PenrithBeacon

I get the impression that it was LMS policy to fit exhaust steam injectors to all LMS standard locos. Like you I've only ever seen photos of Austin Sevens with this device. Like Ozzy I think the live steam injector was always fitted on the drivers side, ie near side on this design, with the fireman having responsibility for the exhaust steam on the offside. Nice model, really like it! Regards

I wonder if you'd be more specific, Bill. I have thought that the process was inadequate for details that the modeller would normally reproduce in wire, simply because a resin 'wire' would be less resilient to everyday wear. I have also thought that it might be better to have a locomotive in major sub-assemblies, ie boiler, firebox, smokebox; platform (footplate); cab; and backplate with details like chimney etc as white metal castings, or, as appropriate, etched brass. Is this approach the one you're driving at or have I misunderstood your intentions and the process itself? Regards

Interesting! I think, but I'm not sure, that George Dow refered to this in his history, but looking at the stills on the link above the firebox seems to be very small for the size, particularly the length, of the boiler. Good thread, I'm enjoying it

Thank you for that description. Regards

Warships were reasonably common at Crewe in the early 60s, but were never as common as Westerns. Regards

The signal post at Partington is a CLC design Regards

Isn't it a Saxby and Farmer box? Regards

The photo that shows part of the signal box also shows the access roads to the station; all built over now. Regards

They could also have been routed via the NLR to WCML, GW and SR. Regards

At Tiviot Dale Station, in the yard, were the remains of the CLC's first engine shed in the area which was replaced in the 1880s by Heaton Mersey. Most of this first engine shed was demolished leaving only the water tank which was at the back of the shed. Does anyone have a photo of this shed/water tank? Regards

I've just been viewing 'Decades of Steam 1920s' and there is a very short clip of one of these engines towards the end. I'd be surprised if the sound is authentic though. Regards

Re the discussion on axle boxes, it is worth pointing out that the GW and SR had inside cylinder engines with the same (or similar) size of cylinders which restricted the length of the axle journals. I suspect the real problem, and the solution, was that the MR and LMS used 'crown' lubrication for axles and not the 'underkeep' style which Stanier introduced to the railway. Stanier was told to change the 'crown' lubrication to 'underkeep' for the 'Royal Scots' and that class then had its problems solved, but this solution wasn't applied to the 'Austin 7' class, the more the pity. I share the view expressed earlier that minor changes to the 'Austin 7' would have improved the engine no end, but it has to be remembered that these were new engines at the time and the railway, like all businesses at the time, was under considerable financial stress and it might have been a financial issue as well as an engineering one to go back to the Accountant ask for more money at a time when the LMS was borrowing money at a discount. There is also the issue of the politics of the new man ie Stanier. Fowler's reputation had been pretty well shredded and I doubt if anybody who valued his career would have championed one of his designs and pointed out the obvious, ie a 7F with underkeep lubrication and Stanier 8F wheels would be a winner as a mineral slogger. To do so would have undermined the case for the 8F. Not a good career move! By way of parenthesis, it might be worth pointing out that Beames, whose upward mobility had been terminated by Stanier's arrival, applied underkeep lubrication to the various sub classes of LNWR 0-8-0 while rebuilding them to the G2a and this was a major reason for the success of the class in subsequent years. Regards

Michael did say in a post earlier that he might have put them on the wrong side and perhaps he is right. Does this mistake, if it is a mistake, deserve the tone of the replies? Regards

The work is really coming on, see http://www.festrail.co.uk/frtv-cob.htm Regards

As I remember it caused a good deal of amusement at the time, but I don't recollect any resentment. All in good fun. Regards

I'm truly sorry to hear the news that the kit is inaccurate. I've had one in my to do box since it came out about 30 years ago! I've also got the Skinley drawing and it seemed to be accurate, but if the drawing is wrong there's not a lot to be done. Perhaps it needs to be transferred from the to do box to the re-cycling box outside. The last time I saw one of these engines was at Edgeley around 1962 and it was in a bad way. Regards

I think that spending £32B for a small reduction in journey time is unacceptable. British cities are far too close to make 200mph running worthwhile, 125-140mph is quite fast enough and can be done using existing, but re-engineered, Victorian infrastructure. It is worth noting that HS1 is a long way from achieving its projected benefits, this railway is very much underused. There is no doubt that the railway network needs to be improved for the future but HS2 is not the way forward. But neither is a further upgrade to the WCML, there are limits to how much you can 'upgrade' a railway. There are underused railways from London to the north and midlands ie Marylebone to Birmingham and the MML to Leeds. These railways could and should be 'upgraded' to perform the function, there is already enough land for four tracks on both these to allow the necessary works to be made for 125-140mph running. I'm not a NIMBY, the railway will run a good many tens of miles from me, but I am taxpayer and I object most strongly to my taxes being spent on this wastful project, particularly by a government which is employing an austerity programme which is seriously affecting so many citizens to their detriment. Governments have a habit of spending gross amounts of money on useless projects and they will always find industry professionals who will support them. Politicians like to look back and say 'I did that' and the professionals like to have the projects on their CVs - it's good when building a career. The Dome, the Olympics, Nimrod, and any number of IT projects have all been supported and championed by governments of both hues and supported by professionals and all have been a total waste of space and money. HS2 should not be built. Regards

I took this on 4/11/11: http://www.flickr.com/photos/68685377@N04/6323615812/in/set-72157628077214640 Regards

Utterly amazing! Not just in the execution, but just to have the confidence to start it! Regards

Off course this is true as is the possibility that the exact workshop practices that the LNER adopted may not be reproduced in today's workshops. It is also true that not all LNER constituents used teak as their finish and so the LNER would have had to resort to stripping off paint too. But, the fact remains that there is an astonishing variety of teak colours to be seen on preserved coaches, LNER and others, and it can't all be down to removing the various layers of varnish and paint that these coaches have accumulated in their lives. Looking at the evidence in front of one's eyes does have its virtues! Regards

On the topic of LNER teak finish the coaches that have been preserved show a remarkable variation, not just from coach to coach, but from panel to panel, in colour tone and saturation. I would doubt if it is truely possible to model any one prototype with the distance in time that is available to the modeller. The only solution seems to be to model the possible variations and to put to one side theoretical notions. Just a thought. Regards