Lower Thames Yard

[Tallpaul69]

Yesterday afternoon, when i posted my previous offering, I could not see the chaos that the next 24 hours would bring to our household!

 

It was not floods from the thunder storms that caused the problem, but my wife's early evening phone conversation with her brother, near Northampton, which revealed he had some health (but not Covid(!)), issues.

The upshot was that 8pm saw her jumping into a taxi (you may recall that we are now without a car?) with a small overnight bag, and a promise to see me "sometime before mid morning Thursday", when we both have dentists appointments!

 

So I had to get busy rejiging our meals to avoid a load of waste, as well as doing my wife's household jobs on top of my own.

Initial prospects at her brothers, were not good and it looked like a six hour wait for an ambulance (so c3am!). But as brother in law seemed stable, after a conversation with me, the ambulance was cancelled.

 

Cutting an involved story short, my wife returned this afternoon, with her brother on the road to normality, after a visit to his GP that she accompanied him on, and given a couple of treatments, with further GP appointments booked.

 

So little modelling got done except:-

1) After hearing back from the folks who sold me a sound fitted Bachmann Wickham trolley, as to the chip address, which I could not find from my test track as I got the dreaded "cannot read CV", resulting in a test under that address which worked!

2) I unpacked and tested two sound fitted steamers, namely an Oxford Rail Dean Goods and a Bachmann Earl. I am very please with both, although they are really too early for 1960-2, GW and GC, so will be Rule 1 use, unless I decide to run a 1950s version of the layout.

They had been pending  due to the arrival of "Bradenham".

 

So tomorrow is another day, but how much modelling the trip to the dentists will allow, remains to be seen?

 

Best regards All,

Paul

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Well, we survived the dentists, but how much more of this weather we can take is another matter!

 

So, its just a few odds and ends today I am afraid:-

 

First up, as a bit of fun, I had the Wickham Trolley buzzing round Bradenham like a demented bee (its the yellow version!). I'm sure that even when I ran it slowly, it was still much too fast for the real Trolley. I must look up what their maximum speed was?

 

My layout builders had been worried about there being sufficient gap between the rail ends where the rails cross from one board to the other because they thought that my railway room not being part of the house might get hot in the summer. Well I don't think even with Global Warming we are likely to get a longer hot spell than the last few days, and today the room is 35. It helps that the side with the main window and door is north facing, while the second window although west facing looks out into our greenhouse so only gets diffused light, never direct sunlight. I also have a latch, so that I can hook the door back wide open.

 

Giving the Earl a further run, I t really is growing on me, I must look out some suitable coaches for it, possibly Collett suburbans. 

 

In the no progress box:-

 

Platform mock ups

Signals mock ups

Rail painting

Ballasting

 

Still, I don't want to run out of things to do ,do I?

 

Keep cool and soldier on is the order of the day,

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On 20/07/2021 at 16:08, Tallpaul69 said:

One thing I have moved forward is the purchase of a wheel back to back gauge. I was in AGR this morning collecting a couple of Locos that had been chipped for me, and found that Anthony stocked one. I will run the locos tomorrow and report on them and the application of the gauge to the standard class 4 tender.   

So said I on Tuesday!

Alas, none of this small set of tasks have yet been accomplished, but tomorrow is another day.

 

A large chunk of today has been absorbed by an odd fault in our brand new (well, two months old!) printer. It just sat there and refused to copy or print from either of our computers. The only thing I could think off was that, not having been used for a couple of days due partly to the saga of my brother in law, who thankfully, now seems much better, it had gone into a power saving mode, and the display had gone off,  

Finally I got it back to life by switching it off and on again at the power strip it plugs into inside the cabinet it sits on. Previously, doing the same with its internal on/off switch had no effect. 

 

What I will try to get done today is my research into the top speed of the Wickham Trolleys, so that something has been achieved on the modelling front.

Meanwhile, if like me your railway room is outside of your house, make sure you have plenty of small projects to keep you busy indoors over the weekend as a lot of the country is due another soaking, both days.

Cheers for now,

Paul

[Nick Gough]

18 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Finally I got it back to life by switching it off and on again at the power strip it plugs into inside the cabinet it sits on. Previously, doing the same with its internal on/off switch had no effect. 

 

Still the most effective method for rectifying a defective electronic device!

