Jump to content

SD85

Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SD85

  1. Many thanks, will try to do that and see how it goes. Much appreciated.
  2. I don't seem to have that diagram, but thanks for posting it. The bit that is loose is the part on the left of the bits encircled in area 3. EDIT: Any further help would be very much appreciated. I can find no information anywhere on the net which discusses this issue or what to do to fix it. Trying to slot the drive shaft back into its mountings seems difficult as to do so one would have to take the motor off the chassis block which doesn't seem doable. I don't think I can return the loco as I've already renumbered her to 35027 Port Line and have also added coal, some weight to the tender and given her a coat of Klear to make the paintwork shimmer a bit. So I need to find a way to repair her. It doesn't seem too complicated a task, but I just can't work out how to get the cardan shaft back into its mountings.
  3. Could someone give me a bit of advice on how to fix the driveshaft on my Merchant Navy? I have a brand new 35024 but the motor spins and the loco doesn't go. Inspecting closer I found the drive shaft that was supposed to connect the flywheel and gear worm loose in the body shell. I would like to know how to get it back in as it seems a bit difficult to do so. Thanks.
  4. Yep, just done some checking and I think it's Lymington Town, judging by the signal (which seems to have been a lattice post at that location), track curvature and crucially the vent on the box roof is similar. A 1964 photo I found shows the box there to have also had a similar stovepipe coming up from the side of the roof, as can be seen in the original photograph posted here.
  5. The more I study this photo the more I think it has to be Bishops Waltham, but the presence of the signal box is just so confusing. This potentially means that the signal box was demolished at a different time than is otherwise supposed. They also took the signalling out at the same time I think, which further adds to the mystery as this photo is clearly a post war one. I did as mentioned have a good long look at Butts Junction earlier but I just don't think enough things correlate.
  6. Actually I might have to retract my previous comment as after some extensive research it could well be Bishops Waltham going by the signal position. But that means the box and signals would have been taken out after the war and not in 1935, which makes no sense. Bishops Waltham signal box in the few photos of it that are online seems to have had a roof mounted central chimney/large vent as well, but this could possibly have been changed for the vent in the photograph over the years. I can't find any other contenders that even match, however. The only other possibility I could think of was Winchester Junction, with the train coming off the Mid Hants line, and the angle of the shot means that the main line tracks aren't visible in the background. But this seems a very long shot TBH. I considered the possibility of Butts Junction at the other end of the Mid Hants, but that doesn't match either. Then I wondered if the signal box may be of LBSCR or even GWR design since you can only see the roof, but the LSWR lattice post means it must be in that company's territory.
  7. Bishops Waltham signal box was demolished in 1935 according to the site linked above. Also the train seems to be on a curve which doesn't fit with the maps of Bishops Waltham station area, going by the track layout.
  8. I do think you have a point there. There was something of a saturation being reached. I think the current situation has probably just sped up a process that would have been occurring anyway. Most of the exhibitions I attended a few years ago were still patronised by quite a few younger people and families, but the average age of those attending was at least over 50 and probably over 65 in some cases. As noted above there is a fear of socialising again in large numbers, particularly amongst the older and more vulnerable age groups. Can't say I blame them. The British railway modelling scene has basically enjoyed a golden age since the early 90s. Without wishing to over-generalise (and my apologies to anyone posting here who I may inadvertently offend), the post-war generation in the 90s/00s/10s mostly settled into stable careers followed by long retirements, enjoying disposable income and free time levels hitherto unknown. Up til then serious British RTR modelling had been marginalised by the major manufacturers in favour of the Xmas toy trainset retail approach, but the last few decades have seen the emergence of a large audience who remember steam and have the space, time and cash to recreate their memories. At the same time, the wholesale shifting of production to the Far East has enabled high quality models