 

Sticks of rhubarb.......... worse than a Triffid the vine has started to climb the trees into the neighbours garden should be spreading its tendrils in Ireland in another couple of weeks. 1st of the pumpkins should be ready to eat in a few weeks

[islandbridgejct]

TurboCAD, the software equivalent of schrodingers cat. It works and it doesn't, all at the same time. There is bound to be an option to set the accuracy to a decimal point or two? That would drive me barmy. Styrene is the way and the light, and laminiations of several thin pieces are always better than a single thick piece. (What have i started....)

 

To be fair to Schrodinger, at least when his cat was dead it was dead, we just didn't know.

 

I gather Schrodinger's dead too, or at least he may be.

 

Turbocad is like a cave full of bat droppings - it's a complete bugfest. When it opens, it sprays your document with additional copies of lines you put in last time, and the only way around it is to put everything you want to keep into a separate layer and make it invisible, then create a new layer that is the only one you leave visible when closing the document. Then, when you open it, the extra lines are there, where you can see them, and you delete them and go on.

 

There is indeed an option to change the number of decimal places that show, but the problem is that when you copy a line, shape or group and paste it, it changes the size. So you might specify it as 1.00 long, and when you paste it you find it still appears to be 1.00 but is in fact 1.005478. Then when you try to join another line to it, suppose your end is at 1,1 (x and y dimensions), your new line will snap in at 1.056, 1.013. Then if you try to extrude a shape from it, it will tell you there are gaps. So it copies what's visible accurately, but changes what is not specified. To get around this, you're advised to do everything correct to 8 decimal places, but it still detects a gap between the 2 lines. The only solution seems to be to create 3d solids from the start. (I'll get back to you on this separately )

 

Anyway, those lines were round numbers when they were drawn, and by leaving 3 places of decimals visible, I at least know when it's f***ing with me. (It also ensures the drawings will keep the P4 police happy.

 

As for triangular numbers, I'm sure they were invented by a Swiss mathematician while climbing the Matterhorn, eating a Toblerone.

 

I'd never use a triangular number myself - put it on a turntable or run it tender first.

[murrayec]

Hi islandbridgeejct

 

Have to agree with Glenderg, this is a great thread, an insight to track building and other things

 

Turbocad is a bit of a pig, I use Autocad and would recommend you migrate. Some people look at Autocad and say its to complex but alas their all the same, they all draw somehow with you at the controls, its just down to the little tools they have and how you use them and Autocad is more powerful in this respect. Master a few commands in Autocad and then the rest follow in the same way. I've used plenty of systems and found Autocad the simplest and the most reliable. One can find a copy of Autocad Lite (no 3d) on-line and start there, that you mastered TC to this point Autocad Lite will be easy, then consider upgrading.

 

As for the layer situation you describe above- this should not happen? it sounds like a bug in the program

 

Eoin

[Broithe]

I'm still running my old Dargue Simplon - analogue, but it works OK and is unlikely to wear out soon..

 

 

..well, not before I do..

[jhb171achill]

I was reading over earlier posts on this thread with regard to the original idea of a 1910-ish GSWR layout, which, as I agree with others is a superb idea especially with scale track. While track has to come before locos, coaches, wagons or stations, a few pointers re GSWR liveries might be of interest, since you referred to the "battleship grey"'s drabness as a reason not to model GSR or CIE.

 

The green used on 36 in Cork is not quite the right shade, though the lining is probably as close as one will get now. For such an important company, it's odd that (to date) no definitive information seems to exist in relation to loco green (or carriage colour) in the days when 36 was in traffic. But that's just an aside, since you asked about 36's colour - it's certainly jot CIE green either, by the way.

 

The GSWR green livery started to disappear about 1895, being replaced by black lined with red. Numberplates had red backgrounds (immediately "greyed over") after about 1915! Therefore, for 1910, the liveries in daily use were actually - overall - a good bit darker and gloomier than the later grey, but probably more pleasing to the eye.

