Jump to content

great northern

Peterborough North

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, great northern said:

Right, formation of the 6.40 Grantham stopper. I have the official formation, and five days recordings from the HMRS Journal. All of those differ, and none of them bear much relationship to what the official book says.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1455748831_7rake1.JPG.d7d62a9a1ff6387678e1904afa4bbae9.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1471342058_8rake2.JPG.16d54ecc79fce08d0aade8abaa3452b0.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1277712553_9rake3.JPG.8065cb697a2e225c6b4114c5ea9ece21.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/847902453_10rake4.JPG.572fc59b3c4a1854a77705e2c0c2b81d.JPG

The van at the front is shown as a service van for Doncaster. That isn't shown on the official formation, though a BZ is. The book then says BG BSK 3TSO BCK BG. That 3TSO core didn't actually appear on any day of the survey. The stock was on a 48 hour circuit, so it was either SO CK CK, or SK SK CK. I chose the former, but I can't see why there should be two CKs. Was there a mistake or a typo in the survey? Anyway, what I've done is what allegedly appeared on Wed 9th July 1958.

 

I suppose it also shows that I needn't get too fixated with compliance with the official records.

 

While Sandwich was simmering away at Platform 6, the 0800 Leeds ran through on the main, yet another KX A4 in charge.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1118558553_11321.JPG.6c73e6bc565e9f7b223b0e514e8a8202.JPG

It's interesting regarding 'fixation' with official Records, Gilbert.

 

I think (I know) your research is more diligent than mine, because I haven't even attempted to replicate every train which ran through Little Bytham on a summer's day in August 1958. 

 

Like you, I've used BR's own documents for making-up the trains I've represented. I've also cross-referenced those documents, where I can, with prototype photographs. In many, many cases, the 'reality' doesn't match up with the 'ideal' Indeed, in some cases, it seems miles away. 

 

I've just been captioning some pictures for BRILL, taken at Durham in the late-'50s. For that period, the BR 'official' make up of the 'Morning Talisman'/'Fair Maid' has all Mk.1s in the set. Yet, the catering cars in the prototype picture are Thompsons. The 'official' listing for 'The Elizabethan' has Thompson PV stock for the main body of the train, but there, in the actual picture, is a standard Thompson TK. 

 

There at least two trains I can't identify (it's not a summer Saturday), and another has several ex-LMS strengtheners in its consist, none of which will appear in the BR document. 

 

Unfortunately (as always) I can't find the picture right now, but it's of a V2 (yes, a V2) on a Grantham-Peterborough all-stations stopper, at Essendine, in the mid-'50s. The stock is a complete mixture of antiquities (some non-gangwayed), with what could be a brand new Mk.1 at the rear. None of my documents has a Mk.1 in any of those humble trains. 

 

I'm much more of the opinion now of using actual photographs to decide on the trains I build. It actually happened, a one-off or not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's interesting regarding 'fixation' with official Records, Gilbert.

 

I think (I know) your research is more diligent than mine, because I haven't even attempted to replicate every train which ran through Little Bytham on a summer's day in August 1958. 

 

Like you, I've used BR's own documents for making-up the trains I've represented. I've also cross-referenced those documents, where I can, with prototype photographs. In many, many cases, the 'reality' doesn't match up with the 'ideal' Indeed, in some cases, it seems miles away. 

 

I've just been captioning some pictures for BRILL, taken at Durham in the late-'50s. For that period, the BR 'official' make up of the 'Morning Talisman'/'Fair Maid' has all Mk.1s in the set. Yet, the catering cars in the prototype picture are Thompsons. The 'official' listing for 'The Elizabethan' has Thompson PV stock for the main body of the train, but there, in the actual picture, is a standard Thompson TK. 

 

There at least two trains I can't identify (it's not a summer Saturday), and another has several ex-LMS strengtheners in its consist, none of which will appear in the BR document. 

 

Unfortunately (as always) I can't find the picture right now, but it's of a V2 (yes, a V2) on a Grantham-Peterborough all-stations stopper, at Essendine, in the mid-'50s. The stock is a complete mixture of antiquities (some non-gangwayed), with what could be a brand new Mk.1 at the rear. None of my documents has a Mk.1 in any of those humble trains. 

