Evertrainz

Split tones sounds right, but wondering specifically why the Westerns only, and none of the other diesels, had that very recognizable tone. These all were undoubtedly the exact same horn sets as manufactured, and they all sound similar tones (within reason - 37/1 sounds more harsh no doubt due to being in service longer).

To anyone that may have had experience fitting or “tuning” horns on classic BR diesel traction - why ever did the Westerns have a very squeaky high tone? They were without doubt fitted with the same Desilux brass horns fitted to almost all locos of the time, but nearly none of the others seemed to have such a horn based on old audio I can find. Was it a matter of how tightly the brass horn bell was screwed into the diaphragm base? That seems to be the only thing that could have made a difference.

This is amazing, a modeler can’t ask for a better shot than this. Slightly different ABB to the other AL- locos, I believe.

It seems like the consensus is that the Roarers didn’t ever truly have any plans to be named. In spite of this, I’ll probably leave the nameplate on the loco for the simulator. My reasoning is that giving some sort of appeal by means of a shiny nameplate will hopefully draw some more attention from simulator enthusiasts and traction enthusiasts towards the neglected Roarers. I don’t think it would be hurting anyone, I’d just hopefully garner these locos some more attention and interest - of course at the expense of “rewriting” some history. Hopefully I’d also be able to get the physics and driving of the loco in the simulator correct, based on WR timetables and electric motor physics. If you guys have not already seen, Armstrong Powerhouse does a very nice Class 86 for train simulator (the cab simulation is especially well done) - I’d hope to reach something like this level of operation detail with the Roarer(s). In my eyes the benefits outweigh the losses, as some fabrication is required here and there to keep things interesting :)

I also had a go at coming up with E- names for the 10-strong fleet of unreliably Class 84s :) Encumbrance Ephemeral Entanglement Exasperation Execration Exclusion Enervation Estrangement Excommunication Exile

I feel that moving the emblem to below cab window , with or without keeping the number plate, would have been tough considering the sandbox filler inlets.

Yes if I give this idea a try in my 3D software, this is how I’d want to do the plates. Also helps to conceptualize what “aesthetic” BR wanted here – when you consider that some Westerns had the BR cast emblem. In terms of fitting it on the loco, I would probably move the cast emblem up and add the nameplate an inch or two below. Not the most eye-level option, but it’s the only way I’d see this method working (also also rationalizes why they never followed through with it;!) EDIT: I gave the above a shot in a simple image editor, I don’t particularly hate it.. Above emblem: Original photo is by Ben Brooksbank used under CC license (from the Class 82 wikipidia page).

https://www.aclocogroup.co.uk/index.php/81-87-fleet-data-introduction/class-81-85-data-table On the ACLG, it lists that the roarers were planned to be given some names, all aptly starting with letter E. I was wondering if anyone knew more about this? This is the first and only mention I’ve seen of it. And just to let creativity take over for a bit, would anyone guess what these nameplates would have looked like?

I see.. How many BM/FM chassis were built? ___________ unrelated, but here’s a phot of the chassis ahead a passenger formation. Of note, the clean Insulfish behind it seems to have some branding on it above the running number, indicated by the large black background patch applied. It could not have been “TO WORK BTWN ABERDEEN AND KINGS CROSS” due to the lack of roller bearings. Summoning @cctransuk ?

Plate 145 in Rowland (BR 500K) shows a BR-built BM container (identical in dimension to the BD) sitting on an LMS steel chassis with Derby style 8-shoe clasp brake in 1961. As the BM and BD had similar dimensions I don’t see why they couldn’t be loaded on the steel flats.

Don’t mind the inaccurate running gear, but a quick basis for FM/BM type shorter containers.

I trust that.. Rowland gives all lots in 1/069 roller bearings, but surely we would see more photos of it if 11,000 units were built with them. I see you mention the second photo having the flip front axlebox- this one also has morton 4 shoe rigging. Is this vehicle from lot 1/069? If you tell me the lot number I can check, because that would mean not all of 1/069 had clasp rigging!

Very interesting that the BR(E) axlebox is a sloped-front box, I thought those were only made and used by grouping companies. Also of pedantic note, something I’d never noticed before is the smaller hole on the BR W-iron below the main horse-drawhook hole (which was recently discussed on here)… Another thing I’ve noted is that the square lugs on the front plate aren’t vertical… they’re at a slight angle and are a part of the main plate cast - not rivets or anything of the sort. EDIT: now I realize that it’s for the anchoring strip that holds the brakelever guard. I suppose the w-irons were swapped around but that’s something I’d never noticed.

