Mount Bellew, MGWR

[KMCE]

11 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

what standards you're working to?

Hello Mark,

I am working to P4 standards and am a member of the Scalefour society.  As you have seen on another topic, I have been developing 3D printed track and point work, hence why I know the dimensions of A & B type points. 

Using P4 standards I have found that anything over 4 coupled will require at least A, and preferably B type points to run smoothly.  The Port Breige layout uses a Y point to try to reduce space, but that still has an 800mm radius, which is workable for short 4 coupled locos.  The recent J26 loco just gets through in one direction, try change to the other & the first axles have a tendency to ride up over the track. 

Other layouts with longer points are more suited to larger locos & I am developing plans for a larger layout (still portable) with B6 points which I will show here once I have settled on the layout and build.

Hope this is of assistance.

 

Ken

[2996 Victor]

14 minutes ago, KMCE said:

Hello Mark,

I am working to P4 standards and am a member of the Scalefour society.  As you have seen on another topic, I have been developing 3D printed track and point work, hence why I know the dimensions of A & B type points. 

Using P4 standards I have found that anything over 4 coupled will require at least A, and preferably B type points to run smoothly.  The Port Breige layout uses a Y point to try to reduce space, but that still has an 800mm radius, which is workable for short 4 coupled locos.  The recent J26 loco just gets through in one direction, try change to the other & the first axles have a tendency to ride up over the track. 

Other layouts with longer points are more suited to larger locos & I am developing plans for a larger layout (still portable) with B6 points which I will show here once I have settled on the layout and build.

Hope this is of assistance.

Ken

Hi Ken,

many thanks for your reply - apologies, I'd forgotten that you're working to P4 standards!

I must admit to ignorance when it comes to point work and the crossing angles/radii involved although I'm attempting to get to grips with Templot, which is fairly baffling although I think I can do enough to plan my layout properly. CAD is all very well and helpful in general laying out, but it doesn't account for the nuances of track design.

I have to admit that I don't yet understand the differences between, say, A6 and B6 points when the common crossing is the same angle.

Cheers,

Mark

[KMCE]

10 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

I'm attempting to get to grips with Templot

You're in good company here - I really struggle with Templot and basically use it to generate templates for points which can then be exported in .dxf format and then imported to CAD.  I use the templates with some basic lines representing running lines while trying to establish track plans in CAD.  I have given up trying to develop a full track plan in Templot - I think I saw somewhere a comment from the developer that it was not intended for full track plans, but more for difficult elements and templates?

 

As to point nomenclature, basically A to F - short to long, 5 - 12 crossing angles (1:5 to 1:12 sharpest to smoothest), so while an A6 & B6 technically do have the same crossing angles, the run up to the crossing is longer, thus smoother with the B type point.  I know from experience that my locos and rolling stock much prefer the longer point!

I'm sure there are others on here who can provide a more technical explanation.

Hope that helps.

Ken

[2996 Victor]

11 hours ago, KMCE said:

You're in good company here - I really struggle with Templot and basically use it to generate templates for points which can then be exported in .dxf format and then imported to CAD.  I use the templates with some basic lines representing running lines while trying to establish track plans in CAD.  I have given up trying to develop a full track plan in Templot - I think I saw somewhere a comment from the developer that it was not intended for full track plans, but more for difficult elements and templates?

I've tried it several times, downloading it and trying to get going, but not managed to make any sense of it. This time, I've done rather better and actually managed to create the LH point and double slip complex in my sketch plan, together with some OO9 point work for my Lynton & Barnstaple micro. But as Martin Wynne says somewhere on the Templot site, its not a CAD programme and I think that's the problem for CAD users. It seems a very clever programme in the way it aligns and connects different templates, and I think its well worth investing time in. BUT.....I didn't know the templates could be exported in .dxf format - that's something I can definitely use now, so a huge thank you for that pointer!

11 hours ago, KMCE said:

As to point nomenclature, basically A to F - short to long, 5 - 12 crossing angles (1:5 to 1:12 sharpest to smoothest), so while an A6 & B6 technically do have the same crossing angles, the run up to the crossing is longer, thus smoother with the B type point.  I know from experience that my locos and rolling stock much prefer the longer point!