 

I'm much more of the opinion now of using actual photographs to decide on the trains I build. It actually happened, a one-off or not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

This does get interesting, if one likes that sort of rather esoteric discussion. My summer 1958 book shows the Fair Maid to have a non MK1 RU in the formation. I've had a look at Banks/Carter, where it is stated that this was " a Thompson RF downgraded without modification". I know that there are mistakes in that book too, but that does seem to confirm what the official records say. The MK1 RFO also gets a mention as having attracted complaint for poor riding, so perhaps authority gave way and replaced it with a much more comfortable LNER car.

 

Until the Fair Maid came into existence, I think both Morning and afternoon Talisman worked both ways in a day, so that could account for two Thompson catering cars, but of course there would also be the ex Coronation twin first in the formation too. Banks/Carter does mention occasional use of a Gresley RF, or a RSP instead of a dining SO, presumably in place of failures or cars in works. Would that account for the ordinary Thompson second in the Elizabethan too?

 

My knowledge of events as far North as Durham is somewhat sketchy, but didn't ex LMS stock appear in the inter regional trains which originated from Leeds and beyond to Manchester and Liverpool?  Having said that I have a photo somewhere of an A4 with all LMS stock just south of Peterborough, captioned 1960, which looks right to me.

 

I've mentioned the 9.47am Up Newcastle before, which had very different formations depending on the day of the week. Catering on Monday was RF SO (not Mk1), on Tuesday FO RK, again not MK1, Wednesday and Friday FO and RK, but the remaining formation differed, and on Thursday, a triplet set!

 

There were some significant changes from 1957 to 1958, which I've had to be wary of, as well. As to those Peterborough-Grantham locals, yes, I've seen quite a lot of photos of delightfully ancient stock on those, but all of them are early to mid 50s, and sadly a lot of that stock was gone by 1958.

 

All of which shows how much scope there is for different interpretations!

  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, great northern said:

Some trains ran today, and a small lighting experiment took place too. More thought is needed, and as I still have backscenes on my mind as well, there is a danger of overload.

 

Shall we have a look at a resting Sandwich?

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1143510592_1239stppoed.JPG.dca2c22f07a6e2a70d742c577228717f.JPG

I do like this view. The stationary Sandwich is being passed by a coasting Gannet.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/49594576_12a322.JPG.8b55f9336f51c678ea06f324402c391b.JPG

 

 

Good job it wasn't Seagull or the sandwich would've disappeared.

  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Good job it wasn't Seagull or the sandwich would've disappeared.

I know some gannets where the same would apply.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, great northern said:

I do love these photos from Spital Bridge. So lifelike from what was my normal viewing position. Thanks for doing the acrobatics necessary to take them.

 

Lloyd

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2019 at 22:25, great northern said:

I was thinking more of the track bed Clive. The last time I looked, there was almost no trace anywhere.

Hi

 

If you mean the track bed of the Mablethorpe loop from Louth then there is quite a bit still visible between Louth and Mablethorpe. Part of the track bed between Louth (Stewton Lane) and Grimoldby was being looked at as a cycle path between the two unfortunately nothing came of the plans.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Hi Gilbert et al,

 

Latest report from the S&T department who have been beavering away in their glacial-like manner...

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/DSC07742.JPG.3019f72d02127ac64af91d323b8082f2.JPG https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/DSC08138.JPG.281678ec8b17bd5a734270955c2ed29f.JPG

Last report was ... er ... probably more than a few pages ago so I can't be sure that I haven't posted the left hand photo before; no matter, this is the point at which I've made the signal arms and some crank supports added. Right hand - now with paint, and spectacle plates fitted. Not readily apparent, but some light weathering has been applied. I'm delighted to report that this was done using the Dave Shakespeare airbrush that you kindly facilitated me acquiring. It was the first time I've used it for such work so it was I was pleased to be able to use it for such a task.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/DSC08274.JPG.725b5c25a052eade2da332ae0881c2d7.JPG

And this is where we're up to currently, taken within the last hour. As you can see, all the cranks and linkages are now connected up to impart motion to the arms on the offset posts - and it all works, despite some challenging clearances. Phew!

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/WP_20180319_12_14_15_Pro.jpg.66746318f4cde2b5bb76701dc5ec4c98.jpg

You are - understandably - careful not to focus too much on the existing signal that mine is due to replace but I hope you don't mind me posting my reference image so as folks can see why the replacement is being constructed.