Edited July 24, 2021 by Nick Gough
Autocorrect wanted 'DETECTIVE '

[Tallpaul69]

On 22/07/2021 at 16:31, Tallpaul69 said:

In the no progress box:-

 

Platform mock ups

Signals mock ups

Rail painting

Ballasting

 

Still, I don't want to run out of things to do ,do I?

Well, sometimes you have to go backwards, to got forwards:-

 

So today, all I have achieved is to add more items to the above list:-

Progress Kaydee couplings

Start testing positions for magnets for Kadees.

 

But I did enjoy a running session on Bradenham, one item being to run my Black 5 on the down main.

After the various ex GWR locos I have, this is one of my favourites, taking me back to the early 60s, standing at Luton Midland Road station watching several of the type running through on various trains.

Sitting between Bradenham and Wycombe End, reminded me of those days with the Midland line on one side of me and across the road on the other side, Bute Street Station, on the branch from Hatfield to Leighton Buzzard.

I always liked to get there early afternoon when one of the through trains from Leighton Buzzard arrived (most of the LB trains terminated at Dunstable North). I liked this train because it often produced an unusual (for the branch) engine including standard 2-6-4Ts and ex Midland 4-4-0s.

Happy days!!

 

Cheers to you All,

Paul

[Nick Gough]

That reminds me of the last days of steam on the GCR in 1965/66.

 

I would see a down afternoon parcels train that ran Neasden - Northolt Junction, to the north. This was invariably hauled by a Black 5 when everything else was a DMU by then.

[Tallpaul69]

I realised that it is a while since I posted any photos from Bradenham, so here goes with a few, explaining things like the running of the Black5 and the mock ups for the platforms:-

Firstly, here are a couple of my Black5 approaching platform 1:-

 

 

and a closeup of the cab:-

 

 

Here is the station buildings end of the up platform (its footprint shown by grey card), with the end of the bay at the extreme right:- 

 

 

Here is a better view of the bay:-

 

 

 

Followed by the middle, where the width is not meant to change in the middle of the photo! :-

 

 

And finally the up end (the shape of this is not quite right yet!).

 

 

Tomorrow I will have some more shots showing how I am thinking about the cattle dock, which will be on the far side of the bay platform track!

Cheers for now

Paul

 

[Tallpaul69]

Good Evening All,

Promises, promises, I don't know, you just can't be sure how things will turn out!

 

So my intention to post some more photos of the up bay area yesterday, proved too optimistic, as I decided that the photos were not up to scratch, prompting me to take some more today:-

 

So the original photos of the up platform/bay did not take account of the need for a cattle dock opposite the bay. This turned out to be a little tricky. I wanted a cattle dock that would hold at least two cattle eagons, but on the other hand I didn't want it so long that it dominated the bay platform and could only be used full length when there was no passenger or parcels traffic for the bay. 

 

My first photo shows the bay with a ruler alongside and two wagons beyond to give an idea of length:-.

 

 

The next photo moves to the right and shows the right hand end of the right hand wagon in the previous shot and on the right the left hand end of an AEC railcar against the bay. It looks like the cattle dock could be longer.......

 

 

However, in the next shot when we place the two wagons on the bay line, we see that  to fit in a third cattle wagon, the railcar needs to move to the right:-

 

 

If we look back to the last shot in my previous posting, we see that there is just about room for a second bogie vehicle  at the bay platform behind the railcar.

So if we move the railcar to the right, we can only gt one vehicle at the bay platform when there are three cattle wagons at the dock.

 

Thus if I want to have two coach trains at the bay , the cattle wagons can only number two!

 

In my next posting (Tomorrow?-who knows!), I will look at the other end of the up platform, thinking about where the ramp might sit, and how potentially to block the sharpness of the curve of the up line approaching the station.

 

Cheers for now,

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Good Evening everyone,

Well, I have, today, managed to  progress the planning of Bradenham's up platform, and take some photos to show you.

 

The first shot shows where the approach ramp will sit. The control box on its side level with the front of the class 33 marks the start of the ramp, and its top end will be where the card marking the start of the platform proper starts.

 

 

The next shot moves back along the up main to show a possible position of a building to block the view of the curve of the line when viewed from the station. The class 33 and the control box at the left of the previous shot are in the foreground of this shot. The shop being used as a marker for the view blocker, is just a marker, as I have yet to decide what building to use for this purpose.

