Jump to content

great northern

Peterborough North

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, great northern said:

Right, after all that where have I got to? No, that was yesterday, wasn't it? A quick look in Photo Gallery reveals that it is time for another A3.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/1299987330_5461.JPG.a7dad820595a4597210658d0f6a058a2.JPG

This is Diamond Jubilee with the 7.50 Up Leeds.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/1725689877_6462.JPG.ba696b723709338b52516d3c705c3d52.JPG

Gilbert,

 

I like the look look of a Diamond Jubilee with her 1935 streamlined tender. I assume it’s a Hornby conversion? I have just bought the plates for the same loco from Modelmaster and I’m planning how to create her. Have Hornby produced a suitable donor or did you use an A4 tender with another A3? 

 

Also, her condition looks ‘under loved ‘ - not very dirty, but certainly not glossy. I have no doubt knowing your zeal that you have a picture on which that is based.  I believe she was a Doncaster engine in your period - were they generally like that?

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Gilbert,

 

I like the look look of a Diamond Jubilee with her 1935 streamlined tender. I assume it’s a Hornby conversion? I have just bought the plates for the same loco from Modelmaster and I’m planning how to create her. Have Hornby produced a suitable donor or did you use an A4 tender with another A3? 

 

Also, her condition looks ‘under loved ‘ - not very dirty, but certainly not glossy. I have no doubt knowing your zeal that you have a picture on which that is based.  I believe she was a Doncaster engine in your period - were they generally like that?

 

Andy

This was one that John Houlden did getting on ten years ago Andy, so the details aren't totally clear in my mind. I do remember that we had to source a correct tender, as, apart from numerous Flying Scotsmen, Hornby hadn't done this combination. I think we may have done a swap, but I'm not sure.

 

Doncaster didn't seem to do much cleaning, so in general terms mine would be about right, but she was only ex works with double chimney on 8th August 58, so even Doncaster would have had a job to get here in this state so quickly. She's on the list for Tim to work some magic on her, but quite a way down. I'm more careful now than I was back then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoA is such a beautiful thing all glossed up like that.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trw1089 said:

CoA is such a beautiful thing all glossed up like that.

How good is Commonwealth of Australia!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the last two photographs of 60012 but surely she isn;t going to make Waverley with such a low level of coal ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CUTLER2579 said:

Love the last two photographs of 60012 but surely she isn;t going to make Waverley with such a low level of coal ? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png

There's more in there than you might think Derek, and she is just ex works, and has a very thrifty Scottish driver and fireman.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'll pick some more coal up in the troughs, rarely photographed, north of Doncaster...……...

 

Stewart

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

She'll pick some more coal up in the troughs, rarely photographed, north of Doncaster...……...

 

Stewart

Or from the prototype, and never photographed, flying coaling stage which was briefly trialled in the late 50s. It was designed to hover above the tender, and disgorge its contents therein. Bridges turned out to be an insuperable problem though.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Funny 6

Share this post


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

Or from the prototype, and never photographed, flying coaling stage which was briefly trialled in the late 50s. It was designed to hover above the tender, and disgorge its contents therein. Bridges turned out to be an insuperable problem though.

Gilbert

 

I always wondered what a Hovercraft was really for! Though that was more early/mid sixties from memory.

 

Lloyd

Share this post


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

Or from the prototype, and never photographed, flying coaling stage which was briefly trialled in the late 50s. It was designed to hover above the tender, and disgorge its contents therein. Bridges turned out to be an insuperable problem though.

Isn’t that Gresleys experimental tender  ?  In the corridor between the first coach and loco cab there was a special hatch leading to the bunker, and there were specially built hoppers carried in the guards compartment to refuel mid trip. It ran into trouble with the unions though as the NUM complained it was their job to move coal in the hoppers . A strike was narrowly averted when a substantial bonus payment persuaded all concerned that money was more important than principles.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I enjoy all photos on this thread and have done since I began following you. Keep em coming.

 

Martyn

Edited by mullie
Bloomin spell check!
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Still up in the air, our second man gets one more view of 60012. When it came to photoshopping it though, he didn't think much of it, so he didn't do any. As he is so regularly out of tune with visitors to the thread though, it is reproduced in the raw, as it were.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/928636609_3123.JPG.25c74cdcc34086301d2da7111c9b32aa.JPG

There is no such problem though when pointing the camera at a clean Compound bringing in the Birmingham-Ely.

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/961381854_41157.JPG.7754cfc68daa3ffd44406e62c73b471e.JPG

 

I think it is because the loco is nowhere near the centre of the image that I'm not happy with this view. Swinging the camera further to the right though just reveals an expanse of nothing.

Perhaps if the loco were just an inch to the left so it isn't obscured by the lamp post it might work? The camera position looks fine, with the signal and lamp post balancing each other.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Perhaps if the loco were just an inch to the left so it isn't obscured by the lamp post it might work? The camera position looks fine, with the signal and lamp post balancing each other.

The text somehow got out of position there, and I didn't notice. It was meant to refer to the A4 image.  The Compound shot is just another instance of my not taking my time to check everything before taking the photo.  I think the size of the veiewfinder and the state of my vision may have something to do with it as well though.

 

In fairness, there is so much clutter up that end that if I move something slightly to avoid one problem, all that happens is that another one is created.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbert - In my opinion, the railway paraphernalia all adds to the air of authenticity, and in any event, it was there, and it often did get in the way, so as far as I'm concerned, it can get in the way - it's the quality of the modelling, and the stunning accuracy of it that keeps us all coming back for more.  I only follow a few layouts on here - in fact, two - yours and Waverley West.

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off I went to run trains and take photos. All went smoothly until suddenly I got a short circuit on the station board. Checked around, no stock bridging two sections, which is usually the cause, and no other obvious reasons to be seen, so I started checking for possible faulty points. I found loads of unresponsive ones, including on the other electrical sections, which were not affected by the short. Why should that be?  Well, in the end I remembered that way back when we wired the whole thing we decided to give each section readily identifiable sections. Thus section 1 has points 1-34, section 2 51-73, and section 3 101 to 118. So, what was likely to happen  if I checked numbers 35 to 50 for example?  Well, nothing, and as they don't exist, that is hardly surprising.:banghead: Eventually, I cottoned on to this, and instead started removing stock one by one to see if I suddenly had an offending vehicle. Apparently not.

 

As far as I could see or recall, nothing had happened to cause the sudden change, so I came back down and gave my head a rest. Half an hour later, ready once more for the fray, back I went, to find...... no short circuit.:O I have absolutely no idea why, so I've given up for the day. Any suggestions gratefully received.

  • Friendly/supportive 2

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.