That makes perfect sense, thank you - I guess it would be fair to say that its always going to be kinder to locos to use the highest letter number possible for a given crossing angle. I've been looking at the minimum radius thingy on Templot and could understand why it was so tight, but it was an A8 point and looking at it closely there's a nasty sharp bit halfway between the switch and crossing.

11 hours ago, KMCE said:

Hope that helps.

Definitely! Thanks, Ken, its hugely appreciated 

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Well, following Ken @KMCE's pointers, I've had another little play with Templot and to be honest I think it'll repay a further investment in time. However, in the meantime I've managed to export my point templates in .dxf format and insert them into the CAD drawing of the layout that I'd started.

With a bit of jiggery pokery to my initial CAD work, the Templot templates have slotted in nicely. There's still a fair bit of tweaking to do but.....I think the layout will fit into the space I have available. I'll post an image of the CAD/Templot design over the weekend.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[David Holman]

The only time I used Templot was to print a left and right hand point plan for Fintonagh. Used the 'Irish EM', 20.2mm gauge version, which I enlarged to 21mm on the copier.

 Sounds like I got off lightly!

[Angus]

I think Templot gets a bit of a bad reputation because it not the shiny user-interfaced type of software we are all used to and doesn't compare well to snap-together type track planning tools such as AnyRail.

But then it is design for a totally different job and it has developed considerable since its launch.

It does take time to learn but there are lots on line tutorials and its own support forum, I would be lost without it, particular for odd scale/gauge combinations but I also use for standard UK 2mm finescale also.

I'd encourage perseverance! Just printing off templates misses the power of the tool in the fact that point and crossings can be curved and adapted to give a much more flowing (and realistic) appearance.

There are a series of tutorials on the 2mm scale association YouTube channel which may help?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRIhMhLNf_X1NTquYGCmt9A

[2996 Victor]

23 hours ago, David Holman said:

The only time I used Templot was to print a left and right hand point plan for Fintonagh. Used the 'Irish EM', 20.2mm gauge version, which I enlarged to 21mm on the copier.

 Sounds like I got off lightly!

Ha ha  it certainly seems to be best approached with an open mind - it doesn't operate like other programmes we use regularly. I've been an AutoCAD user for thirty years now, and I approached Templot as if it were a CAD programme. But now on my third or fourth go it's finally penetrated my ivory dome that it doesn't work that way And even on a short acquaintance it looks like a tool that's worth learning to get the best from.

Cheer,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

8 hours ago, Angus said:

I think Templot gets a bit of a bad reputation because it not the shiny user-interfaced type of software we are all used to and doesn't compare well to snap-together type track planning tools such as AnyRail.

But then it is design for a totally different job and it has developed considerable since its launch.

It does take time to learn but there are lots on line tutorials and its own support forum, I would be lost without it, particular for odd scale/gauge combinations but I also use for standard UK 2mm finescale also.

I'd encourage perseverance! Just printing off templates misses the power of the tool in the fact that point and crossings can be curved and adapted to give a much more flowing (and realistic) appearance.

There are a series of tutorials on the 2mm scale association YouTube channel which may help?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRIhMhLNf_X1NTquYGCmt9A

Exactly, @Angus - I've just mentioned above that this is my third or fourth try at Templot, but its the first time I've got something meaningful out of it. All because previously I've expected it to perform like a CAD programme. The best thing I did this time was carefully read Martin's preamble at which time I had a light-bulb moment: basically, it ain't a CAD programme so don't treat it like one! And also that Templot's purpose is to design point-work, not layouts (although it can do that as well).

Once I'd grasped that, it was a short step to producing my first 21mm gauge template, and then a double slip and a tandem. I've also produced a ladder for my OO9 micro. All these I've adjusted to incorporate EMGS standards, and its a joy to see the control template actually changing to confirm.

My biggest eye-opener so far was attempting to rotate a RH turnout and tack it onto the slip: when it did it for me simply by dragging the connecting track centres together was an absolute "Wow!" moment. That's when I realised that Templot is incredibly clever and intuitive. And I've barely scratched the surface!

If anyone is looking for the right tool to design their point-work, Templot is it! Read Martin's notes and watch the tutorials and prepare to be amazed!