 

 

The next shot shows the same location as the previous shot but viewed from the down main side of the railway. The space between the building and the edge of the platform will be the station approach. So my next action will be to mock up this area before making any final decisions about the location, size etc. of any of the elements of the station approach.

 

 

In the background of this shot you can just see the end of one of the yard sidings. I have yet to finalise the use of this siding. It could be the coal siding, or the holding siding for a coach set that will overnight at Bradenham.

 

So, onwards and upwards, more on this story soon!

 

Best regards

Paul 

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Good Afternoon everyone,

Today's horrible weather has kept  me from the railway room, so no more today on the platform 2 mock up.

 

So instead, some signalling research.

I was aiming this week to finalise the signals so that I could tie things up with Stephen Freeman, and get the signals under way.

 

Looking at Bradenham in the flesh, so to speak, I had realised that the up platform and bay starter signals were too near to where I proposed a 4 arm junction signal.

This would have covered Yard starter, up main starter, the cross to the down main to proceed via an advanced starter wrong road along the down main to reach Wycombe End, and lastly a calling on arm for the crossing to the down main for shunting, and running round.  

 

I decided I wanted to abolish this signal apart from the Yard starter, and move the junction arms to the platform starters. But this meant that both platform signals would have to provide 3 way routing. On the face of it this would mean a forest of six arms at the platform end. I wondered about using a theatre indicator on the bay to reduce the arms there to one. 

So out with the signalling books!

Fortunately the second book I looked at was G.A. Pryer's charts of signals in the Weymouth to Frome line, and there at Frome was a similar situation:- A main line and a bay that both needed signals for three routes. And there was a 1935 dated chart showing a three way theatre indicator for the bay and a three arm junction signal for the main.

So that is what I am going for. It may be that  GW&GC practice produced something different, although High Wycombe had a theatre indicator for its bay alongside the down platform, in admittedly a slightly different configuration!

 

I am pleased with this solution, as it cleans up the area around the up to down crossover. The theatre indicator  will be non operating as its operating face will not be visible from the operator position.

 

I think I will stop now, while I am winning, so hoping you all are having success with your modelling,

Cheers for now,

Paul  

[5BarVT]

56 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Today's horrible weather has kept  me from the railway room,

I’m fortunate, horrible weather allows me to stay in the railway room!

57 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Fortunately the second book I looked at was G.A. Pryer's charts of signals in the Weymouth to Frome line, and there at Frome was a similar situation:- A main line and a bay that both needed signals for three routes. And there was a 1935 dated chart showing a three way theatre indicator for the bay and a three arm junction signal for the main.

Are you sure it was a theatre indicator (i.e. electric lamp array) back in 1930?  More likely to be a mechanical indicator (known in the trade as a Cash Register).  That approach was used elsewhere too e.g. Wolverhampton South (two routes) where the indicator was later changed for WR stencil indicators.  If you want a working indicator, electric is probably best using what would now be called a miniature indicator - Orange filter in the box for WR.

Paul.

[Stephen Freeman]

Definitely cash register, are we sure it still isn't?

 

[Tallpaul69]

40 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Definitely cash register, are we sure it still isn't?

 

Sorry guys,

I hadn't felt the need to get into the technicalities of the different forms of indicator, largely because the one I am thinking of including in Bradenham, will not be operational as it will only be visible from the rear!

 

I am relying on Stephen to provide the correct item for the early 1960s semaphores and if different, as appropriate, for the later era colour light signals set!

 

It seems to me that the safest version for the 1960s is going to be the same as whatever was on the one for High Wycombe bay then, rather than Frome, Wolverhampton, or anywhere else there was one, outside of the GW&GC area?

I will dig out any photos I have of that one and see what it looks like.

 

Thanks to all for their comments,

 

Cheers

Paul

[5BarVT]

Sorry Paul, I had run away with the term Theatre.  If we just stick to Route Indicator, I’m fairly sure that the one at HW will have been the same style as both Frome and Wolverhampton.

I’ve just gone back to your June 8 post with the signalling diagram and noticed a problem (which was in your words, I just didn’t realise).

A route indicator can cut down on the number of main arms or calling on arms but can’t combine both.  So coming out of the bay would need main, calling on and indicator (albeit possibly on one doll on the bracket).  The easiest way to simplify what would still be a big structure is to omit the calling on from the bay - I assume that any move onto a train already on the Down would come from the Up, not the Bay.

