Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Ian Smith said:

My latest build came off my workbench about a week ago :

 

It's a GWR 70'0" Steam Rail Motor to Diagram O finished as built in March 1906 condition.  The body (sides and ends) are Worsley Works (scratch aid "kit"), the rest is scratch built (the kit represents the preserved No. 93 of Diagram R (of 1908) so I've subtly amended the etches to model the earlier diagram.  Livery applied by me including the transfers for the "prize monogram" that some of these carried when out-shopped late 1905/early 1906.

 

Oh, by the way it's 2mm Finescale.

 

Thanks for looking.

Ian

 

I had the pleasure of seeing this at the bash at Derby last weekend, along with the other Modbury locos. They are simply gorgeous!

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Ian Smith said:

Oh, by the way it's 2mm Finescale.

 

Nah, that's clearly S7. 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello Tony, may I add my condolences for your brother's loss? These things are never easy, hope the modelling is keeping your mind off things.

 

I wondered if you happened to have taken any more photos of that excellent looking pair of GN Sleeper wagons and if so, you might post them on here please? Or, to Geoff Cook, if you're reading this, would you perhaps add some photos? Reason being I intend modelling one but have had some difficulty finding photos.

 

Also, it looks on my conputer screen as if they're in GNR freight brown - is that what they are? I read that by LNER days, sleeper wagons were always grey, even though other Engineering / Departmental stock was Oxford blue. Did the GNR not use a separate Engineering / Departmental livery?

 

Thank you in advance, Chas

Thanks Chas,

 

Your condolences are appreciated. 

 

I only took one picture of the Sleeper wagons. They are painted a faded brown. Whether that's right or not, I have no idea. Those far more expert than I am in GNR colours will surely know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Two excellent new books...........

 

 

A must for any modeller's library. 

 

 

And, a fascinating story. 

 

 

[John Isherwood]

58 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Two excellent new books...........

 

 

A must for any modeller's library. 

 

 

........ especially those modellers who, by their own admission, have a less than in-depth knowledge of freight rolling stock! 😉

 

John Isherwood.

[robertcwp]

I thought this image taken at the north end of Retford station might be of interest:

 

61225_Retford_1964 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

And the sign in close-up:

61225_Retford_sign_1964 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[john new]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

........ especially those modellers who, by their own admission, have a less than in-depth knowledge of freight rolling stock! 😉

 

John Isherwood.

I’ve bought the Vol 4 wagons book, and reviewed it for the SLS, concur as with the rest of the series an excellent book.

[sandra]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I thought this image taken at the north end of Retford station might be of interest:

 

61225_Retford_1964 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

And the sign in close-up:

61225_Retford_sign_1964 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Hello Robert,

 

Thats certainly an interesting picture. As the 5 mph sign is clearly visible I wonder why they thought it also necessary to have a notice as well. I wonder if there was a particular problem at Retford with drivers ignoring signs and signals. There was a sign on the down goods avoiding line instructing drivers not to pass a signal at danger and another similar sign at the exit from the shed instructing drivers to obey the signals.

 

The photo is also interesting in that it shows a train heading for the Sheffield direction from platform 2, normally such trains left from platform 3. Also the freight coming the other way is probably destined to go up the GN main line unless it was intended to reverse into Retford goods yard.

 

I’ve recently come across a photo showing a running in board at ground level in this location. I don’t know the date but it’s certainly in the BR period. It’s the only time I’ve seen evidence of a running in board at ground level here and of course I’ve no idea how long it lasted, was it still there in 1957?

 

Sandra

[robertcwp]

6 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Robert,

 

Thats certainly an interesting picture. As the 5 mph sign is clearly visible I wonder why they thought it also necessary to have a notice as well. I wonder if there was a particular problem at Retford with drivers ignoring signs and signals. There was a sign on the down goods avoiding line instructing drivers not to pass a signal at danger and another similar sign at the exit from the shed instructing drivers to obey the signals.

 

The photo is also interesting in that it shows a train heading for the Sheffield direction from platform 2, normally such trains left from platform 3. Also the freight coming the other way is probably destined to go up the GN main line unless it was intended to reverse into Retford goods yard.

