[More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.]

On 03/04/2023 at 16:47, Dave Hunt said:

 

I suppose that it depends on who was in charge at the time.

 

Dave 

and how "clever" they considered themselves.

[Ever-Ready 1950s 00-gauge underground train: Belongs down a drain....]

There used to be a model railway open to the public on Crouch End Broadway - we may have talked about this before.  I can't remember any of the surface stock, but my favourite was an Ever Ready Underground train.                  I had never seen a model of such a train before and it was many years before I saw another, although Hamblings used to sell MERCO lithographed cards of, I think, a Met train .

 

I don't think we should be over critical of this model.  At the time, my train sets were Trix Twin electric and Hornby 0 gauge clockwork. Both had 0-4-0 locos pulling very short (Hornby 4 wheeled) coaches around curves more typical of 00-9.  They are products of their time, as is the Ever Ready set. 

 

I would leave your set "as-is" as a memory from our hobby's history and heritage.

[Whacky Signs.]

[More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.]

On 24/03/2023 at 07:41, Compound2632 said:

 

@Edwardian had located a late Victorian drill hall with a gothic iron roof that had just the right proportions for St Pancras in 7¼ in gauge. However, one might struggle to get planning permission for a 1/8 size replica of the Midland Grand Hotel.

The Agricultural Hall?  Does it still exist?

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

Judging by the spelling of "electrician", this enhanced sign was necessary.

 

[Wright writes.....]

50 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Providing that the track layout (including any fiddle yard) doesn't include features that lead to inevitable conflicts in any attempt to run trains continuously, I see no reason why layouts that are "complicated" to operate (and consequently tiring for their operators) cannot be arranged at shows to operate prototype sequences (including shunting and loco changes) for part of the time, thus satisfying the purist viewers, and to simply run a full range of trains round and round at other times to entertain the masses - allowing reduced stress, and reduced concentration for a potentially reduced number of operators during that phase. So long as the stock ends up back in the right places at the end of each phase, I don't see why such a thing would be at all difficult.

This is one of the reasons Grantham is a favourite layout.  It offers a choice of "trains spotting" - just watching the trains go by - or watching and trying to understand the timetable, shunting moves and loco changes.   

 

It's also the right railway and timescale for me, with streamliners, "apple green" and teak but also much pre-grouping stock.  

 

 

 

 

[Wright writes.....]

5 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

Do they run better on 3rd rail?

Not if they go to ground...

[Wright writes.....]

Good to see some lovely models from Jesse there, can we see them running, please?

 

I can't remember why a young Aussie has chosen to model the pre-war ECML.  Perhaps he could be persuaded to tell us how his interest was kindled?

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

[East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

It took me a moment to work out what was wrong with that footbridge.  It looks like they'd employed M.C.Escher as design engineer.

Mind the gap!

[Rugby Union]

Kick, kick, kick. 

 

Gave up watching at half time.

[How many times was it found that railwaymen's stories were a bit unbelievable/exaggerated or outright madeup?]

The Conservative Club in West Gorton was a favourite railway staff drinking hole in the early 70's, licensed all afternoon.

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

[EBMRS Biggleswade show 18th Feb 2023]

My first show for three years.  It seemed very busy, possibly slightly less layouts and traders than previous years but good to see  EBMRS active and also to meet up with faces from GNRS again.

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

[Hornby 2023 - New tooling - Streamlined B17/5]

Just a thought. If Hornby are contemplating issuing fictitious liveries, Great Eastern blue might be appropriate for the most prestigious East Anglian service....

[Wright writes.....]

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Are what? 

 Politely - short arms, long pockets.

[Hornby 2023 - New tooling - Streamlined B17/5]

On 09/02/2023 at 08:39, Pint of Adnams said:

Or being strictly accurate, Grass Green,  the proper name for the LNER locomotive green - see RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Part 1. Another misnomer that gets perpetuated, like Carmine for BR Crimson.

My copy states "Officially described as 'G.N. Standard light green' (unofficially known as grass green)."

 

Could this be the difference in shade between Doncaster and Darlington?

[EBMRS Biggleswade show 18th Feb 2023]

Will you be back in Bedfordshire for this?

[Wright writes.....]

23 minutes ago, drmditch said:

 

Iike this one?

[WW2 Royal Navy Ship Discussion - Are the King George V class of battleships overlooked in terms of WW2 BBs in spite of their service record?]

23 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

Another problem with Plan Z is that it assumed that the Royal Navy wouldn’t respond with their own building program.

It’s tempting to think that Britain would have been able to outbuild Germany in a manner similar to that prior to WW1 but that would not have been true – we may actually have been unable to match German output. British shipbuilding, gun production and armour plate manufacturing capacity had all been reduced since the end of WW1, partly as a result of economic depression but also to comply with treaty requirements designed to try and secure peace.  (It may be recalled that Czech armour plate destined for Illustrious class carriers was hurriedly delivered at the time of the German invasion).

