Jump to content

Nick Holliday

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Location
    - Sutton, Surrey
  • Interests
    LBSCR P4 (Fittleworth)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Nick Holliday's Achievements



  1. Shouldn't this be on a separate thread? Seems a bit unfair to be discussing a "rival product" in Eveleigh Creations section of Smaller Suppliers!
  2. I found this link from a similar query in 2011 - http://247developments.co.uk/street_names.html Not sure which July it refers to, or whether anything has actually happened. @mozzer models may be able to comment.
  3. Langleys do various etchings for their vacuum formed buildings, and several of them have three or four street names included. The website pictures are poor, so you can't read what you might be getting, and it is an expensive way to get them. Perhaps an appeal for unused ones might get a result.
  4. The MR and LNWR actually had two joint railways, albeit not main lines. The Ashby and Nuneaton was 29 miles long, connecting the MR at Moira West Junction to Ashby Junction on the LNWR main line near Nuneaton. An otherwise isolated LNWR line ran from the end of the joint line to Shepshed. The second was the Enderby branch, a 2¾ mile goods only line. However, the two companies met at many places, most notable Birmingham (New Street) Station, which was a Joint Station, although the station platforms were segregated. The MR was also involved in Carlisle, although they accessed the complex via the North Eastern. In London they met at Acton and even almost touched at Swansea. There were several connections between the two in the Midlands, such as Bedford, Northampton, Hampden-in-Arden, Rugby, Wolverhampton, Tamworth, Wichnor Junction and Wellingborough, and the Midland had a goods yard at Cambridge, to which the LNWR ran a full service. Further north there was an LNWR goods depot in the heart of the Midland empire at Derby, Buxton as noted, although the stations were, I believe, separate, although built to a similar design, Sheffield and Leeds. Heading towards Scotland, there were connections at Lancaster and Morecambe, and the southern section of the branch line that ran from Clapham to Tebay was owned by the Midland, and the Furness and Midland Joint lien that ran from Wennington to Carnforth met the LNWR there. Whilst the Jenkinson carriages book is interesting, he does tend to concentrate on the more opulent and/or later stock - lots of clerestories and all bogies. The humble 4 and 6 wheel stock that would have survived into the 1910's is totally ignored, but the Millard books do help to fill some of the gaps, at least with regards to the 6-wheeled stock.
  5. The tender saga regarding C3 and B2X is rather more complex than the above suggests. The C3 were built with 3,112 gallon tenders, weighing 37½ tons. The B2X conversions originally retained the tenders they had as B2's, with a capacity of only 2,420 gallons and weighing 32t 13cwt, but they had received additional well tanks which increased the capacity to 2,985 gallons. By 1914 it had become apparent that the C3's were not exactly brilliant performers and were allocated tasks which did not require such a large tender, and by 1919 the whole class had swapped tenders with 10 of the B2X. After grouping, as the B2X were withdrawn, 3 of the old C3 tenders were swapped back to C3's 303, 308 and 309, in 1930, 1937 and 1932 respectively. So, from 1906 to around 1916, the C3's hauled their larger tenders; from various dates around 1916 they were coupled to the smaller ex-B2X tenders, and from around 1932, three of them re-acquired their original larger tenders, seven presumably going to scrap in the fifties pulling the older ex-B2X tenders.
  6. On the neighbouring LB&SCR, the famous Stroudley "Improved Engine Green" livery and names were superseded by Marsh's umber from the tail end of 1905, but many examples carried on for several years after that. There were 6 E4 0-6-2's in the earlier liveries after 1910 and of the later, and larger, E5, famously Tillington survived in ochre until 1917, and Middleton until 1914. This survival might have been due to these locos being based at a London shed, where many repairs were carried out remotely from Brighton Works, and New Cross, in particular, seemed to like to cosset their favourites. A similar situation might have occurred at Stewarts Lane, with locos no being sent to Ashford as often, so a 7-10 year window might be feasible.
  7. The topic is rather wide to be encapsulated in a single volume. One book I find useful is Locomotives of British Railways by Casserley & Asher, published in 1965 but reprinted in the eighties and fairly widely available on the second-hand market, sometimes for only £4.00, so don't pay the £100 that someone is asking! It contains photos of every class of steam locomotive that was taken into BR ownership, and some brief notes about them as well, mainly numbering but no dimensions or other details . Not quite up to the standard of the German series, and some of the photos are a bit hit and miss, but a good starter, as many of the glossier books on BR locos only consider a selection, usually of the more glamourous types. Be wary, though, as the C&A book was also available in four separate volumes, for each of the Grouping companies. There was also another series of books by the same authors, which covered Locomotives at Grouping, also in four volumes, which covered all the classes, widening the scope to include pre-grouping classes which didn't make it to 1948.