Yes, but it would still be nice to have the others for the sake of having them. Even for yard filler if nothing else :) I did see a photo of the LMS steel type at the head of a passenger train with some fish vans in 1960(?), can’t find the photo now. 8-shoe clasp Conflat As were - I believe - diag. 1/069 built 1957-58 with roller bearings and OLEO buffers.

https://hmrs.org.uk/hmrs-1361--steel-underfame-for-type--br------bm--containers.html You mean standard (non meat) containers I assume. Also assume that these were the same dimensions as FM. Though I did read an old forum post here that said a BD chassis also existed, but I’m hard pressed to find it. But in any case, thank you all for helping refine my list: - SR Conflat A/B (9 and 10ft chassis for latter) - LNER Conflat S in 9 and 10ft chassis - LMS steel underframe, only for insulated and meat containers - GWR’s ubiquitous conflat

Thank you. Was there such chassis for “A” type containers? Before starting down this rabbit hole a couple days ago I was under the impression that there was one single LMS underframe, which could accomodate all standard containers by means of the “flipping” hinged brackets that we see on Conflat P

It will be VR (virtual scale) ;). If you see some prior posts of mine you can see what I’m talking about, but essentially I’ll draw them up in a 3D program. I believe the “short” SR conflat was 9’ only, in vac and unfitted configs. I’d be happy to be proven wrong though.

Wonderful! Suppose my wallet will be taking a diet over the next few days At least for grouping stock, my goal is just to model the most representative wagons ie the ones that had survived natural selection in BR steam+diesel days. So far I’m looking at: - LMS steel chassis for BR&BM etc - LNER Conflat S in 9 and 10’ wbs - GWR Conflat A - SR… (tbd) For the containers, it’d likely be the most of the lot.

On the topic of conflats and containers.. https://x.com/stuarthumphryes/status/1051437326503694336?s=46 does anyone know where the second scene in this video was taken? A very interesting setup, what with the conflats on a raised bridge, while a crane efficiently moves the container from above, down to the Scarab flat trailer on the lower level. I do know the third scene is Hendon container yard, with the Condor being loaded.

Ah thanks! Does it have drawings of conflat and containers? If so, that’s LMS and SR checked of…… There is also an “LNER Wagons vol. 4B” that caught my eye.. does anyone know if it contains drawings of containers?

I know the BR spec stated that lowfit wagons shouldn’t be used for containers due to sliding at speed. So would that render these LMS Lowfits useless for container traffic in BR days? I’m not sure the width of the LMS lowfit. EDIT: I take it that BR is LMS’ version of the BD container? A search online about an “LMS BR container” is quite useless (for obvious reasons)

At the risk of sounding demanding - is there a list or commonly accepted book for each of these rlys’ wagons? Similar to the Don Rowland 500K book for BR wagons. Sorry, there are just so many books to choose from, and being in the US I don’t want to risk waiting 6 weeks shipping to receive a book that I haphazardly ordered. I’ve never really looked into pre-nationalization days so I’m a newcomer in that respect. Any gents (or ladies!) have pointers to which book I should be after for each railway? I do think the scope of LMS book that was linked above would be perfect.

Hi all.. I Had a couple questions about container chassis used in the grouping era: - The LMS had a steel container underframe that was marked with “TO ONLY CARRY B containers” - was there an alternative chassis for A type containers? - The LNER had steel ”Conflat S” container chassis; did these enter production in both 9ft and 10ft wheelbase variants? - Apart from the common GWR conflat (similar to BR production conflats), and the long wb SR Conflat D, were there any other container underframes in significant numbers? Were any of these, from the companies above, still somewhat common in container usage in BR mid-late steam days? I’m focused on 60-64. Thanks, Ron

Barrowmore has extensive info on BR built containers, but I was wondering if there were any resources specifically for older designs. I think I saw or heard about a book titled detailed “inherited prenationalization stock and containers” but now I can’t find it, of course..

It is my impression that in the decade or two before nationalization, companies built their own conflat “door to door” containers to diagrams that were very similar to the eventual BR container, but differed slightly in some proportions. Does anyone know if a diagram book or published book/reference has drawings for these containers? Looking for all 4 - I can occasionally find LNER or GWR containers drawings snooping around on the net but I’m looking for a comprehensive resource.