Vale of Rheidol

willbull89 · Post by **willbull89** » Mon May 03, 2004 8:02 pm

Is anyone up to building a Vail of Rheidol loco as i love the locos and no one has built one. If someone does build a VoR loco i am thinking of bulding the line itself.

trainlover123 · Post by **trainlover123** » Tue May 04, 2004 11:44 am

Hello

I was going to build the route but on advice from pitley that there is no scope for activities. The line is interesting but if you wanted to do a return activity where you run round, the activity would take the best part of 3 hours. There is no room for shunting but scenery wise it would be good for a run (apart from the hour wait at Devils Bridge). I hope this doesn't put you off. But this was on advice from an expert on NG railways.

Sorry

trainlover123

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Tue May 04, 2004 1:23 pm

You could always use a little "artistic licence" on activities. Include the passing loop at Aberffwrd (apologies to IKB if the spelling is wrong - don't send the boyos round to Brackla!) and you can stage a meet with a train in the opposite direction. There's no need to wait the full hour at Devil's Bridge if you didn't want to.

The main issue with this route is probably going to be accurate data, in particular a gradient profile and details of speed limits etc. (though I assume max speed would be 25 MPH anyway).

If someone could dig out a gradient profile... I might be prepared to take a look.

In the meantime, I can thoroughly recommend either of the two Colorado NG routes (Durango - Silverton & Cumbres, or the sumptuous Sumpter Valley).

richsoft · Post by **richsoft** » Tue May 04, 2004 1:38 pm

Hi,

I started a loco a long while back, but stopped when I got fed up of TSM. I did a little more when I read your post yesterday, and I'm reviving the project

It is (still) my first attempt at TSM, and its taking a very long time to get to grips with it, but I'm too scared to use any of the other modelling software, which I have found even harder to get started with. I'll take the Rail3D stock editor any day...

You could always use a little "artistic licence" on activities. Include the passing loop at Aberffwrd (apologies to IKB if the spelling is wrong - don't send the boyos round to Brackla!) and you can stage a meet with a train in the opposite direction. There's no need to wait the full hour at Devil's Bridge if you didn't want to.

Good idea. You dont need to run the extremely limited service that they do these days. Also why not look into building it as it was, with more sidings for the mines etc. I have a nice book, which gives track plans...

The main issue with this route is probably going to be accurate data, in particular a gradient profile and details of speed limits etc. (though I assume max speed would be 25 MPH anyway).

This will be quite difficult, and DEM may help if you can get hold of it. The free stuff may not be at a high enough resolution to capture the mountain sides that give the VOR its character. My have to get down to tracing contours..... (I found this hard enough for the Severn Valley for my Highley Rail3D 2k3 project!)

I will help out if you wish to take on this project, as I believe that it will be a great route. It may even look big enough in True Scale as the locos and stock are quite large for NG (widthwise anyway

)

Cheers

Richard

davidaward · Post by **davidaward** » Tue May 04, 2004 1:40 pm

bigvern wrote:You could always use a little "artistic licence" on activities. Include the passing loop at Aberffwrd (apologies to IKB if the spelling is wrong - don't send the boyos round to Brackla!) and you can stage a meet with a train in the opposite direction. There's no need to wait the full hour at Devil's Bridge if you didn't want to.

I do nopt agree with creating acts with long waits, for instance on my work with the ELR route I have devised a new timetable without long waits. If the real life scenario is not very playable with long waits I alsways improvise.

richsoft · Post by **richsoft** » Tue May 04, 2004 2:01 pm

I have just dug out my book, 'The Vale of Rheidol Light Railway' by C.C. Green.

It has got the track plans of all the 'main' halts, Devil's Bridge, and the various incarnations of Aberyswyth. It also has the gradient profile.

I have also had a thought about True Scale. As the railway runs along side the Cambrain Mainline, and depending on the the period, shares the station, True Scale may be the way to go...

Looking at the photos in the book, I've also noticed some things that need changing on my model. The side tanks around the boiler needs to cpme up higher, and the footplate doesn't go under them. A bit more work to do...

Cheers

Richard

pitleyfalley · Post by **pitleyfalley** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:43 pm

Just my thoughts on this:

The VoR would have limited scope for activities true. I was over there at Easter and the line is very simplistic. However, Southwold is similar in that respect, little scope for activities, but has seemed to go down quite well!

DEM data Id have thought would be almost essential, to try and capture the feel of the line, as it sits on a rather small ledge for a lot of the journey. Remember that Route Editor has got the ability to create 88 degree (near vertical) sides, so you could always refine it with that.

As far as I recall there are 3 loops up the line, at Nantyronen, Aberfrywdd and one other where the loco waters on the up journey. (that might be Nantyronen, in which case I think there is a loop further down the line which also has a siding). Aberyswyth has some small scope, with a siding, and the loco sheds. Also if done in truescale paralell runs out of Aber would be spectacular. One thought with a truescale route, id have thought dynamic track would also be very very usefull on some of those bends up the line! Does UKNG 2ft track have such sharp bends? The 3ft truescale track certainly didnt.