Cheers,

Mark

[David Holman]

Interesting! Seems I need to go back to school...

While I love reading about all the latest innovations in the hobby, guess I am (reasonably) happy with the skills I have learned, in that they enable me to do what I need.

CAD seems a big step forward in terms of learning and while I can see the advantages of being able to design something that can be printed, etched, laser cut etc, I still enjoy the practical side of just doing things by hand. However, also think it is brilliant to see modellers developing and using new techniques. Just go for it!

[2996 Victor]

4 hours ago, David Holman said:

Interesting! Seems I need to go back to school...

While I love reading about all the latest innovations in the hobby, guess I am (reasonably) happy with the skills I have learned, in that they enable me to do what I need.

CAD seems a big step forward in terms of learning and while I can see the advantages of being able to design something that can be printed, etched, laser cut etc, I still enjoy the practical side of just doing things by hand. However, also think it is brilliant to see modellers developing and using new techniques. Just go for it!

I don't know about going back to school - it seems to me that the way to a satisfying hobby is doing what you like and what you enjoy! And I think your results bear that out in spades, if I may say so!

And I'm with you on doing things by hand - scratch-building a wagon, for instance, is immensely satisfying but I've tried to batch-build three or four of the same vehicle in the past and I just get bored with it  where kits aren't available, I think that's where 3D-printing really scores.

As for Templot, it's really "just another tool", and it serves an extremely useful purpose for setting out your point-work particularly where its on a curve or its particularly complex. Which I'll just leave to those who can do that sort of thing.....  

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

I've had a few kits and bits arrive this week which may see the start of a few buildings for Mount Bellew.

First up are a couple of Ratio GWR signal box kits, one of the Severn Valley Railway Highley 'box and one of the generic "ground level signal box", both of which bear a good likeness to the McKenzie & Holland MGWR cabins. A scratch-built locking room will be needed though, as the Irish cabins seem to have much smaller windows.

I've also received some more "scratch-aid" low-relief house kits such as I'm using on my Lynton & Barnstaple Railway OO9 micro layout, as I think they'll fit in well with an appropriate finish.

Which brings me to station building, goods shed and locomotive shed plans. I believe the MGWR had standard designs? Some station building plans are in Shepherd's book, but are there any plans available for the major buildings I've mentioned? Suggestions, please, but keep it polite!

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Here's the current state of play with the track layout. I've got a tandem three-way point in for access to the goods shed and cattle pen sidings in order to keep the majority of the point work on one board, or at least not straddling a joint. Also, the loco and carriage shed roads are only roughed in.

The rectangular outlines are the baseboard outlines at 1.2m x 0.9m. I may try a bit of width compression as that's really a bit wider than I'd ideally like, but at the same time I want the layout to have a spacious feel to it.

Question time. Was a wall at the rear of the platform, to keep the goods shed road "safe", a common feature?

Thanks as always for looking in: any comments or suggestions will be most welcome.

Cheers,
Mark

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by 2996 Victor

[David Holman]

Think you are safe with the goods shed wall

[jhb171achill]

On 19/4/2022 at 12:52 PM, 2996 Victor said:

Question time. Was a wall at the rear of the platform, to keep the goods shed road "safe", a common feature?

Yes - to be seen in many places.

[Jb1911]

On 19/4/2022 at 12:52 PM, 2996 Victor said:

Question time. Was a wall at the rear of the platform, to keep the goods shed road "safe", a common feature?

Was seen in a good few spots across the midlands to the best of my knowledge 

[jhb171achill]

41 minutes ago, Jb1911 said:

Was seen in a good few spots across the midlands to the best of my knowledge 

Indeed. ON the Midland, as such, as far west as Newport on the Achill line.

[2996 Victor]

Well now, its been a busy few days for me since I was last able to add anything here. Last Friday, I went into hospital for a long-anticipated hernia repair surgery. Since then, its been slow going and not surprisingly the recovery process is taking it's time. However, I've been doing a bit of reading, primarily in relation to signal boxes.