 

Locomotives: the odd one, old, possibly still in the dark olivey green, as seen (accurately) on No. 90 in Downpatrick which has exact paint match. However, in the later years of the green, 1885-95, the lining was cream and black, not the style on 90 which is accurate for 1870-85. The vast majority of locomotives, therefore, would be glossy black with red lining.

 

Carriages were painted the colour worn at present by the RPSI's 1142 and 351, or the DCDR's 836. This a very dark browny maroon known as "lake"; mind you, I'd be scared of finding something radioactive in a lake that colour!!!! Some mainline stock had the cream upper panels as seen on 351, but the bulk of carriage stock was six wheeled, and neither they nor the majority of secondary bogie stock did - these were all-purple-lake, like (accurately) 836.

 

Wagons were - wait for it - mostly black!

 

I have details somewhere of what way stations were painted. I'll pits it when I can find it.

 

If you like the green on locos, you're looking at the 1870-1900 period....

[jhb171achill]

I might add that if you go for early CIE days, you've a lighter (LMS shade) maroon on some coaches, with the dark CIE green appearing. While locos are almost all plain grey all over, a few main line ones are beginnings I appear in lined CIE green, a bit like the approximate version currently on 461 (though match your colour from 800 in Cultra). Goods stock is mid grey. A few early railcars can add interest.

 

Go for mid-GSR days, and while every single loco bar the 800s are all-grey, you've three carriage liveries, and wagons are mid grey. Older, and branch line carriages are the same deep purply brown much the same as GSWR, but with a slightly more maroonish tint. Main line stock is chocolate brown and cream, while newer stock (like the "Bredins") and older stock being repainted, are coming out in a much lighter, LMS-style lined maroon.

[islandbridgejct]

Turbocad is a bit of a pig, I use Autocad and would recommend you migrate. Some people look at Autocad and say its to complex but alas their all the same, they all draw somehow with you at the controls, its just down to the little tools they have and how you use them and Autocad is more powerful in this respect. Master a few commands in Autocad and then the rest follow in the same way. I've used plenty of systems and found Autocad the simplest and the most reliable. One can find a copy of Autocad Lite (no 3d) on-line and start there, that you mastered TC to this point Autocad Lite will be easy, then consider upgrading.

 

Curse of the Mac user, I'm afraid. I could use AutoCad on Parallels, but I'd need a bootleg copy (did I really just say that?) and I'm afraid the weight of AutoCad on Parallels would give my poor Mac a hernia.

 

So I might just have to stick with little piggy.

[islandbridgejct]

I was reading over earlier posts on this thread with regard to the original idea of a 1910-ish GSWR layout, which, as I agree with others is a superb idea especially with scale track. While track has to come before locos, coaches, wagons or stations, a few pointers re GSWR liveries might be of interest, since you referred to the "battleship grey"'s drabness as a reason not to model GSR or CIE.

 

The green used on 36 in Cork is not quite the right shade, though the lining is probably as close as one will get now. For such an important company, it's odd that (to date) no definitive information seems to exist in relation to loco green (or carriage colour) in the days when 36 was in traffic. But that's just an aside, since you asked about 36's colour - it's certainly jot CIE green either, by the way.

 

The GSWR green livery started to disappear about 1895, being replaced by black lined with red. Numberplates had red backgrounds (immediately "greyed over") after about 1915! Therefore, for 1910, the liveries in daily use were actually - overall - a good bit darker and gloomier than the later grey, but probably more pleasing to the eye.

 

Locomotives: the odd one, old, possibly still in the dark olivey green, as seen (accurately) on No. 90 in Downpatrick which has exact paint match. However, in the later years of the green, 1885-95, the lining was cream and black, not the style on 90 which is accurate for 1870-85. The vast majority of locomotives, therefore, would be glossy black with red lining.

 

Carriages were painted the colour worn at present by the RPSI's 1142 and 351, or the DCDR's 836. This a very dark browny maroon known as "lake"; mind you, I'd be scared of finding something radioactive in a lake that colour!!!! Some mainline stock had the cream upper panels as seen on 351, but the bulk of carriage stock was six wheeled, and neither they nor the majority of secondary bogie stock did - these were all-purple-lake, like (accurately) 836.

 

Wagons were - wait for it - mostly black!