Looking at the photos in the book, I've also noticed some things that need changing on my model. The side tanks around the boiler needs to cpme up higher, and the footplate doesn't go under them. A bit more work to do...

I believe the locos are about 8ft wide arnt they?

Also why not look into building it as it was, with more sidings for the mines etc. I have a nice book, which gives track plans...

A historical VoR may also be an interesting way forward. Prehaps a generic version, capturing the VoR in its heyday, with scope for activities would be a possibiilty? Historical routes may also hold more interest. After all to see the line as it is today all you need to do is travel to Aberyswyth... to see it as it was..... well you cant really.

Just my 2p's worth.

Christian

richsoft · Post by **richsoft** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:52 pm

I've been thinking about this and I'm getting quite interested in having a go, if willbull89 wants some help. It would be nice to put something back into the community, after being able to enjoy others' great work...

A couple of questions:

What is the maximum gradient you can do in MSTS? I can't find a reference in understandable units (why use degress?

). The VoR has a long stretch of 1 in 45. Not 'overly' steep, but you never know MSTS...

Can you double DEM easily yet, or is it a case having to write a program to double everything? This would be a major factor in the TS vs. 2x decision.

Cheers

Richard

pitleyfalley · Post by **pitleyfalley** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:05 pm

MSTS would easily be able to cope with the VoR Gradients... working on a little something at the moment that has a little section at 1:40 ish and MSTS doesnt have any problems with it.

Track can be made steeper, by selecting track sections, hitting 't' a few times then raising up even more!

As for DEM, I know it can be scaled up. Not sure how easy it is... Steve Pontin may be able to help there, as I think he has scaled all his up for the new version of the TR he is doing?!

Pitley

trainmad · Post by **trainmad** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:14 pm

pitleyfalley wrote: working on a little something at the moment that has a little section at 1:40 ish and MSTS doesnt have any problems with it.

How is the new quarry route coming along anyway?

pitleyfalley · Post by **pitleyfalley** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:17 pm

Eeerm not too good... got a fair bit of trackwork down; not releasing shots or anything yet though till there is a bit more to show for it.

-Anyways off topic and its meant to be a suprise

-

richsoft · Post by **richsoft** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:18 pm

MSTS would easily be able to cope with the VoR Gradients... working on a little something at the moment that has a little section at 1:40 ish and MSTS doesnt have any problems with it.

Excellent.... I wonder what you're upto then

I forgot to ask if you enjoy your trip?

After your venture into true scale, are you sticking with it, or are you moving into 2x? I like the narrow gauge feel of true scale, and not having to bother scaling everything up, but if its going to be hard to find suitable tracksections then it looks like 2x may have to be the way to go.

I've just been reading the book, and Aber station was complicated in its day, with the 3 railways coming into it (Cambrian, Manchester and Milford, and VoR). Unfortunately the VoR and mainline running together is a relatively modern (late 60's) thing by the looks of it. This is the bit I was looking forward to.

Cheers

Richard

willbull89 · Post by **willbull89** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:22 pm

I was thinking about having the harbour branch in for an activity. I think i might have it running into the mainline platform but have Nantyrhonen in 1902 state. What does anyone think?

BruceB · Post by **BruceB** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:46 pm

richsoft wrote:
MSTS would easily be able to cope with the VoR Gradients... working on a little something at the moment that has a little section at 1:40 ish and MSTS doesnt have any problems with it.
Excellent.... I wonder what you're upto then I forgot to ask if you enjoy your trip?

After your venture into true scale, are you sticking with it, or are you moving into 2x? I like the narrow gauge feel of true scale, and not having to bother scaling everything up, but if its going to be hard to find suitable tracksections then it looks like 2x may have to be the way to go.

I've just been reading the book, and Aber station was complicated in its day, with the 3 railways coming into it (Cambrian, Manchester and Milford, and VoR). Unfortunately the VoR and mainline running together is a relatively modern (late 60's) thing by the looks of it. This is the bit I was looking forward to.

Cheers

Richard

Carefull....

A think a bride is in order, don't you pitley...

Bruce

richsoft · Post by **richsoft** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:51 pm

I was thinking about having the harbour branch in for an activity. I think i might have it running into the mainline platform but have Nantyrhonen in 1902 state. What does anyone think?

The harbour branch sounds good, and will increase the shunting scope of the route.

I've just looked in the book for the Nantyrhonen plan, and I see that in 1902 it had a siding (removed in 1930s), and a proper station building which was swaped for a shelter and some point. This sounds cool.
I definately think that the railway should run into the mainline station as this is what make the VoR quite special (except Bleanau of course

).

I've made a bit of progress on the loco, and the picture should have been updated (I hope)...

I'll be asking for help with texturing a some point as I'm not the most artistic person. Plently of liveries to choice from, BR Corporate blue anyone

Cheers

Richard