I've been referring to these two books:

First of all, I need to apologise to all those more learned souls than I for my assumption that many signal boxes used on the MGWR were of McKenzie & Holland origin. The Signal Box Register Volume 9 says quite clearly that these were primarily of Gloucester Wagon Co or Railway Signal Co origin. That the designs of the two companies are very similar is due to the GWCo's George Edwards resigning from their company and setting up the Railway Signal Co himself, taking his patents with him! The small locking-room windows on brick-to-floor cabins and the ornate bargeboards are quite distinctive once you know what to look for!

So although the Ratio GWR Highley Signal Box kit could be adapted, I think a scratch-build is more likely, although I'm wondering how to achieve the bargeboards neatly and consistently. Perhaps laser-cutting is a possible answer.

John @Mayner has posted the following thought-provoking post on @Jb1911's Irish models and availability thread https://irishrailwaymodeller.com/topic/11347-irish-models-and-availability/?do=findComment&comment=175977.
While I'm still leaning toward the idea that Mount Bellew was promoted as a branch-line from the outset, I'm thinking once again about style of architecture. I'm wondering whether it would be fair to suggest that the MGWR board had a greater input/influence over the Balfour lines than the Baronial light railways, inasmuch as the styles of buildings was concerned? I'm probably reading far too much in to this.....

Onward!

Cheers
Mark

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by 2996 Victor

[jhb171achill]

4 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

 

While I'm still leaning toward the idea that Mount Bellew was promoted as a branch-line from the outset, I'm thinking once again about style of architecture. I'm wondering whether it would be fair to suggest that the MGWR board had a greater input/influence over the Balfour lines than the Baronial railways, inasmuch as the styles of buildings was concerned? I'm probably reading far too much in to this.....

Onward!

Cheers
Mark

 

 

Nope, you’re not reading too much - you’re spot on! 
 

The MGWR’s engineer of the day was heavily involved with these designs, and the MGWR dictated their broad specification to the local companies (e.g. the Ballinrobe & Claremorris company).

The lines would not be accepted by the MGWR to operate until each and every detail was completed to their satisfaction.

[Northroader]

I fancy the Guvvinment put the money up and the MGWR were very helpful in spending it, contrast the “tin sheds” on the GSWR with the tasteful brick builds on the MGWR.

[jhb171achill]

While researching the history of the Achill, Clifden and Loughrea lines - starting over 20 years ago - I ended up reading through the entire MGWR boardroom minute books from about 1885 until it became part of the GSR.

The thing that comes across VERY strongly is that the MGWR, with shareholders to please, had absolutely zero time for what Broadstone saw as small-town unprofitable schemes promoted by unrealistically over-optimistic local interests.

They continually maintained an ultra-businesslike stance, refusing point-blank to even entertain local groups, promotors or committees unless they had some well-researched and well-funded proposal. In other words, idle chat and vague, bland ideas of "how great" something might be were off-limits. It was a case of "Show us the MONEY and then we MIGHT talk".

This was a reasonable stance to take, as they knew perfectly well that these lines would never do anything but lose money; had there been the likelihood of a sniff of a profit they would have built the lines themselves.

If someone else put up the cash, they'd start listening, but only after that became evident. As far as they were concerned, it didn't matter whether local interests, the British government, or the tooth fairy coughed up; it was no money, no deal, stop wasting our time.

Frequent requests for financial assistance with quite a number of projects were turned down flat.

Once funding WAS in place, and seen to be, they would agree to terms - but only if and when the entire new line was built exactly to their standards - and that included main line standard buildings. Even as Achill was opening, the MGWR were still picking holes in various issues in Mallaranny station, and had demanded major changes to that site once the extension to Achill appeared. Similarly, the Midland took issue even with level crossing gates on the Loughrea line, and the goods shed at Loughrea....

Harsh as it all sounds to a railway enthusiast, this is the way a well-run business operates; one must remember that the railways were at that stage private companies for profit, not state-owned as a social service as now.

                 

[Galteemore]

Excellent tip on the books, Mark. My copy of the SSG volume arrived today - excellent read. The Register, which I acquired a few months ago, is an incredibly useful volume too, rammed full of SLNC photos too! The former is still quite easy to find - recommended while you can get it.

[2996 Victor]

18 hours ago, Galteemore said:

Excellent tip on the books, Mark. My copy of the SSG volume arrived today - excellent read. The Register, which I acquired a few months ago, is an incredibly useful volume too, rammed full of SLNC photos too! The former is still quite easy to find - recommended while you can get it.