 

I have details somewhere of what way stations were painted. I'll pits it when I can find it.

 

If you like the green on locos, you're looking at the 1870-1900 period....

 

Thanks, jhb.

 

I've been following all your livery posts with interest.

 

I think if I wanted properly colourful, I'd have to try to model platforms 6 and 7 at Amiens Street about 1950, occasionally moving to 1951. I could have green moguls, 4-6-0s coming in to take the Enterprise away to Cork, blue GNR locos, and a clatter of south eastern tanks. Plus the CIE carriage livery is a big attraction. 1951 would see colourful biscuit tins. Personal prejudices come into play in a big way. First, I like 6 coupled tender engines. I don't like tank engines - proper engines have tenders. I think CIE wrecked the Southern engines' lines with their catches all round the smokebox door (and they're probably unmodellable.) I like superheated engines with extended smokeboxes, but think the McDonnell double smokebox doors are cuter.

 

The attraction of 1910(ish) is that the GSWR had some largeish 4-4-0s and bogie coaches were coming in. The Rosslare link was completed. I could stretch a point, maybe move back to 1907, defer the takeover of the WLWR to 1905 and also defer the application of lined black to locos to then. That would give me green, black and red locos, bogie coaches and 6 wheelers, and black wagons, and the railways would be in full flight, rather than in decline.

 

On a less superficial level, I'm wondering what story I'd like the layout to tell - is this Joyce's Dublin, Plunkett's Strumpet City, Somerville and Ross's Cork, or my grandfather's story about "the very depressed state of the country at the time." Will I do the poverty or the twee Oirish thing? Probably the poverty - I'll leave the faith and begorrahs to someone else.

 

The other attraction of 1910 is that I think the motor car ruined the countryside and the city, and I want to get away from it in my modelling because you can't get away from it in reality - there's traffic noise everywhere, even 5 miles from a main road you can hear the hum if the wind drops. I think that's a shame.

 

There you go, more than enough prejudices to start a fight.

 

Any thoughts? (I'm off to look at me wagons.)

[murrayec]

I'm still running my old Dargue Simplon - analogue, but it works OK and is unlikely to wear out soon..

 

 

Hey Broithe

 

Where is the USB interface? and is that little pulley down there for the belt drive from the steam engine?

 

Eoin

[jhb171achill]

Fascinating concept, Islandbridge, and good luck with what I'm sure will be a fascinating layout. The beauty about any layout is the way we can stretch any point we like!

 

In terms of yours, 1910 was not that long after the GSWR took over the WLWR, so there certainly would have been the odd maroon locomotive pottering about, and their carriage colour was the same maroon; these would give a nice contrast, as it was lighter than the GSWR purple lake. I'm sure you're seen a layout based on the WLWR which featured in magazines YEARS ago, called "Castle Rackrent". WLWR livery was faithfully reproduced in that. Wagons can be livened up by a visiting grey GNR van, or green MGWR horse box.

[Broithe]

Hey Broithe

 

Where is the USB interface? and is that little pulley down there for the belt drive from the steam engine?

 

No USB, that's too old hat - it has a direct optical connection - straight into the retina.

 

That 'little pulley' is for the height adjustment - there is considerable allowance for wear.

 

 

I you ever get one, then remember to not have your feet on the footrest when lowering the board - but, you'll only do it once....

[Mayner]

Curse of the Mac user, I'm afraid. I could use AutoCad on Parallels, but I'd need a bootleg copy (did I really just say that?) and I'm afraid the weight of AutoCad on Parallels would give my poor Mac a hernia.

 

So I might just have to stick with little piggy.

 

Unless you are a professional user or can get a student copy an AutoCAD or Solidworks license would be pretty serious investment for an modeller.

 

I have use DesignCAD a 3D an inexpensive modelling programme for all my drafting including masters for etching and 3d printed models through Shapeways.

 

It probably took me 5-10 years to really master the programme and after 15 years I am still discovering features that would probably be second nature to professional designers like Richie & Dave.

 

Most of the cheaper programmes have their idiocyrcries weird things happen when you try to convert a DesignCAD file into stl. for 3d printing or dxf. or drg. for photo engraving.