 

I’ve recently come across a photo showing a running in board at ground level in this location. I don’t know the date but it’s certainly in the BR period. It’s the only time I’ve seen evidence of a running in board at ground level here and of course I’ve no idea how long it lasted, was it still there in 1957?

 

Sandra

I think it's the Sheffield portion of the down West Riding - this is the Winter 1964/5 working:

 

West Riding 1964-5 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The visible stock fits, including the van added at Retford, as annotated on the working.

[MJI]

Hello Tony

 

I have been away so only been skimming topics.

 

Anyway my condolences for your brother.

 

I hope you have many good memories.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Robert,

 

Thats certainly an interesting picture. As the 5 mph sign is clearly visible I wonder why they thought it also necessary to have a notice as well. I wonder if there was a particular problem at Retford with drivers ignoring signs and signals. There was a sign on the down goods avoiding line instructing drivers not to pass a signal at danger and another similar sign at the exit from the shed instructing drivers to obey the signals.

 

The photo is also interesting in that it shows a train heading for the Sheffield direction from platform 2, normally such trains left from platform 3. Also the freight coming the other way is probably destined to go up the GN main line unless it was intended to reverse into Retford goods yard.

 

I’ve recently come across a photo showing a running in board at ground level in this location. I don’t know the date but it’s certainly in the BR period. It’s the only time I’ve seen evidence of a running in board at ground level here and of course I’ve no idea how long it lasted, was it still there in 1957?

 

Sandra

Good evening Sandra,

 

Judging by the signal for the B1 on the freight, it is going to take the GN main line southwards. Were it to reverse into the Up yard, it would probably take the Up platform road. 

 

I never saw any train come from the Whisker Hill direction and go on to the GN, other than the (stopping) 'Master Cutler'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

I have a couple of suggestions regarding the speed limit signs. One would be that the stencil cut out restriction sign is in the middle of a junction and it may not be immediately obvious which line or lines it applied to. In this case, unusually I would have thought, the sign applies to two tracks. The written sign makes clear that it applies to both lines and that it continues up to the road bridge. The other would be that the written sign may predate the stencil one but was not removed when the new one was added.

 

They are just a couple of guesses.

 

In either case, the loco crew should be up to date on their route knowledge and it should just be a bit of a reminder. 

[Tony Wright]

Yesterday, Tom Foster and Ben Valentine came down to operate Little Bytham. 

 

A good time was had by all.

 

They brought with them some very interesting models (not to run on LB, obviously), the like of which I don't think I've ever photographed before. 

 

Including..................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe they're based on The Isle of Sodor prototypes. 

 

Perhaps Tom will explain. 

 

 

[Northmoor]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Yesterday, Tom Foster and Ben Valentine came down to operate Little Bytham. 

 

A good time was had by all.

 

They brought with them some very interesting models (not to run on LB, obviously), the like of which I don't think I've ever photographed before. 

 

Including..................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe they're based on The Isle of Sodor prototypes. 

 

Perhaps Tom will explain. 

 

 

On my computer screen they are about five times real size, which only shows how absolutely exquisite Tom and Ben's models are (but then the real Talyllyn and Dolgoch are rather lovely too).

[MJI]

Couplings

 

I am at a quandary I want to try something different.

 

My BR stuff is mainly small tension locks, but my 1950s/60s stuff is largely kit, or kit bashed. 1980s Fixed sets I am triailing Keen systems bars. Locos a wire loop for TLs

 

So far 5 Comet carriages, 2 cross kitted, 2 Airfix RTR, a pile of Parkside, Ratio, Airfix, Coopercraft wagons, 3 RTR locos

Then a Comet chassis LRM tender loco with a small mix of carriages.

 

Choices are

 

Screw

Kadee

Something else

 

Wagons will be shunted for the top pile, ex MR stuff so far likely to be a diorama only.

 

Thoughts please?

Edited June 26, 2022 by MJI

[Tom F]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Yesterday, Tom Foster and Ben Valentine came down to operate Little Bytham. 

 

A good time was had by all.

 

They brought with them some very interesting models (not to run on LB, obviously), the like of which I don't think I've ever photographed before. 