Agreed wholeheartedly on both counts!  

Cheers,
Mark

[2996 Victor]

21 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

While researching the history of the Achill, Clifden and Loughrea lines - starting over 20 years ago - I ended up reading through the entire MGWR boardroom minute books from about 1885 until it became part of the GSR.

The thing that comes across VERY strongly is that the MGWR, with shareholders to please, had absolutely zero time for what Broadstone saw as small-town unprofitable schemes promoted by unrealistically over-optimistic local interests.

They continually maintained an ultra-businesslike stance, refusing point-blank to even entertain local groups, promotors or committees unless they had some well-researched and well-funded proposal. In other words, idle chat and vague, bland ideas of "how great" something might be were off-limits. It was a case of "Show us the MONEY and then we MIGHT talk".

This was a reasonable stance to take, as they knew perfectly well that these lines would never do anything but lose money; had there been the likelihood of a sniff of a profit they would have built the lines themselves.

If someone else put up the cash, they'd start listening, but only after that became evident. As far as they were concerned, it didn't matter whether local interests, the British government, or the tooth fairy coughed up; it was no money, no deal, stop wasting our time.

Frequent requests for financial assistance with quite a number of projects were turned down flat.

Once funding WAS in place, and seen to be, they would agree to terms - but only if and when the entire new line was built exactly to their standards - and that included main line standard buildings. Even as Achill was opening, the MGWR were still picking holes in various issues in Mallaranny station, and had demanded major changes to that site once the extension to Achill appeared. Similarly, the Midland took issue even with level crossing gates on the Loughrea line, and the goods shed at Loughrea....

Harsh as it all sounds to a railway enthusiast, this is the way a well-run business operates; one must remember that the railways were at that stage private companies for profit, not state-owned as a social service as now.

                 

Hi Jonathan,

many thanks for confirming what I was suspecting! The MGWR board seem to have been incredibly shrewd, especially compared to other companies which, having a successful enterprise then set about expanding at all costs to the point of penury. One can't but admire them for their fortitude and level-headedness.

What's interesting, though, is the degree to which the MGWR's engineers were involved during the construction of the minor lines. Understandable, if those lines were to be taken over for operation.

Please forgive my ignorance, but perhaps you could clarify another point for me that I'm having trouble understanding. As I understand it, the Balfour and Baronial lines were constructed with guaranteed returns for the companies' shareholders regardless of actual working revenue. Did those companies remain in existence with their lines being worked by the MGWR, or were they absorbed in total by the MGWR as soon as they were completed? If the latter, presumably the MGWR received the guaranteed returns and the shareholders of the minor lines received shares in the MGWR and benefitted from the latter's dividend.

Is it fair to say that the minor lines' buildings were painted in the MGWR's house colours at the outset as part of the MGWR specification for acceptance?

Many thanks as always,
Mark

[jhb171achill]

1 hour ago, 2996 Victor said:

Hi Jonathan,

many thanks for confirming what I was suspecting! The MGWR board seem to have been incredibly shrewd, especially compared to other companies which, having a successful enterprise then set about expanding at all costs to the point of penury. One can't but admire them for their fortitude and level-headedness.

What's interesting, though, is the degree to which the MGWR's engineers were involved during the construction of the minor lines. Understandable, if those lines were to be taken over for operation.

Please forgive my ignorance, but perhaps you could clarify another point for me that I'm having trouble understanding. As I understand it, the Balfour and Baronial lines were constructed with guaranteed returns for the companies' shareholders regardless of actual working revenue. Did those companies remain in existence with their lines being worked by the MGWR, or were they absorbed in total by the MGWR as soon as they were completed? If the latter, presumably the MGWR received the guaranteed returns and the shareholders of the minor lines received shares in the MGWR and benefitted from the latter's dividend.

Is it fair to say that the minor lines' buildings were painted in the MGWR's house colours at the outset as part of the MGWR specification for acceptance?