In the late 30’s, the Admiralty feared facing a “Two Ocean War” with a “Single Ocean Navy”.  Isolationist feelings ran high in the US at the time so their support possibly unlikely, and there was perceived risk that Britain and France would be faced with simultaneous conflict with the three Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan.  A memo dated 3rd March 1939 (almost the same date as the Z Plan) was circulated amongst the Naval Staff, containing the first suggestions regarding use of the spare 15” turrets in what became Vanguard. This predicted the likely strengths of the British, German and Japanese fleets around the end of 1943.  (Though Italy would by then have a fleet with 8 fast battleships, it was assumed that France would counter these and no provision was therefore made regarding the Mediterranean).

 

Home  Waters

Britain                                                                                   Germany

2 1939 Programme (Conqueror, Thunderer)                         5 new capital ships (Bismarck, Tirpitz, 3

                                                                                                                allowed by Anglo-German naval treaty)

5 King George Vs                                                                              2 Scharnhorst

3 battlecruisers                                                                                 3 Deutschlands                                                

 Total 10                                                                                               Total 7 + 3

                                                                                Far East

Britain                                                                                   Japan

2 Lions                                                                                                  4 new capital ships (Yamatos)

2 Nelsons                                                                                            2 Nagatos

3 Warspites                                                                                        4 Fusos

2 Barhams                                                                                          4 Kongos

3 Royal Sovereigns                                                                          2 new battlecruisers (9x 12.2”, 32,000 tons                                                                                                                          33 knots, cancelled 1942)

Total 12                                                                                                Total 16?

 

The paper noted that the next two capital ships (40/41 programme) were likely to be of the 16” (Lion) design. The controlling factor was the time taken to produce the gun mountings, hence the ships were unlikely to complete until 1944-1945.  We know from the Z programme that the Germans planned to build an additional 3 capital ships (beyond those allowed under the treaty) in the same time span.  This was not known to the Admiralty at the time, who were already alarmed.  The re-use of the spare 15” turrets in a new build ship was perceived as a means of adding an additional ship to the fleet without affecting the 16” build programme, and demonstrates the concern felt.

 

Both the British and German (particularly) naval programmes were ambitious and liable to disruption, for example due to conflicting demands from their sister services for supplies such as armour plate.  I would suggest that, even if the Germans had managed to build the Z plan fleet, they would have experienced great difficulty in finding and training officers and crew to match such growth.  The supply of sufficient fuel oil for a fleet of such size to operate world-wide might also have proven problematical, the RN being better off in both regards. 

Nevertheless, had war not occurred until AH’s 1944 promise, we would have faced a large U boat fleet, supported in the battle against our merchant shipping by an enhanced number of capital ships.  The latter would have been formidable opponents, particularly if two or more operated in company.  The KGVs, and to some extent the Lions, were designed to proposed treaty limits which were not applied to Bismarck and after she was sunk, the Admiralty believed it would be necessary for the Tirpitz to be engaged by two KGVs acting in company.

It is perhaps as well war broke out in 1939 after the RAF received Spitfires and Hurricanes but before the further growth of the Germany Navy.

[WW2 Royal Navy Ship Discussion - Are the King George V class of battleships overlooked in terms of WW2 BBs in spite of their service record?]

55 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The German Navy would have gotten a far better return on investment from building more submarines than the resources poured into the Z plan capital ships. They would also have been well served by prioritizing the electro-boat submarines, which entered service just too late to have an impact but which could have reversed the hunter-hunted relationship between Allied ships and the U-boats.

The Z Plan was based upon assurances by AH that there would be no war with the UK until at least 1944.  Additional to ships existing in February 1939 (and including Bismarck and Tirpitz)  the plan at the end of 1944 would have provided 6 battleships, and at least 4 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers, 2 aircraft carriers and 126 U boats.   All were intended to concentrate on attacks against merchant shipping.

 

Above info from "Hitler and His Admirals" by Anthony Martienssen.  Totally irrelevant to the the thread but my copy was given to me by Ralph Reader!

[The Forum Jokes Thread]

When I was young, I was told a bounty of 2/6 was payable for each squirrel tail submitted.  And the local squirrels (Highgate Woods) were red.

[WW2 Royal Navy Ship Discussion - Are the King George V class of battleships overlooked in terms of WW2 BBs in spite of their service record?]

4 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

 All the big capital battleships met their end by airpower and an aircraft is peanuts compared to the cost of a capital ship.

Not true.  Royal Oak and Barham were sunk by U boats, Hood, Scharnhorst and Bismarck by other battleships (though the latter had been incapacitated by aircraft).  Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were fortunate to be moored in shallow water when subjected to underwater attack.

 

Aircraft carriers were - and are - just as vulnerable to air attack as surface ships.  Battleships became obsolete because the range of their main armament (guns) was a fraction of that of the aircraft carrier (aircraft).