 

The 2D version of Draftsight has had good reviews and is free http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...'>http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof....'>http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof.... I looked at changing to TurboCAD or Draftsight but could not get used to a new user interface after 15 years with DesignCAD.

 

http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...

 

 

DraftSight - Dassault Systèmes http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...

 

Going back to modelling the GSWR in 1910 the tapered boiler Coey 4-4-0 were really distinctive machines the GSR rebuilds with parallel boilers and canopy cabs really spoiled their appearance.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Mayner

[jhb171achill]

I think, Mayner, that many GSR rebuilds did little to improve the appearance of their subject matter! I would agree re the 4.4.0s you mention.

 

Unfortunately, an ancestor of mine who was in their drawing office then could well have had something to do with some of them!

[islandbridgejct]

So last night, I gave myself a bit of a fright.

 

This is a tube of PVA glue:

 

 

This is a sheet of layout paper. It's basically like greaseproof paper - it's very dense and very thin:

 

 

This is a piece of paper being wrapped around a bit of brass wire, stuck together, rolled, and embossed with rivets:

 

 

And this is a 2 plank wagon with the ironwork for the doors attached:

 

 

 

The camera zoom is a cruel mistress, showing up the messiness of my glue application. Got to tidy that up.

 

This wagon is already consigned for scrapping. In my enthusiasm the other night, I forgot to shorten the body sides to take account of the greater thickness of the styrene ends, and had 3 made before I realised. The remaining 3 were shortened, but one of them is of rather poor quality, so that's 2 out of 6 acceptable. Anyway, it has the appropriate 'V' scrawled on it, and will be useful for practice.

 

 

What's bothering me about all this is that I've just realised I've become a rivet counter.

 

 

Help! Is there a railway to Damascus?

[islandbridgejct]

I think, Mayner, that many GSR rebuilds did little to improve the appearance of their subject matter! I would agree re the 4.4.0s you mention.

 

Unfortunately, an ancestor of mine who was in their drawing office then could well have had something to do with some of them!

 

 

I think it was HC Casserly, commenting on the 800 class, who said the drawing office got down to work, "delighted to be given their head after years of penny pinching," so that's your ancestor off the hook.

 

Coey's big 4.4.0s with their tapered boilers were real beauties, and are a big attraction, though I'd need a section of the main line to run them, which would mean 8 coach trains which might be more than I can manage. Maybe something a bit smaller to start with.

 

Castle Rackrent is a great layout, from what I've seen of it. I haven't managed to get a copy of the MRJ it appeared in, but I did get the update on it a few years back, and Peter Tatlow has a section on it in his Highland Miscellany (http://highlandmiscellany.com/tag/castle-rackrent/). Castle Rackrent seems to follow the Somerville and Ross theme, with charming natives and foxhunting anglos, something I want to avoid; but the modelling is top notch, and the operating principles sound really interesting. I'm not sure if the concept is that the C&CIR extended on north from Kilkenny, or is it based on the WLWR and intended to span from Waterford up to Athenry and beyond. There has to be some reason for putting the GSWR, WLWR and MGWR in one system.

 

Is the depiction of GSWR wagon black correct?

 

The current project is to make enough wagons to run a train or two. I have two of Mr Murphy's Bs, one of them converted to 21mm gauge and ready to roll. I've an A and a C from Q Kits to rehabilitate and - appropriately - re-engine, so I could have a temporary phase of GSWR stock with 1960s haulage, or maybe a multi-era layout.

 

Baltimore and Bantry are lovely small termini, both located on a dock. I could have fish traffic and a weekly passenger steamer to Castletownbere - maybe a Summer tourist train with first class passengers heading to a Parknasilla style resort. No charabancs though - they'll definitely be banned. I'd need the CBSCR to get into bed with the GSWR a bit earlier too - but it seems they were happy enough to in 1924, so why not in 1910?

 

No hurry though - got to build up the stock and skills first.

 

Alan

[islandbridgejct]

Unless you are a professional user or can get a student copy an AutoCAD or Solidworks license would be pretty serious investment for an modeller.

