Merseyside Railways - Version 3

eddief · Post by **eddief** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:52 pm

I can't believe I've just found these screenshots, mersey route looks fantastic now. Can't wait to have a go with this

.
Must say Stafford does look spot on, since coming to Staffordshire uni I know the statino well and it does look correct, well done Dave

.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:43 am

May I ask, why have you got Mechanical signal boxes at Rugby when Rugby PSB was commisioned in 1964 for Electrification?, secondly why have you got telegraph pole runs at Whitmore when contracts were let for telephone circuit renewals to the Standard Telephone company alongside the contracts for the overhead electrification,Eddief may I ask which part of Stafford station you have been looking at? as there was no large warehouse overlooking the North end of Stafford station but a row of Terrace houses and Stafford No5 signal Box is an LMR T14 design......

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:47 am

ThamesClyde wrote:May I ask, why have you got Mechanical signal boxes at Rugby when Rugby PSB was commisioned in 1964 for Electrification?, secondly why have you got telegraph pole runs at Whitmore when contracts were let for telephone circuit renewals to the Standard Telephone company alongside the contracts for the overhead electrification,Eddief may I ask which part of Stafford station you have been looking at? as there was no large warehouse overlooking the North end of Stafford station but a row of Terrace houses and Stafford No5 signal Box is an LMR T14 design......

Possibly because Merseyside covers the timescale 1950-1960. Theres a Bat file you can run which alters the signals,and removes the gantry....but it doesn't do sweeping changes to signal boxes etc.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:53 am

if its 1950-1960 why is Euston electrified, the same applies to Rugby,Stafford,Nuneaton........glaring errors in my book

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:02 am

ThamesClyde wrote:if its 1950-1960 why is Euston electrified, the same applies to Rugby,Stafford,Nuneaton........glaring errors in my book

My mistake it covers upto mid 1960s....but wasn't Euston Electrified in 1960 anyway.?
Obviously I not the author of this route....but I will defend it as its one of my personal favourites...as it really manages to capture the era nicely...but I'm not a brick counter...I'm a rivet counter.

And I'm afraid that as I flash passed Sig boxes a 100MPH...I dont give them a second look.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:12 am

Stafford went live in 1963,Rugby 1964, September 1965 Willesden for freight working had gone live, April 1966 Euston went live to coincide with the new timetable, 1967 Birmingham, Wolverhampton and the line via Stoke and Hixon was energized. The signalling layouts used will also be post powerbox and for a short period only pre-electrification.
Another error is the use of "Corporate" style in the the Stafford station signs , I have pictures of stafford in 1968 and 1973 showing maroon pre "corporate" signs still in place.
It would be like putting vacuum brakes on an "87" or even a roller blind...........................or why bother using DEM Data?
What ever happened to realism??????? or am i missing something about route building

ccsdc · Post by **ccsdc** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:21 am

OK I bow to Thames Clyde's superior knowledge about the timing of signal box upgrades and telecommunications contracts, but I would hardly call them glaring errors.

If you want to see a glaring error on Merseyside go and look at the position of Crewe North depot in my version 1 and 2 - it is in totally the wrong position. Having had that pointed out to me in a nice way by only two people out of over 7000 downloads, I have corrected it in version 3.

That is how I see the route developing. I do not pretend to know everything or have access to information about the whole of the route that I am building - all that I knew for sure when I started building was the current position of the route from modern maps. I have subsequently been provided with many detailed track plans and photos for key locations along the route, the contents of which I have incorporated. To fix the things that Thames Clyde has pointed out is probably 15 minutes work.

Because the route has a choice of running in Steam mode (1950's) or Modern mode (mid 1960's) there will inevitably be compromises. For example in version 3 you will have 20 steam MPD's included, of which I suspect by the mid 1960's many had already closed. I think the correct way of describing the route is late 1950's, with the option of running an electrified 1960's version.

Certainly the very positive feedback (until yesterday) that I have had so far suggests that I am heading in the right directon with this route, but if anyone else feels as strongly as Thames Clyde about what I would consider to be fairly minor departures from the prototype please let me know.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:52 am

Thanks for the reply and I take your comments on board, my point being that what you deem minor errors are items that make it known to the person excatly where they are. What you deem positive feedback is in my view letting you and your route down, like my points about Stafford, there you have someone on the ground so to speak who could have helped you but instead chose to ignore a glaring error that perhaps you didnt realise had been made.
I hope that people would be honest about my route and point out silly or obvious errors to them that I may have made.....

