TerryD1471

Hi Ian I have a horrible feeling I should have responded to you and have failed to do so. I apologise. It's no excuse , but I have been wrapped up in other things, which have now dispersed, so I can devote some attention to this if it's still relevant. I'll also contact you by Email. I wouldn't be surprised if you have sorted this out anyway, but I'm all ears! ATB Terry

Lovely model of a prototype I'm very interested in. I built a version of this box (for my own layout) and included the toilet at the left top of the stairs, like every other Type 4 box I'd seen. Just after I'd finished, I saw a pic showing there wasn't one!! Where did the bobby "go?" Out of curiosity, are you building a layout based on this location? I ask, because I have a load of source material on this location.

Thanks to you both It's important to feel as if you can empathise with the club you are thinking of joining. You must ask yourself questions. Does the club :- 1 Feel friendly & welcoming? 2 Head you in the direction of modelling you can be sympathetic with? 3 Do you think you can learn something from other members? 4 Are you willing to start chipping in with projects which are not immediately to your tastes? Are you willing to try and make a positive contribution to projects that someone else has initiated? 5 Does it matter if other members do not enjoy the same age bracket as you? There may well be other criteria which you hold important, but my own experience of joining the Wolverhampton club back in 1977 was governed by at least these issues and I would hope that other prospective members of societies would be similarly catholic in their approaches.

At this time of declining interest in people "getting out", I think it's most important that there are opportunities for people to join clubs to further their skills and their enjoyment of their hobby. As a member of Wolverhampton Model Railway Club, albeit a "distant" one, I am most concerned that its existence seems to have suffered from a lower profile than many clubs. This is a shame because it is a long-standing club (1973) with a long history of building quality layouts which have been exhibited far and wide. The names Fordley Park, Moretonhampstead, Leighford, Stoke Summit, Merthyr Riverside and Charwelton might come to the minds of readers. There has been a problem recently because the website was designed by a member who has sadly died and noone knows how to amend or update it. This has a "knock-on" effect because prospective members are deterred by a lack of up-to-date information on its activities. For the record, the club is alive and well and resident in premises in Commercial Road, Wolverhampton and meets on Tuesday & Thursday evenings from 7.30 on. The two primary contacts are chairman Norman Turner (01902 337264) and membership secretary Rob Kinsey (0121 526 3889). Either of them would be happy to give further information or help about the club activities. Terry Davis

Yes, Graham I fully understand your reluctance to have 9Fs on the WCML, since as you rightly say, they were rare birds before 1960. Most freights seemed to be handled by 8Fs, Super Ds or (fast fitteds) Black 5s. I had a similar problem on my layout Hest Bank, so I only have a couple of 9Fs which rarely appear. HOWEVER! In my reference bible "West Coast Steam" there is a picture of 92008 heading north through Hest dated 1954. Enough for me to have an occasional appearance of a 9F. Having said that, I have a number of old Hornby Dublo 8Fs (early ones with half inch motors) which, after scale wheeling and a few other mods, happily haul the longest freights that Hest can handle, about 45-50 wagons, and that's a task which tax the Bachmann or Hornby 9Fs. Not bad for models now more than 60 years of age! It's as much about hefty diecast bodies/chassis as anything. Terry

What a delight to see correspondence from Andre Chapelon, arguably the world's greatest locomotive engineer, and also Robin Riddles, himself no mean loco engineer. We have much to learn from practice overseas. Quite apart from the fact that Chapelon 4-8-0s managed to achieve a power output from a 105 ton loco (which was 30% better than a Duchess, and at that was quite an achievement), his final 242A1 was epic! I have a certain fellow feeling with that loco, since it was outshopped about the time I was born. Thankfully I lasted longer than his masterpiece, which was despatched in 1960. What a sin and what might we have seen from steam traction if only Chapelon's vision had been allowed to flourish.

The climate within the LMS in the early 20s (under Hughes) suggested a freight 2-8-2 and a Pacific. We know that the MR powers trod on that idea and eventually a good 4-6-0 came out, but when eventually a pacific materialised (6200), there seemed to me to be an opportunity to have an equivalent 2-8-2 using a Princess boiler. This machine could have had 5'9" drivers and would have been ideal for the night sleepers on the WCML (not too fast) and also moving heavy stuff over the S & C. The clue was that the LNER had contemporaneously built a 2-8-2 (2001) and this might have suggested a similar solution, but it was not to be. Nevertheless, I might just build a model of this imaginary machine; it might take place alongside my Stanier 4-6-4?