Paul.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

the one I am thinking of including in Bradenham, will not be operational as it will only be visible from the rear!

A friend has built working cash registers in 7mm scale but I don't think I've ever seen one in 4mm.

[Tallpaul69]

20 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Sorry Paul, I had run away with the term Theatre.  If we just stick to Route Indicator, I’m fairly sure that the one at HW will have been the same style as both Frome and Wolverhampton.

I’ve just gone back to your June 8 post with the signalling diagram and noticed a problem (which was in your words, I just didn’t realise).

A route indicator can cut down on the number of main arms or calling on arms but can’t combine both.  So coming out of the bay would need main, calling on and indicator (albeit possibly on one doll on the bracket).  The easiest way to simplify what would still be a big structure is to omit the calling on from the bay - I assume that any move onto a train already on the Down would come from the Up, not the Bay.

Paul.

Thanks Paul,

Stephen has now reacted to this and sent me new semaphore and colour light diagrams, which i will review tomorrow and report back.

Cheers

Paul 

[Tallpaul69]

Good Evening Folks,

I thought it might be useful to post the c1935 signal diagram for Frome, which pointed me in the direction of a "route indicator" for Bradenham up bay. This is an extract from the Frome South Diagram in Volume 4 of G.A.Pryer's Signal Box Diagrams of the Great Western and Southern Railways:-

 

 

The Frome unit was put in after the branch to Mells Road was singled and the first part of the old up branch became a siding, (for the branch set?).  So the three routes on the indicator where branch siding, branch and main. Interestingly, this signal did not have a shunt ahead arm, as Stephen and Paul(5BarVT) have suggested is needed for Bradenham Bay.

Maybe Frome didn't have any shunting moves from the bay except to the Branch siding?

 

Any thoughts on this welcome?

 

Cheers

Paul  

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Maybe Frome didn't have any shunting moves from the bay except to the Branch siding?

Almost certainly not.

The Branch signals are electrically released by token out.

The Main is track circuited so signals will prove the line clear.

At Frome on the down there is a siding loop so no need to shunt on the main, on the up there is a headshunt so probably no need, but the signals are discs so it could be done.

 

On your layout, because of restricted space, you are having to do something quite unusual on the Down.  Thinking on my feet (and wanting The Stationmaster to look over this before saying it is a good idea), if the way you are using the Down in Up direction were instead a Goods Line/Loop I think all you would need would be a short arm signal and the sectional appendix would show the driver that the line was permissive and he needed to assume there might be a train in section.  So I'm wondering if the Down Line in the Up direction could be deemed Goods only.  That would allow the same approach as at Frome where the Main signal to the siding is a short arm and the Branch/Main are full size arms, yet out of the bay all three use the same main arm and three RI.

 

What that would give for the Bracket is Left Doll Full size arm with 3 RI, Middle Doll Full size arm to UM, RH doll short arm to DM (Up Direction).

 

Or just do it like that anyway and if anyone doesn't like it ask them to explain exactly why it is wrong!!!

 

Paul.

[Tallpaul69]

At this point it might be worth restating the use of the Down Main in the Up direction at Bradenham:-.

 

This whole thing started with me, having decided I had no room to model High Wycombe, wanting to mimic the South Yard to North Yard trips at High Wycombe as High Wycombe to Bradenham trips with a subsidiary trip back to Wycombe End, which has a trailing connection into the down main (only) south of Bradenham.

Why not service WE on the outward trip from HW you ask?

Answer- because there are also wagons dropped of off south bound freights at Bradenham for onward trip to WE (including wagon repairs for the wagon workshop!).

Also, remember the aim of the railway in developing Bradenham as a freight terminal was to relieve pressure on HW, it was not desirable to take the south bound wagons for WE south to HW and then trip them north to WE.

Clear?

 

A further twist on this situation is a thought to run workman's trains from Bradenham to and from WE!

 

So looking at 5BarVT's suggestion for the Up platform end signals, assuming he has amalgamated the Up bay signal as the first dolly in a bracket, which I would make a signal on its own again (partly to simplify construction for Stephen!), I think I would go for it. I didn't like the complication of additional shunt arms below the main arms on the two dollys.

 

My only query, is how does is the driver who is at the up main platfprm and is going to run round his train via the down main, distinguished from a train at the up main that is going to move to go along the down main in the up direction. Is the fact that in the first instance the down line up starter would be against him sufficient?