ChileanLlama · Post by **ChileanLlama** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:56 am

Hi ccsdc,

I'm also modelling in the same era as you, and know first hand that it is very difficult to obtain sufficient information to be 100% accurate along the whole length of the route.

For my routes I've spent a great amount of time, effort and money to research them, and I still know they will not be totally perfect, as not every inch of line has been documented, and inevitably there will be compromises made.

It's great that you're taking on board the feedback you receive and making the changes as you get more data - I am hoping I'll get positive feedback, if/when my own work is released.

It strikes me as untypical of this forum (and yes I have been lurking around here for much longer than my joining date suggests), that people harshly criticise others work, and feedback is generally given in a positive and constructive manner.

Keep up the good work, and remember others share the same "pain" as you

All the best
Paul

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:23 am

Paul you may not have noticed that I too am creating a route which I hope to release in the not to distant future, I too have spent money researching my chosen route/era (expenses so far, photocopying costs at the library,petrol to locations along my route, books,maps, W.T.T's and sectional appendixes almost forgot pub lunches and bags of chips). IF YOU LOOK hard enough you will find the information you need, ie at the library you will find copies of Ordanace survey maps of the areas covered, I should know as my copies from Hanley Central Library are sitting next to me.
Harsh critisim, "superior" Knowledge this comes from some basic research, would you rather have the truth or not? I know which I would rather have.............

ChileanLlama · Post by **ChileanLlama** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:31 am

I quite agree Thames Clyde, but simply, sometimes there isn't enough information.

Maps can only go so far, and photographs don't always exist for every angle, of every section of line, to show buildings and landscapes that may now be totally different to how they once were.

I'd certainly like to be corrected and errors pointed out to me so I can resolve those issues, but I wouldn't want to be made to look like an idiot in the process either, as there is always going to be a limit to the research and knowledge one can obtain.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:43 am

Making ccsdc look an "idiot" was not my intention, I was being honest and trying to pass on some information of use. I have Ordanance survey maps from Kidsgrove Liverpool Road all the way down to Meaford, they show all the sidings along my route, houses, factorys,canals and roads. From these I have got the measurements for Cliffe Vale gas Holder and Cockshute Carriage shed, the scale of maps escapes me but its the one showing the most detail and has proved invaluable when buildings have been demolished and built upon like Hem Heath Colliery, Wolstanton Colliery and Shelton Bar
I want people to be open and honest and even critical of my route as I want to give them the true experince of driving along the Western Lines of the LMR.............

ccsdc · Post by **ccsdc** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:32 pm

ThamesClyde wrote: What you deem positive feedback is in my view letting you and your route down, like my points about Stafford, there you have someone on the ground so to speak who could have helped you but instead chose to ignore a glaring error that perhaps you didnt realise had been made.

Until I saw your post this morning I was not aware of the errors that I had made at Stafford, your inference being that I have deliberately made a mistake and ignored your advice. I am big enough and old enough to acknowledge when I have got something wrong, and I will put it right wherever possible.

You have probably seen less than 0.5% of the route mileage on the screenshots that I have posted for version 3 so far, so if the reaction to what I have done so far is to be repeated for the rest of the route then we are going to be spending all our time on the forums instead of route building.

There are precious few of us building serious routes as it is, the last thing that we should be doing is knocking each others work in a very negative way. I hope that we can draw a line under this episode now, but I would still welcome any further comments from you if you spot something on a screen shot that you feel is incorrect.

I am looking forward to seeing Stoke 1969 released as it is an area that I am not that familiar with, but from what I have seen from your screenshots so far it looks a very interesting and complex route.

ThamesClyde · Post by **ThamesClyde** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:11 pm

ccsdc, my comments on Stafford when read again came across wrong, my point was that Eddief was saying he recognized Stafford but "he" chose to ignore the fact that there was a warehouse where there was and still is a row of terrace houses, my point being he could have offered you some "on the spot" comments about the above mentioned houses......
I didnt mean for this to be come a heated debate, just that when I looked at your screen shots I was impressed with Rugby trainshed and Euston station, but confused over Stafford and Whitmore, I am willing to offer any info on Signal Boxes along the route or anything else as I have got quite a lot of material together and made quite a few signal box models as well. Your speed of progress impresses me as mine seems to come along very slowly and I hope mine gets recieved as well as yours will.
Simon

ccsdc · Post by **ccsdc** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:00 pm

ThamesClyde wrote:....and I hope mine gets recieved as well as yours will.
Simon

Thanks Simon, I am sure that you will have no problem on that score.

Dave

Atomic Systems

Merseyside Railways - Version 3

Merseyside - Version 3

Stafford