SVR C & W

They look more like Maunsells rather then LMS stock. The toilet window is very similar as is the carriage profile.

If the toilet filler pipes are the same as other Gresleys. All of ours at the SVR, except 7960 have the filler pipes running horizontially along the end of the vehicle at solebar level, turning upwards when it reaches the gangway and then curving into the body just below the roof line.

At the SVR and through the LNERCA. The conclusion we came to about guards grab handles was they were the saddle colour used on the solebar and canvas strip. Apart from the main passenger door and lock handles which are polished brass. All of the metal work is painted in this saddle colour. Dont forget the paint would wear off fairly quickly as well and they would end up fairly dark with wear.

There a few books out there with past and present photos in detailing the line. I wish I could ask my late grandfather as he lived in Linley station and was the district civil engineer as well. Keep searching through the known photo sites like flickr. I've also found some on ebay as well. 2251 and 45xx were also quite common on the railway.

Bob, I would contact Kidderminster Railway museum. They have numerous photos of the railway pre 63 (when the railway closed). The mixture of locos and rolling stock is varied. There was also the Shrewsbury - Bridgnorth service which yielded LMS tanks such as the 2300, fairburn and Std 4 tanks. 82xxx tanks, 51xx tanks, 57xx panniers, 63xx moguls up to Alveley colliery. An 8f is recorded to have reach Alveley as well. From memory, through photos, most trains had a van at one end which tended to be a fish van.

I would hazard a guess and say these are the cripple sidings where wagons in need of repair were dumped.

Lining a Gresley in 12 inches to the foot is hard enough on the eyes. Doing it in 4mm must be torture. The vermilion line that edges the primrose is only 3/32" wide in real life.

Gordon, Would a layout similar to Norwood junction shed not be suitable?

Watching the video a few times and the way the Standard gangway ends up. It looks as if the adapter clip on the platform side has been disconnected and the non platform side forgotten about. The adapter is just a height extension to the standard gangway and adapter clips which are the width of the Pullman gangway. I must say though. It held on very well to distort what is a fairly thick piece of metal on a Pullman faceplate. As a C&W man. It pains me more about the BGZ than the A4. It could have been an awful lost worse with the coach end being split open with the forces involved.

Having just re-bedded a mark 1 CK. We have added a modern silicone sealant between the two metals and a better window seal material, which should prolong the life of both the frame and skin. We are now reaping the benefits of modern materials and techniques that BR didn't have in 1951.

The frames also caused their own problems. You've got aluminum frames with soft steel rivets into galvanised steel. If the rubber seal around the window isn't bedded in properly the frames held the water and rotted the corners.

You're not alone. Although I do stop, only to make a brew.

There are a few more videos uploaded by the same guy on vimeo. One of the best ways to spend 25 minutes a time.

Most of the panel work is 6mm or 3mm plywood. Sapele/ mahogany veneer was also used. TSOs had lacewood or crown elm or similar coloured timber veneer with Sapele in the vestibules. Compartment coaches varied as to where they were built. You also had formica interiors which were rather dull (in my opinion).

Chichester is another example of a triangle. Built to turn locos.