 

I have use DesignCAD a 3D an inexpensive modelling programme for all my drafting including masters for etching and 3d printed models through Shapeways.

 

It probably took me 5-10 years to really master the programme and after 15 years I am still discovering features that would probably be second nature to professional designers like Richie & Dave.

 

Most of the cheaper programmes have their idiocyrcries weird things happen when you try to convert a DesignCAD file into stl. for 3d printing or dxf. or drg. for photo engraving.

 

The 2D version of Draftsight has had good reviews and is free http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...'>http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof....'>http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof.... I looked at changing to TurboCAD or Draftsight but could not get used to a new user interface after 15 years with DesignCAD.

 

http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...

 

 

Alan

 

DraftSight - Dassault Systèmes http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-sof...

 

Going back to modelling the GSWR in 1910 the tapered boiler Coey 4-4-0 were really distinctive machines the GSR rebuilds with parallel boilers and canopy cabs really spoiled their appearance.

 

Thanks John. I'll check out Design CAD in more detail, though it will need Parallels to run it. Draftsight has the advantage of being available for MAC, but is only 2D, and I wanted 2D and 3D functionality so I can get stuff dsigned for Shapeways. Incidetally, I got a 404 on the link to it, but found it via google at http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-software/

[Mayner]

Thanks John. I'll check out Design CAD in more detail, though it will need Parallels to run it. Draftsight has the advantage of being available for MAC, but is only 2D, and I wanted 2D and 3D functionality so I can get stuff dsigned for Shapeways. Incidetally, I got a 404 on the link to it, but found it via google at http://www.3ds.com/products-services/draftsight-cad-software/

 

I stuck with the DesignCAD mainly because I don't want to take another 10 year getting used to another programme. The main advantage for me is that movement of the cursor can be calibrated to move in steps by the key board arrows, as I prefer to move the cursor with the arrows rather than the mouse.

 

The personal version of Sketchup may be an option for 3D I was surprised to find that one of the local sheetmetal workshops use Sketchup for prototypng before converting to the cutter software.

[jhb171achill]

Can't wait to see this develop, Islandbridge...

 

I had a look at pictures of that layout just now - it's easily accessible online - and the GSWR wagons are indeed accurate, as is everything else as far as I can see even down to the station paintwork.

 

I'm not sure about the blue coach - if it's meant to be a stray MGWR one it ought to have white upper panels. However, it may be a representation of some other company's livery which I'm unaware of, but it certainly isn't MGWR or GSWR in origin.

 

Given the very close attention given to every other single aspect of historical details, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a true representation of some prototype.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jhb171achill

[Mayner]

Can't wait to see this develop, Islandbridge...

 

I had a look at pictures of that layout just now - it's easily accessible online - and the GSWR wagons are indeed accurate, as is everything else as far as I can see even down to the station paintwork.

 

I'm not sure about the blue coach - if it's meant to be a stray MGWR one it ought to have white upper panels. However, it may be a representation of some other company's livery which I'm unaware of, but it certainly isn't MGWR or GSWR in origin.

 

Given the very close attention given to every other single aspect of historical details, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a true representation of some prototype.

 

There is quite a bit of Sommervile and Ross (in the Castle Rackrent layout, the original layout was supposed to be in Joyce Country the terminus of a branch from Tuam, the layout was gradually extended eastwards towards Waterford. Station buildings are mainly North Kerry , The Burma Road gets a look in the station building at Moygraney is based on Kiltamagh though the signal box is from Towcester.

 

There appear to be a few Australian 5'3" items of rolling stock Victoria Railways seems to have been rather fond of blue.

 

Alan:

 

Models of GSWR locos are challenging to build most locos had a combination of sloping smokeboxes, curly running plates, wrap around tank engine cabs & thousands of snap head rivets and drawings are not exactly easy to find.

 

Apart from the SSM 101 no kits are available, the 201 0-6-0T the tank engine version of the 101 would probably be the simplest build should be possible to use many of the kit parts including castings, frames and smokebox.