 

Hopefully not too much longer now (!) I always feel that boost of motivation once the finishing line is in sight and I think the new signal is at that stage now. In other positive news, I have now had a set of etches made for the brackets for the other two similar signals so that should speed up their construction once the first one is installed.

 

Graham

 

Oh that is lovely Graham!  Really good news, as I'm getting tired of trying to keep the poor twisted thing out of shot at the moment. Sometimes it can't be avoided, and then I shudder when I see it, as in the image I've just put up tonight. Well worth waiting for, and I'm grateful to you for fitting it in at all when you have so much else on. The last bit of news is very welcome too. Things will be transformed when all of them are in place. Of course, that will then show up all the others.......

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, great northern said:

More sucking my stomach in than acrobatics now Lloyd. As it happens, there is one more of these in the file, so here it is.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/403948947_16sameagain.JPG.9339c248bc714d3f9c21daa91de67691.JPG

I'm still trying to get the angle seen on some of the prototype  shots from the bridge, but the outside wall of the room gets in my way.

I know a man with a big hammer...

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, great northern said:

And so some silly person thought that if we could get up really high, we might get an idea of the full length of the 9F's train. A little levitation later, this was the result.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1568044985_49Fhigh.JPG.9faaa88ee4723c80dea6f688c97c18d5.JPG

 

It does give an idea, though some of the mineral wagons are still in the fiddle yard, but it is not sensible to try to photoshop this, so after some swearing, we came back to earth,and a tried and trusted view.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_08/163188591_59Flow.JPG.d37bf933c08ecdd1c8bfc318d6c7fc05.JPG

I agree with you, Gilbert, about the angle compared to protoype photos. The parapet on Spital Bridge was quite high on both sides from the road, and extended all the way down to the junction on the East (Up) side, and so the only spot for a photo without a ladder was at the end of the parapets where the fence started on the West (Down) side of the line. This was just beyond the Midland lines/sidings. I can imagine having difficulties getting into that position without demolition - and the dust from that would be unthinkable!

 

I always thought that the weight sank (sagged?) down as you got older, and that you got shorter. When I go to pick up something off the floor, though, it seams further away than ever.

 

Many thanks again, Gilbert, for all your work and acrobatics to give us such magnificent prompts to reminisce.

 

Lloyd

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

I agree with you, Gilbert, about the angle compared to protoype photos. The parapet on Spital Bridge was quite high on both sides from the road, and extended all the way down to the junction on the East (Up) side, and so the only spot for a photo without a ladder was at the end of the parapets where the fence started on the West (Down) side of the line. This was just beyond the Midland lines/sidings. I can imagine having difficulties getting into that position without demolition - and the dust from that would be unthinkable!

 

I always thought that the weight sank (sagged?) down as you got older, and that you got shorter. When I go to pick up something off the floor, though, it seams further away than ever.

 

Many thanks again, Gilbert, for all your work and acrobatics to give us such magnificent prompts to reminisce.

 

Lloyd

Many thanks Lloyd. I' ve never succeeded in working out  exactly where photographers were standing though it was clear that they all seemed to be in the same place. Though I've visited a couple of times since starting the project, I've never ventured onto Spital Bridge myself. Now I know what can't be done, so I can stop worrying about it!

 

As to access, I've just measured the space between baseboard edge and wall, which is eleven and a half inches. I shall now take the view that, though it is a tight fit, I'm doing quite well if I can get in there at all. It is also a powerful disincentive to putting on any more excess weight, which must be a good thing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbert, have I lost my orientation or was there a double-sided buffer stop more or less where the 58' GN carriage is standing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

Gilbert, have I lost my orientation or was there a double-sided buffer stop more or less where the 58' GN carriage is standing?

There was Jonathan, and it is on the "to do" list. Here it is.

 

 

1849013133_closeupengineersyard001.jpg.9566c0428fd98710b167c6ecfc5a73bc.jpg

 

Peter and I have looked at it several times, and always decided to defer it until later. An intereasting scratchbuilding project?

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B17s, always beautiful no matter what the angle!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially compared to a Flirt (or whatever they are called)

 

Stewart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.