 

Thoughts?

Cheers

Paul

[5BarVT]

4 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

My only query, is how does is the driver who is at the up main platfprm and is going to run round his train via the down main, distinguished from a train at the up main that is going to move to go along the down main in the up direction. Is the fact that in the first instance the down line up starter would be against him sufficient?

Just been discussing that very thing on the Sheffield Exchange thread!

LM(S)R (and their influence in ScR) were quite happy to have a signal saying go out to come back separate to the main signal.  Other railways were happy to say section is clear and expect the driver to know what move he is making.  (After the first ‘excuse me driver, you have caused me a great deal of trouble by going too far’ he would be more careful next time!)

4 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

A further twist on this situation is a thought to run workman's trains from Bradenham to and from WE!

Which would require passenger signalling (wouldn’t fit with my suggestion earlier of a short arm).  But if you are happy (as you seem to be) to do away with the call-on arm then it all falls into place: straight post with 2 way RI in the bay, standard RH bracket for the Up Main.

Easier construction for Stephen, would be a little different and look quite nice.

 

Paul.

[Tallpaul69]

17 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Just been discussing that very thing on the Sheffield Exchange thread!

LM(S)R (and their influence in ScR) were quite happy to have a signal saying go out to come back separate to the main signal.  Other railways were happy to say section is clear and expect the driver to know what move he is making.  (After the first ‘excuse me driver, you have caused me a great deal of trouble by going too far’ he would be more careful next time!)

Which would require passenger signalling (wouldn’t fit with my suggestion earlier of a short arm).  But if you are happy (as you seem to be) to do away with the call-on arm then it all falls into place: straight post with 2 way RI in the bay, standard RH bracket for the Up Main.

Easier construction for Stephen, would be a little different and look quite nice.

 

Paul.

Stephen Freeman has suggested the use of discs instead of short arms, but he is not sure, and neither am I when discs came in instead of short arms?

 

While I am happy with the cleaner look of the signals without short arms, I also want the signals to reflect the moves I want to replicate. So, I would think of performing the main manoeuvres as follows:-

 

If the main line has a straightforward right bracket starter, and a train halted at the up main has to drop or pick up traffic from the bay, is it correct to lower the up main signal, move the loco and anything detached from the main train forward past the up bay point,then return the up main signal,  alter the bay entrance point, incline the bay entrance disc, and move the loco plus attachments into the bay. Then the return would be the reverse of the above, except perhaps for the movement forward from the bay being controlled by the bay starter and its route indicator (3 routes:- up main, down main, and shunt?). In all this the up main would be protected by the up home and up advanced starter, both at stop.

 

Similarly, if the train was dropping or picking up from the yard , the process would be as above, except the loco and attachments would move past the yard entrance point, before that point and its associated disc were reset, and the start of the return movement would be controlled by the yard starter.

 

With regard to any moves to the down main, these would be controlled by the right hand arm on the up main starter, and then the down line up starter, if proceeding to WE; or the right hand arm on the up main starter, and then the down main home, with the down line up starter at stop, if reversing on the down main to do a run round of a train in the up platform.    

 

I assume that each time it came to a halt the loco would give a short whistle when the driver wanted the signals and points reset to allow the next stage of the manoeuvre?

 

Incidentally, we are almost back to the Frome setup, except for the loss of one short arm!

 

What have i missed out? Comments appreciated!,

cheers

Paul

 

 

[5BarVT]

48 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

If the main line has a straightforward right bracket starter, and a train halted at the up main has to drop or pick up traffic from the bay, is it correct to lower the up main signal, move the loco and anything detached from the main train forward past the up bay point,then return the up main signal,  alter the bay entrance point, incline the bay entrance disc, and move the loco plus attachments into the bay. Then the return would be the reverse of the above, except perhaps for the movement forward from the bay being controlled by the bay starter and its route indicator (3 routes:- up main, down main, and shunt?). In all this the up main would be protected by the up home and up advanced starter, both at stop.

 

Similarly, if the train was dropping or picking up from the yard , the process would be as above, except the loco and attachments would move past the yard entrance point, before that point and its associated disc were reset, and the start of the return movement would be controlled by the yard starter.