 

The 0-6-4T & 0-4-4BT have grown on me down the years would make really distinctive models and was surprised to find that the sole surviving NZR Single Fairlie 0-6-4T has a GSWR design cab, bunker and trailing bogie.

 

A couple of GSWR 0-4-4BT were built as Single Fairlies, perhaps some deal was done in return for dropping the Fairlie royalty payments or the GSWR drawing office did a nixer for Avonside

[islandbridgejct]

There is quite a bit of Sommervile and Ross (in the Castle Rackrent layout, the original layout was supposed to be in Joyce Country the terminus of a branch from Tuam, the layout was gradually extended eastwards towards Waterford. Station buildings are mainly North Kerry , The Burma Road gets a look in the station building at Moygraney is based on Kiltamagh though the signal box is from Towcester.

 

There appear to be a few Australian 5'3" items of rolling stock Victoria Railways seems to have been rather fond of blue.

 

Alan:

 

Models of GSWR locos are challenging to build most locos had a combination of sloping smokeboxes, curly running plates, wrap around tank engine cabs & thousands of snap head rivets and drawings are not exactly easy to find.

 

Apart from the SSM 101 no kits are available, the 201 0-6-0T the tank engine version of the 101 would probably be the simplest build should be possible to use many of the kit parts including castings, frames and smokebox.

 

The 0-6-4T & 0-4-4BT have grown on me down the years would make really distinctive models and was surprised to find that the sole surviving NZR Single Fairlie 0-6-4T has a GSWR design cab, bunker and trailing bogie.

 

A couple of GSWR 0-4-4BT were built as Single Fairlies, perhaps some deal was done in return for dropping the Fairlie royalty payments or the GSWR drawing office did a nixer for Avonside

 

Hi John, jhb,

 

It will certainly be challenging to bring it back to 1910. I know about the sloping smokeboxes and curly running plates. The chimneys don't seem straightforward. Wheel spokes in the 101 seem to be LNWR pattern. I didn't know about the snap head rivets - I always thought they were a 1960s development. 4.4.0.s and 0.4.4.s are supposed to be very difficult to balance. I certainly won't be starting off with a taper boiler. But the locos have an awful lot of character and I'll just see what I can do. And then there's the lining....

 

I'm going to start off anyway with a few diesels as motive power, and some stock to suit them, and then try to backdate things gradually, so a Midland 0.6.0T from 1950 may be my first steam loco, plus a Bandon tank, both from Des. That'll get me underway, and I'll see how far I can take the concept. It's a bit like my use of P4 - if I can't make that work, I'll relax the standards to EM and keep the gauge; but I'll give it a go first. The main thing is that I'm not in a huge hurry, and I'm enjoying the building at the moment when I can make the time.

 

I had no idea about the single Fairlie 0.4.4.T. It's not a pretty engine, and would be really difficult to model, but it shouts GSWR and I can see how it could grow on you.

 

You could run a nice little BLT with 2 101s, a Kerry bogie, and maybe a Bandon tank.

 

Thanks for all the advice and encouragement (and the entertainment.) It's much appreciated.

 

Alan

[jhb171achill]

I always thought a sleepy GSWR branch terminus with just 2 or 3 J15s, a couple of six-wheelers and a dozen or two vans and cattle wagons would make a nice simple but interesting project. Personally, I'd base it in the 1950s so that an occasional "C" or "G" could appear, but that's just my own preference. Your GSWR plan is a superbly original one.

[jhb171achill]

Knew I had it somewhere, Islandbridge; this is correct GSWR green pre-1885. For 1885-1895 period, cream and black lining, same green. Then lined black to about 1915/18; exact date unknown. GSWR then changes to grey, which lasts through GSR and up to end of steam.

 

This model, made by Inchicore apprentices, may be seen at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in London. It's a beast of a thing about a metre high. Worth seeing.

 

Livery may also be seen on 90 at Downpatrick.

 

[islandbridgejct]

She's a real beauty. Thanks for the livery information. I'd better get a bow pen and start practising - 6 wheelers are due to arrive soon, as are the bogies and sprung w-irons, so there'll be some serious building work to do.