 

Including..................

 

I believe they're based on The Isle of Sodor prototypes. 

 

Perhaps Tom will explain. 

 

 

Thank you Tony for a lovely day once again!

 

My two locos are based on Talyllyn Railway prototypes, Fletcher Jennings No. 1 'Talyllyn' and No. 2 'Dolgoch'. Awdry created twins of these engines (also built at Fletcher Jennings) for his Skarloey Railway, the engines being No. 1 'Skarloey' and No. 2 'Rheneas'. The line being based in the eastern district of Sodor.


Rheneas started like as a Bachmann TV series Rheneas with a face, a caricature of the real engine. Face removed, and new chimney and cab as well as other pieces provided from the narrow planet detailing kit.

 

 

Skarloey, is a meridian kit I bought from a fellow modeller already built. It has been stripped down and some tweaking made so it is not as back end heavy. Next step is to add some detailing bits, ready for painting and lining (similar style to Rheneas).

 

Ben @BritishGypsum4 I'm sure will be happy to discuss his models he brought down when he get's chance.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Tom F

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, MJI said:

Couplings

 

I am at a quandary I want to try something different.

 

My BR stuff is mainly small tension locks, but my 1950s/60s stuff is largely kit, or kit bashed. 1980s Fixed sets I am triailing Keen systems bars. Locos a wire loop for TLs

 

So far 5 Comet carriages, 2 cross kitted, 2 Airfix RTR, a pile of Parkside, Ratio, Airfix, Coopercraft wagons, 3 RTR locos

Then a Comet chassis LRM tender loco with a small mix of carriages.

 

Choices are

 

Screw

Kadee

Something else

 

Wagons will be shunted for the top pile, ex MR stuff so far likely to be a diorama only.

 

Thoughts please?

If you are running fixed rakes with CCU's, it depends on how often you need to take coaches on and off the layout or alter the make-up of sets.

 

If things are kept largely untouched, there's not much benefit in going for anything more sophisticated (or expensive) than Roger Keen's basic "blade" couplers.

 

If not, my preference is the Roco coupler head within sets, enabling formations to be made up easily in cramped fiddle yards; just push them together. UncoupIing is simply done by lifting one coach-end about a quarter inch. I remove the uncoupling loops and fit the couplers upside down which, IMHO gives a much neater appearance. Photos attached.

 

For wagons, r-t-r or kit-built, I use Kadees for my own stock but am involved with a large layout that uses Sprat & Winkles. Both work well, but I find the latter to be rather more "labour intensive" than the former, both at the installation stage and in terms of maintenance. My preferred Kadee is #146, or #141 where deep buffer beams are involved. I try to avoid the NEM plug-in sort except in CCUs at the end of coach rakes or where it's "too much like hard work" to fit one of my preferred "Whisker" types.

 

John

Edited June 26, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[MJI]

24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

If you are running fixed rakes with CCU's, it depends on how often you need to take coaches on and off the layout or alter the make-up of sets.

 

If things are kept largely untouched, there's not much benefit in going for anything more sophisticated (or expensive) than Roger Keen's basic "blade" couplers.

 

If not, my preference is the Roco coupler head within sets, enabling formations to be made up easily in cramped fiddle yards; just push them together. UncoupIing is simply done by lifting one coach-end about a quarter inch. I remove the uncoupling loops and fit the couplers upside down which, IMHO gives a much neater appearance. Photos attached.

 

For wagons, r-t-r or kit-built, I use Kadees for my own stock but am involved with a large layout that uses Sprat & Winkles. I find the latter to be rather more "labour intensive" than the former, both at the installation stage and in terms of maintenance. My preferred Kadee is #146, or #141 where deep buffer beams are involved. I try to avoid the NEM plug-in sort except in CCUs at the end of coach rakes or where it's "too much like hard work" to fit one of my preferred "Whisker" types.

 

John

 

Thanks

 

It is mainly for my 60s layout where most stuff is kit. I fiited the close coupler bars to an Airfix aircon rake!

 

Would be quite a bit of work to fit TLs to some of the kits.