to emerge that not only stand alongside the best of the Continental manufacturers outputs but could be sold at half the price or less of Marklin et al. China has had various factors align over the decades that have made it the sweet spot for the West in terms of consistency, quality of supply, and labour costs. It's been a perfect alignment of high demand and relatively cheap supply costs that frankly any manufacturer would have been insane to not try and capitalise on. This has meant that it's been a very favourable time for exhibitions and exhibitable layouts as a whole - there's just been more of everything available to people for a long time. However, cornucopias don't last forever, and time inevitably shifts. The younger generations on the whole do not enjoy the same stability and long-term planning in terms of finances, careers and living arrangements on anywhere near the same universal level as the generation or two before them. Time and money are relative luxuries. Additionally, owing to China becoming less cheap as a manufacturing base as the years pass due to improving living standards there, price increases in RTR are getting larger and more frequent - we've already passed £200 for an express passenger loco, and I'd expect to see Bachmann and Hornby become similar in price to Marklin and Fleischmann over the next decade or two. Clubs, meanwhile, are in a mixed situation - some seem to be quite dynamic and have a wide range of age groups participating, but others don't seem to have managed to entice anyone under 50 for decades. There are many factors feeding into this - time and money (as mentioned above), different interests across generations, the rise of computers and the Internet, maybe also a lack of openness on the part of some organisations. I don't think exhibitions or modelling are going to completely go extinct. After all, there were exhibitions being held straight after WW2 finished, despite the fact that modelling in the immediate post war years involved scratchbuilding literally everything and in some cases sourcing one's own raw materials to do so. What I do think will happen is a trend towards smaller cameo style layouts, or shunting puzzles etc. These type of layouts can be set up in a small space, have flexibility of operational interest, lend themselves to easy relocation and reassembly, can be added to or extended as needs be, do not require a huge amount of stock and crucially can be operated by one person, with maybe a friend brought along to help. Bigger layouts will I think become more of the preserve of clubs in an exhibition context (to some extent they already were), however I think that the club scene will probably consolidate over time due to the factors mentioned above. In summary, I think the future of exhibitions outside of NEC/Ally Pally will be: more Bottom Works Sidings, less Ambergates or even Engine Woods. I think the typical GWR branch line layout or cross country railway (like Engine Wood) may be caught in the middle of all this; such a layout is just too big to be set up at home or taken on the road as a one/two person job, but it's probably too small to be taken on as a club project. Meanwhile you will still get layouts like Mostyn, but they will be rarer and very dependent on the dynamics/organisation/interests of a particular club or group. The other trend emerging is that of permanent home mega-layouts (like Little Bytham) and extensive systems, often in their own dedicated spaces. Such projects are usually the preserve of the retired or those with time, money and space. There will possibly be a correlation between those who are in this bracket and those who are wary of venturing onto the exhibition circuit for fear of extensive socialising as noted above; their modelling may focus more on their home setup as a result. This is an revival of the inter-war years in some ways, when most modelling centered around large and extensive home based systems constructed by those with money, space and time on their hands. It will be interesting to see what happens in future decades as the builders of these systems pass on. One final point which hasn't been made by anyone AFAIK is automation and how this might play into layouts of all shapes and sizes. Peter Denny could operate Buckingham single-handed with The Automatic Crispin; he was ahead of his time in this regard. I have seen several exhibition layouts which utilise computers to assist in the operating process; this could overcome the issues of manpower and staffing to a degree although the space to set up a layout at home to test it is a more intractable problem. Bottom Works Sidings can be operated from a smartphone.
  9. Good to hear your dad is still going and well. Please pass on my thanks to him for the layout (which appeared in RM half a century ago now); I thought it an interesting system.