 

With regard to any moves to the down main, these would be controlled by the right hand arm on the up main starter, and then the down line up starter, if proceeding to WE; or the right hand arm on the up main starter, and then the down main home, with the down line up starter at stop, if reversing on the down main to do a run round of a train in the up platform.

Yes (operationally), Yes and Yes.

 

53 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

(3 routes:- up main, down main, and shunt?).

Only two routes Up Main and Down Main as with the Up Main bracket.

 

56 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Stephen Freeman has suggested the use of discs instead of short arms, but he is not sure, and neither am I when discs came in instead of short arms?

Need The Stationmaster to answer that one. :-) 

 

Paul.

[Tallpaul69]

Good afternoon one and All,

Latest update on the Up signals is that, for the moment, I am proceeding with the no short arms or discs approach to the Up main and bay starters, which Stephen will produce last of my batch of semaphores, so giving chance for me to undertake further investigations and change my mind if necessary!

 

One further complication I have found this afternoon is that the alignment  of the up starters may well be such that the front of the signals is more visible from the viewing position than i thought, as illustrated below.

In the attached photos the signal positions are suggested by the two upturned small screws. The end of the platform slope is suggested by the grey cardboard:-

 

 

The first photo is viewed from the operating position. Here the face of the signals would be more or less in my line of sight, so the faces of the signals particularly route indicators or discs would not be visible

 

The second photo is viewed from a position one person to the left. Here the faces of the signals would be visible, so non operating route indicators or discs would be more apparent.

 

However, as the layout is for my own/family consumption, and is never going to be exhibited, or on public view, I think I can still live with this situation, particularly if the only non working item is the Route Indicator for the bay, because discs have been omitted. Obviously, if i changed to short arms, these would operate, and so would not be a problem.

 

Incidentally, the two locos to the left of the photos are my Bachmann 94xx tank nearest the camera, and my Oxford Dean Goods. Both these run very well, with excellent (to me!) chuffs and other sound effects.  

 

Keep on modelling folks!

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Good Day Folks,

For a change(!), today I just ran some trains. I spent some time running my G2 49064, starting with a train in the yard, running round the up line tender first, which I particularly like because of its tender cab.

 

This loco has excellent sound, and running it always reminds me (ironically) of youthful trainspotting trips to Leighton Buzzard, where the sub shed to Bletchley had a couple of G2s for freight on the Dunstable branch. It particularly reminds me of one of these locos slaving up the incline off the Dunstable branch with a load of chalk from Totternhoe Quarry.  

There were 8Fs also on these trains but I always preferred the G2s. Tomorrow I might unpack my 8F and see how that compares.

 

The G2 is also one of the few Freight engines I know for certain I have rode behind on a passenger train. This was a South Beds Locomotive Club special from Luton Bute Street to Banbury Merton Street, so of course we went up the incline mentioned above.

 

I think however, my most memorable moment from that trip was, on the return trip, sitting in the train, in darkness, on Bletchley avoiding viaduct while the G2 ran round the train. A location that few passenger trains used, and very few stopped on! 

It was quite sad the other week on a visit to Bletchley to see a lot of the old viaduct structure being demolished to be rebuilt for the new East-West rail link .

 

Cheers for now

Happy Modelling!

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Well folks,

The idea of giving my 8F a run on Bradenham, has not progressed, mainly because the reality of only being a week away from our family holiday in Cornwall has struck home!

So, in the last couple of days there have been several Zoom meetings between our three families sorting out details of travel, food, and activities from next Friday's departure. 

Also Covid has had unexpected influences on our preparations, such as in today's on line meet we realised that there are still limits on the number of items that can be ordered in on line shops, so that we will have to have two deliveries at the beginning of the holiday instead of our usual one. The implications then being we have to decide what we must have when we get there and what can be delivered a couple of days later! 

 

Now tonight there is a load of details about places to eat that my daughter in law as circulated to be read, as we will need to make bookings soon, rather than our usual practice of deciding we want a meal out no more than a day or so beforehand.

 

On the modelling front, I have managed to sort out some more rolling stock as up to now Bradenham has decidedly more locos and units in use than coaches or wagons.  Moving forward there are two passenger rakes, two unit sets, four single units, and two goods rakes in use although there are still a good dozen light engines clogging up the sidings and fiddle yard loops.

 

I will try to post a couple of updates between now and Friday, but I expect the modelling to be severely limited.

Best regards

Paul