Jump to content

Compound2632

Members
  • Posts

    14,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Compound2632

  1. I would have thought the more usual passengers would have been bullocks off for fattening or eventually the chop?
  2. I think the links are steel but there's no reason you couldn't substitute the third link with iron. Here's a flock of them - an evening's work!
  3. I thought that would be the case (on both counts) but Warwickshire Railways is such a splendid resource it wants advertising at every opportunity. All credit to Mike Musson - if only every county had as dedicated an enthusiast!
  4. Read all about it: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/mortonshipston.htm.
  5. There is a book dedicated to the subject of LNWR signalling - I don't have a copy: R.D. Foster, London & North Western Railway Signalling (OPC, 1982). The photo on the front cover of L.G. Warburton's book shows a typical LMS installation using a hybrid mix of lattice post, LNWR bracket, landing, and doll components, with (vividly colourised) LMS upper quadrant arms.
  6. Not electric but the Vale of Rheidol was built under a LRO.
  7. Ah, now there's an exception. I was going to say that most of these light railways were built or absorbed by the pre-grouping companies, usually before the Great War. And @009 micro modeller beat me to the Burton & Ashby Light Railway. I've also just reminded myself that that notable Southern branch line, the Lynton & Barnstaple, was a Proper Railway, being authorised by Act of Parliament shortly before the Light Railways Act was passed.
  8. I've seen something like this recently - HS2 bridge girders!
  9. The characteristic upper quadrant tubular post signals didn't really become very common until very late in LMS days and LMR days. The appearance of the LMS in the 30s was still largely that the pre-grouping companies, with a thin veneer of modernity. The LMS only really looked like what you think the LMS looked like in BR days! If you consider that most rolling stock and infrastructure had a life expectance of 30+ years, it's hardly surprising.
  10. They've already been drawn and quartered.
  11. One of those wagon labels, MRSC Item 14627, is for gas coal from the Barrow Collieries, Barnsley. There's no coincidence in the name - it was owned by the Barrow Haematite Steel Co. who sank it to provide for the needs of their Barrow-in-Furness plant. So their wagons are an obvious must for mineral trains passing along the Leeds-Carnforth line: [Embedded image from https://www.nmrs.org.uk/mines-map/coal-mining-in-the-british-isles/yorkshire-coalfield/barnsley/barrow-colliery/.] My understanding is that "Silkstone" refers to a particular seam in the Barnsley coalfield, rather than the village. The yellow livery that has been used on various RTR models is, I am confident, based on a builder's photo of a wagon in a photographic livery; the model has a nicely-printed Chas. Roberts builder's plate: I'd be interested to be proven wrong! I read that the Barrow Barnsley Main name dates from 1932.
  12. That moves beautifully - as a single unit, as it should. There should be more antimacassars than macassars, allowing for pair annihilation.
  13. It does look like they did that while we were just talking, doesn't it? The transfers have only just this minute been applied...
  14. What a beautiful carriage. I do like the 42 ft stock. That carriage caters for six categories of passenger: First class canoodling, with lavatory. First class prim & proper, with lavatory. Second class, with lavatory. Third class, with lavatory. Third class, with crossed legs. Luggage (vide Pratchett) and other non-sentient beings with strong bladders.
  15. Yes, traffic for the Midland from the Furness (and vice-versa) went via Carnforth (where there was a bridge over the LNWR!) and Wennington. See the RCH Junction diagrams: There were exchange sidings alongside the east-west chord bypassing the passenger station, together with Furness-LNWR exchange sidings. (Missing from the RCH map but shown on the 1910 OS 25" map.)
  16. It is a mystery. I use them when there's no room behind for the spring - glue in place, fold the tail over 90°, glue again. Seems to work.
  17. In the MRSC catalogue search, put "Furness" with the category set to "Label Wagon" - that provides a few hints. You know what comes from Burton! (Not relevant to the Colne route, I'm afraid.) Take a look at MRSC Item 31772: rails from the Barrow Haematite Co. consigned on Furness Railway wagons Nos. 14019, 14823, and 37770 - single bolster wagons, perhaps? Also bundles of rags: see MRSC Item 31721.
  18. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of traffic would be exchanged at Carnforth with the Furness.
  19. But looks passable on that Cambrian Gloucester underframe: True, the 45° bits of the corner ironwork look as if they're floating in mid-air. There are those who have laboriously infilled the sides to bring the boarding flush with the framing but that seems to me to be more trouble than it's worth - one would be better off starting from scratch. I was just thinking about the possibility of adding X-framing then realised that the 45° bits really are at 45°, not pointing at each other along the diagonal. One might do better chiselling them off.
  20. Is 46234 standing in for a failed diesel, after the supposed elimination of steam in NE Scotland and just two days after the coaling plant had been demolished?
  21. One I made earlier: I believe that roof doors were universally half-width (for structural reasons) except on the later L&Y covered goods wagons that had inverted V framing on the ends supporting a longitudinal roof beam. Although I'm not so sure about the standard GS&WR type.
  22. I have the Coal Trade Wagons book (I think that's due to your influence, Mike) but not the Railway equimpent one - I'll have to keep an eye open for it. Mike's craftsmanship is never in doubt! Just trying to understand the prototype. Photo is credited to Basil Jeuda. I'm trying to think why that name seems familiar.
  23. As you've modelled it, Mike, there's only the triangular plate supporting the cross-shaft - although I wonder if there should in fact be a support for its inside end, that would be hidden from view in an elevation drawing? Otherwise it looks as if the mystery rod is supporting a bearing that helps hold the cross-shaft. What is the drawing? Is it an original works drawing or a "modeller's drawing"?
  24. I've never quite understood of the extra railings were intended to stop the sheep jumping out or to enable them to be piled in two deep. But we've been here before (as so often):
×
×
  • Create New...