So sorry to learn of Ron's passing, I am so pleased to possess a good many of his earlier slides. I also attended a meeting which he addressed in Wolverhampton. He was a splendid speaker and I enjoyed a joke which he made at the expense of Pat Whitehouse. Not repeatable here!

I guess that there are many 0 gauge modellers who got started using Lima products, most notably the BR Mk1 coaches with LMS lettering. As a certain Mr Wright once remarked to me seeing some 00 Hornby Mk1s on my layout in similar LMS lettering, "it's amazing how far-sighted the LMS was to design coaches several years in advance of the BR standard Mk 1 design!" No crticism intended; we all had to start somewhere and many of us used incorrect models as a stepping stone to more accurate models. I seem even to recall the great Ken Payne publishing an article (in the RM?) on super-detailing some Kitmaster Mk 1s in GWR livery. Very good they looked too.

I quite agree; back in the day, the phrases "U" and "non-U" were invented to distinguish between the folks who had been taught the "correct" pronunciation and those who had simply read the word phonetically off the page. It's just another way of establishing your "superiority" and the English language is full of such examples. The names Worcester, Leicester, Leominster, Woolfardisworthy etc. come to mind.

I always say Valshirts, just in case!

Hello Michael I have built a model of Hest Bank, featured elsewhere in this forum, and although my efforts pale in comparison, I have nevertheless acquired a lot of photographic material, especially pre 1958 when my layout is set. I will be happy to scan this material and pass it on if you wish. Terry Davis

Yes, dggar, you are spot on with your information about the swap between 6229 and 6220. It's just so good to see colour footage of streamlined Duchesses, because it's as rare as hen's teeth, but that clip is particularly special; well spotted!

I found a brass body shell which I believe to be a JP product. It was right for a Stanier period 3 57ft corridor 3rd. I made scratch brass ends for it and fitted it on to a brass chassis with white metal bogies. It was painted carmine & cream. It has run on my layout (Hest Bank) for many years. The only drawback was that I had to use plastic windows which incorporated the mouldings for ventilators, as there were none on the bodyshell. Later i have used many Comet etched coach sides, but the old jP model has nostalgia.

I always liked the geometry of the H-D system and the fact that the track centres gave a nice close(ish) 2 1/4 inch spacing between outer and inner curved sections. HOWEVER, I did find that when I built some old Kitmaster Mk 1 coaches (64 ft) and ran them on the outer circuits, the coaches' overhang inwards was such that the bufferbeam of locos on the inner circuit would clout them. I can only assume that this was the reason why H-D never built their Mark 1 coaches to the full 64 ft length, but preferred to make them the same length as the Mk 1 full brakes (only 58 ft). Even then, their Mk 1s had the bogie pivots slightly inward of where they should have been, as this would have further eased the potential "clouting" problem.

It's a good thought but the King was a "non-standard" chassis. The Castle had the Swindon standard coupled wheelbase of 7' +7'9" (i.e. in 4 mm 28mm + 31 mm) whereas the King was 8' + 8'6" (32mm + 34mm) so there is a huge discrepancy between the two. Ironically, the better fit would have been the old Triang/Hornby Jinty chassis (which was incorrect), but which measured 31 mm + 33 mm. Yes, the driving wheels would have to be replaced but that would probably had to have been done anyway. The other issue was that the Hornby Dublo Castle had an incorrect coupled chassis wheelbase anyway. They used a wheelbase of 29mm +29 mm which had been the (correct) basis of the Duchess and A4 chassis. I've no idea why Hornby Dublo went in that direction, because the chassis was newly tooled. The only common factor was that the coupling rods were the same dimensions. Was that a good enough reason to tool up an inaccurate chassis? I ask the question because I'd like to know.

I quite agree; the use of ring field motors always struck me as being retrograde. I acquired one many years ago which seemed to be pretty temperamental; sometimes it would pull a house down, sometimes it would just give up. It always seemed to be pretty touchy on the controller settings. Unless you watched it like a hawk, it would either stall or run away. Eventually I replaced the motor with a Scalespeed replacement and I have never looked back. I also have four of the original ones with half inch motors; they have all been fitted with Romford drivers and various other improvements made and they all run very well. Quite capable of handling the longest freights my layout can store (45 modern wagons), and that seems to be superior to the more recent Hornby models.

This is a fascinating topic to embark on, even if it doesn't ultimately achieve anything. Just the kind of "what if" scenario that I enjoy. If I read you aright, the kind of governmental overview that you suggest was pretty much what they had in France. As I understand it, a Government committee had the right to approve or veto private enterprise schemes depending on whether they fitted in to the "national plan" or not. Nationalisation always seemed to be a good solution in theory, but I have always had severe doubts about the practical outturn. The snag seemed to be that too many politicians and bureaucrats stuck their fingers in (with their own selfish agendas) and "muddied" the original laudable objectives. I don't know if this is a particularly British problem; I had a conversation today with someone who suggested that it was a throwback from the bureaucracy we had to have to run our "empire." Be that as it may, I still think this is an interesting topic well worth pursuing, and I look forward to reading other people's views on this.