Many thanks as always,
Mark

Yes, Mark. Companies like the Claremorris & Ballinrobe, the Loughrea & Attymon Light Railway, and quite a few others existed right up to the creation of the GSR, with the “large” company having entered into an operating agreement with them for a (usually very substantial) proportion of receipts. Liveries on stations buildings were as per the “large” company, as they used their own paint!

In the case of the MGWR, stations were usually painted in a combination of bright red and either white, or possibly a very light beige or light greyish colour.

[2996 Victor]

47 minutes ago, jhb171achill said:

Yes, Mark. Companies like the Claremorris & Ballinrobe, the Loughrea & Attymon Light Railway, and quite a few others existed right up to the creation of the GSR, with the “large” company having entered into an operating agreement with them for a (usually very substantial) proportion of receipts. Liveries on stations buildings were as per the “large” company, as they used their own paint!

In the case of the MGWR, stations were usually painted in a combination of bright red and either white, or possibly a very light beige or light greyish colour.

Thank you, Jonathan, that's brilliant! I think we may have talked about the bright red and cream/beige colour scheme previously, so that's great to know that it was applied universally across the MGWR's sphere of operations.

I think (!) I'm beginning to know where I'm going with this now  

Thanks again and best regards,

Mark 

[2996 Victor]

This afternoon I picked up on eBay an old Mainline LNER J72 0-6-0T with the intention of trying out a bit of butchery to turn its upper works into an MGWR E Class.

I'll be relying heavily on @murrayec's thread HERE for inspiration, although I won't be keeping the original split chassis and I'm not of the ability to build one like Eoin's, so that's going to be interesting when the time comes

Onward!

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Look who arrived this morning! Poor little unsuspecting J72, it has no idea what's in store for it.....

To be fair, although its the Mainline offering rather than the new Bachmann release, its a nice little model and its almost a shame to hack it up  

Onward!

Mark

[Galteemore]

Lovely little thing - had 3 of them back in the day. But the chassis was very hit and miss. Anyway, she’s lost a few bits already so it’s not like she’s mint….but it’s always hard to carve up something nice! 

[2996 Victor]

5 hours ago, Galteemore said:

Lovely little thing - had 3 of them back in the day. But the chassis was very hit and miss. Anyway, she’s lost a few bits already so it’s not like she’s mint….but it’s always hard to carve up something nice! 

Very true, apart from the handrail the tank vent and filler cap are missing on the other side, and I know the chassis has, shall we say, a "reputation"!!! Not certain yet how I'm going to address that, but it could be my first essay into chassis building..... Eeeeek!

[Andy Cundick]

Bear in mind Wizard does the Mainly Trains replacement chassis kit for the J72,my one went together easily as did the conversion bits to a J71. My own Class E uses the frames from Alan Gibson as i didn't fancy either of the chassis that came with the kit.Andy

[David Holman]

This is probably going off at a slight tangent, but does the old Wrenn/Hornby South Eastern R1 translate into anything vaguely Irish? Converted one to EM without any problems and the motor/gears were good for the day. Mind you, that was nearly 40 years ago, when I returned to model railways following the usual sojourn of pushing up the value of brewery shares and chasing girls.

 At the time, I knew almost nothing of modelling and the tool kit was vestigial, so an R1 might be a starting point perhaps and there must be a few out there second hand.

[Galteemore]

Not a bad idea at that, David! Can’t check dimensions right now but an MGW P is close-ish….images from Mike Morant 

[KMCE]

Or change the front axle to a leading axle & convert to 2-4-0T & you could represent a version of DSER 423 Class?

Gotta promote the auld DSER - keep my stock valuation up, don't you know!!

[2996 Victor]

17 hours ago, Andy Cundick said:

Bear in mind Wizard does the Mainly Trains replacement chassis kit for the J72,my one went together easily as did the conversion bits to a J71. My own Class E uses the frames from Alan Gibson as i didn't fancy either of the chassis that came with the kit.Andy

Hi Andy,

may I ask which E Class kit you've built? I'm wondering whether there is any real merit in chopping up the J72, particularly as I'm going 21mm gauge and it'll need a new chassis, or whether to bite the bullet and either scratch-build or attempt a kit. The latter option is a bit fraught as my previous experiences with etched brass have resulted a heavy defeat and a hasty withdrawal on my part  

Thanks,
Mark