  10. This is an Wikipedia article on the 2-10-0 that Hughes drew up for the L&YR and Billington worked on as a proposal to the LMS in the 1920s. Would have been very interesting had it been built. The L&YR seem to have been pretty progressive and willing to look abroad for influences and inspiration when it came to locomotive design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%26YR_2-10-0_(Hughes)
  11. If I'm right in my thinking, the Scots basically displaced them (and the Claughtons). I suspect regional preferences meant that until the Scots were introduced Claughtons were preferred south of Crewe, though I'm sure one of the Hughes engines found its way down to Euston once. I think the Class 8s might have had more of a front line career had Hughes not retired in the mid 1920s; after he left the CME post Horwich lost most of its influence on the LMS and the Fowler/Derby influences took over. Fowler introduced the Scots in 1927 (I think), so the Hughes engines despite being built in large numbers were relegated from top end duties only a couple of years later. The politics of the LMS are fascinating. It would have been very interesting to see what an essentially L&YR led engine policy on the West Coast route would have been able to achieve in the 1930s had Hughes not retired or Billington lived. One problem however seems to have been that while the CME was based at Horwich, corporate policy was decided elsewhere, with Euston calling the shots. Allowing Horwich total control of the locomotive angle could have possibly produced better results...? Here is some info I was able to find about Billington (copied over from https://www.steamindex.com/people/horwich.htm): "Billington, John Robert Marshall states that Billington was born at Freckleton (Lancs) on 18 April 1873 and died at Horwich on 22 March 1925. Cox (Locomotive panorama V. 1 p. 15) states that he was of humble parentage but had a brilliant mind and "did not suffer fools gladly and could be sharp and acid on occasion". Marshall claims that Billington was mainly responsible for the Hughes/Fowler 2-6-0. Billington, Chief Draughtsman of the LYR following the retirement of Zachariah Tetlow was according to Rutherford a home-grown engineer from a modest background, who returned to the Drawing Office at Horwich in 1912. He was a brilliant scholar, gaining many examination honours and becoming a lecturer at Horwich Mechanics' Institute on top of his full-time work. He was responsible for redesigning the 4-6-0s and also, as Chief Draughtsman, LMSR, for the first new design for that company, the Hughes standard 2-6-0 (known as the 'Crab'). During 1923 a further 'improved' version of the 4-6-0 was schemed, as a 'Pacific with a wide firebox boiler. Associated with this was a four-cylinder 2-8-2 for heavy passenger traffic and a four-cylinder 2-10-0 for heavy freight. The latter was resuscitated from a pre First World War project based on 2-10-0s of Jean Baptiste Flamme of the Belgian State Railways whose work on superheating and testing methods had influenced Hughes. No interest in any of these proposals or a later 4-6-2 was shown by Euston although the operators thought that a freight version of the 2-8-2, but with three-cylinders, might do for the Toton-Brent coal traffic and so the design was re-schemed, together with a matching 4-6-2. Billington died at the early age of 52 in March 1925. John Marshall suggests that Billington's death contributed to Hughes premature retirement. Langridge stated that Billington's death had been a shock to the design staff. He was a brilliant designer very much au fait with what was going on in America and one who was not afraid of applying their ideas. The Horwich DO was probably at its best at that time and the works also being very modern one felt that this was a Swindon of the North - but much less hidebound than the GWR later became."
  12. (replying to bbishop) - I forgot about Urie's 4-6-0s; they were truly successful. The Paddleboxes as you say were OK though not stellar. The L Class Baltic tanks were as you note designed for a specific route and task; a real shame that they were rebuilt but electrification made them redundant on the Central Division and the LSWR main line didn't lend itself to tank engine express running. Billinton was I think planning to design a 4-6-0 tender engine; I wonder if it would have turned out similar to the N15X rebuilds.
  13. According to several sources the Hughes Class 8s were not that great in their original form. The L&YR rebuilt a bunch of them about 1919/1920 with Walschaerts gear and other improvements and apparently these were much improved engines, albeit not sparkling. One major problem seems to have been that they were notably heavy on coal. On a related note to this, a lot of pre Grouping railways seemed to nail the 4-4-0 and Atlantic concepts very easily but when it came to designing 4-6-0s and Baltic tanks things went awry. The LSWR was the most obvious example of this, but quite a few other railways struggled too. From my reckoning it was only the GWR and GER who got it right first time with their 4-6-0s (Saints/Stars and the B12s) - maybe the Scottish companies did too, I can't recall. What were the GCR's efforts in this area like? The LBSCR had by far the best Baltic tanks to run on the British railway system IMO, I don't think any of the other designs came close to matching the L class.