I think it had as much to do with Hitler's megalomania as anything. I hold nothing but contempt for the Nazis, but realistically the 125 mph on level track was a more valid speed record than Mallard's 126 mph downhill. It's never going to happen but I would have loved to see what a double chimney streamlined Duchess would have done in the same circumstances as Mallard. I have read somewhere that 46245 was unofficially timed at 118 mph down Stoke bank in 1963, but this may be apocryphal?

I quite agree with you that the N & W J class were outstanding examples of easy-breathing locos, regularly achieving 110 mph with 5'10" wheels, but just think of the piston speeds there! As far as the WD 2-10-0 v 9F comparison goes, sure the latter was vastly superior, but since Riddles was involved with both, might there not have been a little connection? Incidentally, I have seen photos of WD 2-10-0 locos in Greece on express passenger duties!

I think that Drummond/Urie design policy stipulated very thick frames which probably explains the robustness, longevity & heaviness of these two tank engines and the S15/H15/N15 classes.

I think you're quite right that the 9Fs were to prove far more able than expected. I recall Donald Beale, the late lamented S & D driver describing them as the best engine for the S & D ever. Their exploits on the Red Dragon and on the ECML were surprising to many, including the "top brass", but I understand it might have come at some cost to the bearings. You're right that the 9F was a development of the WD locos, but especially via the 2-10-0 design, where the flangeless centre drivers and the wide firebox were major common features. I'm not sure about your comments about the three passenger types you mention. The Britannias never received double chimneys as a matter of design policy, supposedly because their steaming rate was never expected to exceed 30k lbs/hr. I would have expected a double chimneyed Britannia to have been a seriously better loco, which brings me on to the A3. The double blastpipe A3s were reported to be excellent steamers, working turn and turn about with A4s and a great improvement on the single chimney versions. The Clans also were a "curate's egg." Some said they were feeble, some said they went well if you thrashed them. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. In terms of BR policy, I have never been able to understand why the 9Fs and Cl 4 4-6-0s were the major recipients of double chimneys. Why? It made no sense to me! To return briefly to the main thrust of this thread, namely "imaginary locos", I do have a couple of design possibilities:- 1 A 9F LMS loco, being a 2A boiler on top of an extended 8F chassis to 2-10-0. Not sure if there was a traffic need for this, I just fancied the idea! It would anyway have been a WD 2-10-0 ahead of time. 2 A 7MT LMS 4-6-0 being a 2A boiler atop a beefed up Black 5 chassis (or a 2 cylinder Scot chassis with 6' wheels). The 2A boiler was a proven excellent steam raiser and I was surprised it wasn't exploited more, notwithstanding it had a narrow firebox.

It's interesting how many people think the 9F was a large loco. It was undoubtedly superb, and its TE was almost as high as most Class 8 passenger locos. HOWEVER, it was actually smaller than a Britannia and even than a Clan pacific. The Clan was just fractionally longer and heavier. Strange but true! Check it out in your Ian Allan combined volume! The 9F was just over 86 tons. Another bizarre factoid brought to my notice recently was that the heaviest pre-nationalisation (non-articulated) freight loco wasn't even an 8-coupled machine. The Southern S15 was heavier than any GW/LMS/LNE/WD 2-8-0s, most of which weighed in at well under 80 tons. Even the WD 2-10-0 was lighter. If we want to choose the heaviest non-artic UK steam locos we have to look at the big passenger engines, many of which turned the scales at around 105 tons. OK, I've finished being a "smart-ar*e" now!

I've always had a sneaking regard for the 4-8-0 arrangement, since it potentially gives you a lot of adhesive weight without overly heavy axle loading. The outstanding examples are the Chapelon rebuilds of PO narrow firebox Pacifics, probably the most powerful locos (HP per ton) of any. They produced about 30% more IHP than any British loco while still being only about the same size & weight as our largest pacifics. There were some in eastern Europe too, but having a tall loading gauge they were able to put a wide grate on top of the driving wheels (a la 9F). It would have been interesting to see a British outline one. Also a British outline 2-8-2 with perhaps a better route availability than Gresley's P1 and P2.

Nice one, and as you say, if enough people use it, the OED will adopt it. It still doesn't explain how I wrote "documentary" when I meant "dictionary." You only spot these things after you have committed them to print!