 

I'm working on a few Ratio midland suburban coaches at the moment for guinea pig purposes. I'll be practising painting them before I attack any brasswork with a paint can.

 

Alan

[jhb171achill]

I have to say that on the old (sadly long defunct) narrow gauge set up I had, I always found it easier for some reason to paint plastic rather than brass, but that was by brush rather than sprayer.

[islandbridgejct]

Current work involves a lot of measuring the boot of the car to see how much portable layout I could get into it. Then going back and remeasuring it and getting a slightly different answer.

 

The idea is that I don't have a permanent site, so might as well have something I can move around, set up and take down. That way, I can make a move on the sitting room....

 

Then I'm chasing track plans - everywhere from the North Wall to Valencia Harbour to see what fits and would provide operating interest.

 

Vital calculations for all this include:

4 6 wheelers @ 30 ft -> 4 x 130mm (to include buffers) = 520mm.

4 bogie @ 50ft -> 4 x 210mm = 840mm.

4 bogie @ 60ft -> 4 x 250mm = 1m

8 bogie @ 60ft -> 8 x 250mm = 2m

So a mainline train would be 2.5m long, while a branch train anything from 0.5m to 1.25m.

Platforms would need to be based on this - the GSWR seemed to build its platforms as long as or longer than its trains, strangely enough.

A B8 crossover takes 540mm, while a single turnout is 330mm.

 

Putting these together, my current reckoning is that Baltimore or Bantry would need 3m; Headford Jct would need 4m; Charleville 5-6m; Mallow or Killarney, 6-7m and more width than I can manage, plus too many sidings to fill.

 

Kilkenny has interesting operating potential in 5 - 6m - trains coming in from Heuston via Carlow at one end, trains coming in from Maryboro at the other and running through to Waterford. Huge coal sidings and drops and fairly healthy goods traffic.

 

Headford is a nice compact junction. A branch train shuttling up and down 4 times a day, and 6 mainline workings each way, but only one mainline and 1 branch platform, so no passing mainline trains. Fish specials out of Kenmare, I think. I wonder would the GSWR have sent traffic from Fenit Pier that way rather than over the North Kerry.

 

A branch line needs shorter fiddle yards at each end, and a terminus would only need one, but I've always liked turning the power on and letting the trains run round and round, but that's OO talk so it is.

 

My calculations say I could get 7.4m operating length on 0.65m width plus 2m for a fiddle yard and still set up in the house at a stretch, and pack into the car. A bit narrow perhaps, but so are most stations, and I could fit Headford with a fiddle at each end, and maybe a short terminus based on Bantry or Baltimore in front of the fiddle yard if it was kept to 2 tracks at that end. I'm sure that won't work once I start working it out in Templot.

 

Anyway, the planning and pondering is fun.

 

*

 

Meanwhile, back in Inchicore works, supplies have dried up. Bill Bedford has gone to ground. Allen Doherty of Worsley Works is overworked, but not in the railway department. Des is sending out a CIE 30t brake and a J26 - neither key to my plans, but a good place to start building nonetheless.

 

Scratchbuilding involves putting plastic metalwork on plastic wagons, and buiding a jig for some more brass ones. I know, I know. Styrene is easier, but I like brass. It feels more real or something. (I'd better get some good etch primer though, if I want the paint to stick to it.) Anyway, I need some strip for that, and neither Marks nor himself on Capel Street have the right sizes, so it looks like another order into Eileen's, and then a sharp intake of breath as I remember the euro is crashing through the floor.

 

So not much in the way of pics at the moment. These are the wagons getting their strapping (white on white, good for confused Dylan fans and apartheid era p*rn, not so good for showing detail):

 

 

 

 

I've used a variety of materials for this, tracing paper, cartridge paper, cut plastic (0.25mm) and styrene strip (0.5mm). The styrene is a bit thick and tends to bend and distort when you emboss rivets into it. The paper is better. The tracing paper is a bit too thin - the cartridge paper seems about right.

 

And track plans for Bantry and Baltimore, schematic:

 

 

That's all for now.

 

Alan

[islandbridgejct]

Various underframe problems have kept progress to a minimum over the past few months, but things are beginning to move again.