  14. I think I remember reading in the book 'Under 10 CMEs' by E.A. Langridge that the L&YR was the most technologically advanced constituent of the LMS when it came to locomotive design, and that the Horwich drawing office was basically a Swindon of the north, but less hidebound. The Chief Draughtsman at Horwich, John Billington, was apparently a brilliant designer in touch with modern practice and Langridge states that had Billington not died in 1925 then LMS locomotive design might have taken a very different direction.
  15. Yeah, I really like the look of the DMR kit, I'm some way off being able to kit build though.
  16. The loco I'd really like to have RTR is a Z class, but it's a pretty niche loco with a small number built and a limited range of areas to use them in. Any model would have to replicate the prototype and be heavy and smooth running with finely controllable slow speeds too. I know there's the Golden Arrow resin body kit, but sitting that on a Hornby 8F chassis (as suggested by them) doesn't look right; firstly the valve gear is wrong and secondly the loco sits too high.
  17. A U class is the big one in terms of locos not covered by RTR. Wide ranging, in service over five decades, and converting one from a Bachmann N class is a big job requiring scratchbuilding a new footplate and other things. The argument seems to be 'why tool for a U as it's so similar to an N' but the 78xxx class are basically slightly upgraded versions of the Ivatt 2MT tender locos, and both of those have been or are being done RTR. I can understand why the main manufacturers might have overlooked it, but it's very odd that a smaller manufacturer or shop haven't done one on commission.
  18. From Wikipedia: "On 26 June 1967, [rebuilt MN] 35003 Royal Mail recorded the highest speed ever for the class. Hauling a train comprising three carriages and two parcels vans (164 tons tare, 180 tons gross) between Weymouth and Waterloo, the mile between milepost 38 and milepost 37 (located between Winchfield and Fleet) was covered in 34 seconds, a speed of 105.88 mph." According to the gradient profiles this was done on a stretch of level track after descending a short stretch of 1 in 460, preceded by a level section and a stretch of 1 in 249.
  19. After some more research I'm pretty sure that the first two pictures are taken at Carnforth. The main loco featured in them matches the one in the first picture at this link: http://ukrailways1970tilltoday.me.uk/carnforth_steamtown-1976_two.html
  20. Are the first two at Carnforth?
  21. Agreed. The Pacifics had their issues (still great machines though) but the sheer effectiveness of the Q1 cannot be denied. Form over function taken to the ultimate conclusion and an absolute asset to the railways in the war and after. It is also worth pointing out that Bulleid designed arguably the greatest and most effective boiler ever fitted to a British engine if not any engine in the world. You could run one of his Pacifics on coal dust, they were that good at raising steam. My favourite anecdote about this is when a MN was put on the Rugby test plant and two fireman were given an entire wagon of coal to use. They couldn't find the upper limit of the boiler's steam raising capacities. Finally the turf burner locomotive designed for the CIE took the Leader concept and fixed the flaws. It worked rather well by all accounts, it just got overtaken by dieselisation.
  22. You're also going to get some weird anomalies whereby technically a loco will qualify for one region but only on a very narrow basis, for example all the ex-GW engines that worked over the Reading-Redhill line. Technically that would justify a Southern/SE region operations notice, but then you'd have to explain that they were only seen in a limited capacity there, outline all the caveats etc. And then there's the issue of the S&D....
  23. I think that was the one. Definitely seemed more finescale I agree.
  24. Thanks for the information. Given that the layout featured in RM nearly a quarter of a century ago and Mr Webb had already been living in Australia for several decades prior (according to the information he provided in the article), I guessed that he possibly would have passed on by now. It's always been a station that really rewards modelling from a scenic and operational angle, what with engine changes, the gradient from St Davids, light engine movements etc. The layout definitely held my imagination when I read about it.
×
×
  • Create New...