 

Would be mainly BR (WR) so carriages will be a few Comet ex GWR corridors, a B set (Airfix), two non corridor (cross kit on MJT bogies for one, the other will be Replica Mk1s)

 

Could use TW style on the carriages but the wagons, lots of Airfix cattle, Ratio and PS Vans, and some printed hoppers.

[MJI]

I may try the Rocos as I do need to put the sets away, and I have 2 more aircon sets, and 2 more pre aircon Mk2 to do.

[Dunsignalling]

Just now, MJI said:

 

Thanks

 

It is mainly for my 60s layout where most stuff is kit. I fiited the close coupler bars to an Airfix aircon rake!

 

Would be quite a bit of work to fit TLs to some of the kits.

 

Would be mainly BR (WR) so carriages will be a few Comet ex GWR corridors, a B set (Airfix), two non corridor (cross kit on MJT bogies for one, the other will be Replica Mk1s)

 

Could use TW style on the carriages but the wagons, lots of Airfix cattle, Ratio and PS Vans, and some printed hoppers.

If you have etched brass bogies, Dart Casting do some rather clever fold-up NEM pockets which can be fitted to most makes. Keen CCU's work well on coaches that don't come so equipped.

 

Kadees fit to wagons simply by building up a block underneath with the bottom level with edge of the buffer beam, or for T/Ls, mounts are available from Peco/Parkside.   

 

John 

[LNERandBR]

For fixed coach formations I'm finding Hunt Couplings from West Hill Wagon Works are most effective.

 

Being magnets, it's very simple to couple up and uncouple as long as you are doing so in the Fiddle Yard by hand. Very useful for an exhibition layout as it makes packing all the stock away very simple.

 

Absolutely no use for shunting but I feel that's not what they are designed for. There's various versions for NEM pockets and screw connection. The 'Elite' version also does away with polarity differences which makes shuffling stock into different prototypical formations a lot easier. 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, LNERandBR said:

For fixed coach formations I'm finding Hunt Couplings from West Hill Wagon Works are most effective.

 

Being magnets, it's very simple to couple up and uncouple as long as you are doing so in the Fiddle Yard by hand. Very useful for an exhibition layout as it makes packing all the stock away very simple.

 

Absolutely no use for shunting but I feel that's not what they are designed for. There's various versions for NEM pockets and screw connection. The 'Elite' version also does away with polarity differences which makes shuffling stock into different prototypical formations a lot easier. 

The question I don't seem able to find an answer to is how much load those can handle.

 

Does anybody out there successfully use them on 10-12 coach trains of RTR stock?

 

Layout has minimum 3ft curves and is almost level throughout.

 

John 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[31A]

17 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The question I don't seem able to find an answer to is how much load those can handle.

 

Does anybody out there successfully use them on 10-12 coach trains of RTR stock?

 

Layout has minimum 3ft curves and is almost level throughout.

 

John 

 

Perhaps you should ask Gilbert on the Peterborough North thread, he uses them extensively and runs long trains which include heavy kit built coaches as well as RTR.  I think his layout includes quite sharp curves at the (off scene) ends.

[LNERandBR]

26 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The question I don't seem able to find an answer to is how much load those can handle.

 

Does anybody out there successfully use them on 10-12 coach trains of RTR stock?

 

Layout has minimum 3ft curves and is almost level throughout.

 

John 

 

I have them fitted to rakes of coaches of at least 10 coaches and they have no issues at all going around corners less than that. When you do want to uncouple there is some force needed to part them.

 

There is sometimes some fettling needed to get them to fit NEM pockets correctly and I have needed to glue some of the magnets back in after they've come out. However, those things are not needed on every coupling, on the whole they are very good.

[Dunsignalling]

5 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

 

I have them fitted to rakes of coaches of at least 10 coaches and they have no issues at all going around corners less than that. When you do want to uncouple there is some force needed to part them.

 

There is sometimes some fettling needed to get them to fit NEM pockets correctly and I have needed to glue some of the magnets back in after they've come out. However, those things are not needed on every coupling, on the whole they are very good.

Thanks, but on reflection, I don't think that they would offer any real advantage (for me) over the Roco coupler heads that I currently use.

 

John