 

I wonder can anyone help we with a query.

 

Murray on the GSWR says the standard length for GSWR wagons was 14ft (56mm in 4mm scale). He says the GSWR experimented with some 19ft wagons in the early 1900s (76mm) but that the order was not repeated.

 

Earlier in the book, he includes the following photos:

 

 

These seem to be official photos rather than personal ones, from the 1890s so should be long out of copyright. If anyone thinks differently, please let me know.

 

I've been scaling them and drawing them up, and by my reckoning the butter wagon is 14ft, but the convertible, the cattle and the open are more like 17ft (assuming 3ft in to the middle of the buffers and 9ft 6in as a cross check for the wheelbase.)

 

Also, the cattle wagon builder's photo is dated 1890, but Murray says that from 1877 all cattle wagons had to be covered.

 

Shepherd on the MGWR provides a drawing for a convertible wagon that is 14ft 2in, apparently introduced in 1893, and a 16ft open from 1889. He says covered cattle wagons were introduced from 1899.

 

Photos from the O'Dea collection show withdrawn convertible, covered and cattle wagons, but never straight on. However, they seem to confirm that open cattle wagons were still in use and being withdrawn in the 1950s, and the covered and convertible wagons look shorter than their English equivalents, which would seem to point to the 14ft length.

 

So, should I follow the photographic evidence, and build 17ft stock, or should I take it that the pictured wagons are non-typical and follow the written word - and if so, whose?

 

Suggestions gratefully received...

[Mayner]

Hi Alan

 

It looks like its a good example of believing half of what you see and very little of what you read.

 

I have a collection of GNR & MGWR wagon diagrams but no GSWR heaven forbid.

 

I imported the photos into CAD set the dimension between rail and buffer centre as 3'6" and let the CAD programme calculate the length over headstocks with interesting results.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19563[/ATTACH]

 

Its likely that wagon design varied a lot between the companies until common standards for wagon types and running gear was developed by the Irish Railway Clearing House in the early 1900s

 

Later GSWR cattle vans were 14' long and became the standard GSR cattle wagon up to the introduction of the longer KN which had vacuum brakes and run at up to 60mph.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Mayner

[islandbridgejct]

Thanks John,

 

I had done something similar with the photos, and then scaled them so that the buffer height was 14mm and cross checked against a wheelbase of 38mm. This is what I came up with:

 

 

It's pretty much confirmed by your calculations.

 

I think it's a bit unlikely that the GSWR moved from a longer wagon to a shorter standard, and a bit more likely that these photos are not the standard.

 

I've noticed that the 1915 standard box van was perpetuated by the GSR and CIE, and it seems to have been 19 to 20 ft in length, so there may have been some false moves towards longer wagons at an earlier stage, but not persisted with, and those are the photos I've got access to.

 

I've some drawings of box vans and opens that work out at between 17' and 20', and there is no reason why length should have been critical here.

 

Oh well, back to work on my frames.

 

Alan

[islandbridgejct]

Management of this thread would like to announce that, as part of our new improved customer focused approach to modelling, we will, going forward be actioning new and exciting ways of achieving innovative results for all our stakeholders, and consistently striving to exceed expectations in producing exceptional models to the finest standards.

 

 

Or, to put it another way, I've been doing F-all.

 

It all began to go off the rails back in January when I ordered some bogies and w-irons from Bill Bedford. Great yokes but there was a delay in delivery from February to July, which didn't matter because work was taking up too much modelling time anyway - no point starting modelling after midnight.

 

I tried knocking up some SSM w-irons, but to be honest I don't really like compensated wagons because they wobble too much. Anyway, I was having trouble getting them square and was a bit puzzled at how to deal with it. By the time I had it cracked, it was summer.

 

August was holidays, and then I came up with my top secret plan to change career to leave more modelling time free, which has resulted of course in less free time for modelling. If they gave out medals for irony....

 

I'll get the thread back up in due course, but for the moment I'm just reporting that I've nothing worthwhile to report. Move along please, ladies and gentlemen, nothing to see here.

 

Alan

[Broithe]

Have you ever considered a career with Network Rail?