  8. The Norway side of things will make the experts twitchy! As for working signals, I don't think any come ready-made with anything other than standard arms. I don't know anything about the ones you have (Dapol?) but it might be fairly easy to shorten an arm suitably. Or you might source some etched arms from Wizard or Scalelinkfretcetera which might be compatible with the Dapol design, or shorten an arm from the Ration signal kits and replace the one on the RTP signal. There was an excellent thread on RMweb about 10 years ago, I think, regarding the placement of GWR signals, which went into a lot of detail regarding different types of signal and their various functions. I found it on a Google search!
  9. Bob Essery, in his OPC book, "London, Tilbury & Southend Railway and its Locomotives", provides analyses of both passenger and goods workings in some detail, using information from WTTs for 1890 and 1930. Not being familiar with the intricacies and geography of the LT&SR it is largely double-Dutch to me, but several workings include instructions to "Shunt at Xxxx for ##.## passenger train" leaving plenty of opportunity to use the main line for shunting after the passenger train has passed.
  10. As @RobinofLoxley has intimated, the real signalling experts are unlikely to comment, as there are quite a few things that probably would not occur on the real thing. I am not an expert on signalling, but, as they say, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", so I'll try to make a few, possibly, helpful suggestions. I notice from your video that there is a scissors crossover in the bottom left corner, where the harbour branch leads off. Is this staying? If it is, it is a better solution than your current plan shows, as the double track mainline will serve both platforms before singling, but it means several changes to the signalling plan in that area. If the scissors are staying, the crossover to the right of the platforms becomes a bit redundant, and should really be turned so that it is trailing. Regarding the station platforms, the curved end ramps are a toy train feature - in real life the edge of the platform would run parallel with the nearest rail, for safety. The location of signals depended on many factors, including visibility. In general they tended to be to the left of the running track they referred to, but could, in reality, be almost anywhere that suited. I believe the GWR was a right-hand drive line, which meant that they often favoured signals on the right side of tracks, where that gave the best sighting. One position that was not common was in the six-foot space between pairs of running tracks, at the standard spacing, as the post would present a potential obstruction. However, they could appear in the ten-foot space between pairs of running tracks, or between sidings and the main line, and, on parts of the Great Western, as a legacy of the Broad Gauge, there might be enough space to squeeze a post in between the tracks. In some instances the tracks were moved apart to avoid a signal or other installation in the centre of the tracks, but only if absolutely necessary. On junction signals like those under discussion, the protocol generally was that the highest doll/post referred to the main line, and the lower doll(s) would control any 'branch' line, working from left to right. So, the post under discussion, controlling the access to the engine shed, is roughly correct, as in your photo (but not in your drawing), although I suspect it would have smaller shunting-type arms, at least for the shed line, as the movements are not likely to be running moves, although you may be thinking of terminating services at the upper platform, and then running them in reverse past this signal. I also think it would be placed at the end of the upper platform, or even in the middle of the ramp, a position I would also suggest for the main starters on the other, lower, platform. Unless you intend to run both of the parallel mainline tracks as bi-directional, very unusual in the days of steam and on a line which is partly single track anyway, there is probably too much signalling around the crossover and level crossing top right, with several of the running line signals replaced by ground shunting signals, and the level crossing would be protected by having the lower junction signal moved to its right. I'm pretty sure my comments will flush out a few signalling experts out of the undergrowth to point out the many errors of my ways.
  11. Which local line is that? It sounds unusual that there were no headshunts, if the line was that busy.
  12. I suspect I'm missing a point, but if the MJT CU is designed for 12mm diameter wheels, putting 14mm wheels in will raise the top of the CU by 1mm. Shimming it up 1mm will make it even higher, or have I got that wrong? Often these CU's need packing to achieve the correct height, as the floors in RTR and kits are of varying thickness, so they probably need checking against the actual model first, before deciding on what packing, if any, is required.
  13. Andrew Stadden apparently does commission work, although probably mainly for commercial clients, but he may be worth a try. His range of figures for sale is fantastic quality. https://www.acstadden.co.uk/
  14. Perhaps you should have checked his biorhythm chart too, it may have been his triple critical day.
  15. The underframe should unclip from the body, which looks to be a one-piece moulding with the roof, using gentle pressure, minding the brake pipes at the ends. The interior will fall out, whether the glazing is easily removed I leave to others to advise.
  • Create New...