Wright writes.....

[FarrMan]

51 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Yeah - dang-dang-dang is much closer.

 

I remember lying in bed at my grandmother's house - Greenfield, near Oldham - and listening to what seemed to be an endless parade of Austerity-hauled trains running over the viaduct in the middle of the village.

 

What a lullaby!

 

John Isherwood.

Ah - memories of long ago. My lying in bed accompaniment was to the sounds emanating from Peterborough North, probably about 1/4 mile away as the crow flies, and as there was a road heading in the direction of the station about opposite my bedroom, the crow would not have many obstacles to get over! My lullaby was A3's, A4's, B1's, etc., plus all the Midland side shunting.

 

Lloyd

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

 

There's no doubting that there's less variety today than even 30 years ago, never mind 60. But surely less variety means you can model a location much more accurately? How many locos, coaches or wagons have you had to miss off the timetables because they don't exist RTR or as a kit as there simply isn't enough time in the day to scratch build them?

 

Current trains still offer the same modelling challenge. Compare a rake of 1950s box vans to a modern day freightliner service. Outwardly both look like a string of identical boxes on wheels but look closer and you'll see a variety of wagons of differing lengths, heights and designs. No less interesting I feel.

 

As for the demolition of historic buildings - yes it's sad when it happens but not everything can find a new use. Some times progress is good - ask anyone who grew up with an outside toilet! I'm sure the likes of Brunel and the Stephenson's weren't worried about knocking down a few old buildings to make way for their "modern image".

 

Steven B.

'How many locos, coaches or wagons have you had to miss off the timetables because they don't exist RTR or as a kit as there simply isn't enough time in the day to scratch build them?'

 

Assuming that question is asked of me, the answer is none. 

 

Granted, that doesn't mean I have every variety of coaches or wagons, (I have every loco type one would have seen at LB in 1958), but what's missing are the really rare ones, at least with regard to coaching stock; and, with over 250 wagons, most types are represented. 

 

'look like a string of identical boxes on wheels'

 

 I'm not sure I agree with that.....

 

 

 

 

In fact, I definitely don't.

 

Obviously, I don't have a model picture of a modern Freightliner train, but I'd be surprised (indeed, astonished) if it displayed as much variety as these......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[ROY@34F]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

... more like dang   dang    dang  .... (fades) ... roughly a musical 3rd or 4th between the dang and the . Jeez what a conversation... I hope I'm not going senile!

 

It's no good. I've tried 3 or 4 edits but the auto spell check just won't do the WD sound. (there should be a '' after every 'dang' but it just cuts it out. 

 

OK it must be a prohibited word - try 'bang bong    bang bong   bang bong'  but with a 'd' in front of 'ang' and 'ong' instead of a 'b'.

Some of them were terribly rough Clem . I've been on them on the iron ore trains and some main line goods . I believe they were only lightly and cheaply built to last a few years for the war effort weren't they  ? other people on here will know the ins and outs of the engineering of them no doubt . But they certainly felt like they were falling to bits sometimes .

 

Roy .

[jacko]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Obviously, I don't have a model picture of a modern Freightliner train, but I'd be surprised (indeed, astonished) if it displayed as much variety as these......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to go along with that statement Tony.  I regularly get stuck at the Cleghorn crossing north of Carnwath on the WCML and apart from empty flatbeds, I couldn't tell the difference between any of the containers passing by apart from logos.  

 

Graeme

 

 

[APOLLO]

Riddles designed the WD's (Dub Dee's we called them) as a throw away locomotive to get us through the war - trouble is they were better built and lasted far longer than he thought. I read somewhere they had first class injectors though. I remember the clinkety clonk metallic sounds they made - never saw one run faster than 20 odd miles per hour. Wigan was "riddled" with them, so filthy you could hardly read their numbers. They started to disappear from Springs Branch mid 60's - many went "up the branch" to Central Wagon - never to return, as poor old 90416 here.  (Last shed Aintree.) The B1 is 61041, withdrawn from New England.

 

 

Last one I saw working clanking through Manchester Victoria early 1967. God knows her number. Luverly Manchester weather !!!

 

 

One working arse first past  Springs Branch on coal empties, taking the LNWR Tyldesley line. Early 60's.

 

 

A useful WD site (or any BR steam loco)

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&type=S&id=528&page=fleet

 

Poor old Dub Dee's - South Yorkshiremen called them "Mexborough Pacifics" , Wigan men called them something else !!

 

Brit15

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by APOLLO

[Clem]

38 minutes ago, ROY@34F said:

Some of them were terribly rough Clem . I've been on them on the iron ore trains and some main line goods . I believe they were only lightly and cheaply built to last a few years for the war effort weren't they  ? other people on here will know the ins and outs of the engineering of them no doubt . But they certainly felt like they were falling to bits sometimes .

 

Roy .

Evening Roy. Yes it's interesting to compare the WDs with the tinies. Generally, I believe tinies were often preferred by Colwick men to WDs on the iron ore trains to Stanton in spite of the extra power of the austerity. But to their credit, the WDs did put in an incredible amount of work all over the country in those post war years and, being a fairly large cog in 1950s motive power, an absolute must for a layout representing an ex-GN coal carrying line.

 

It's funny, but from the point of view of an enthusiast as opposed to someone on the business end, I have quite a liking for them. Having said that, I still prefer a tiny! Obviously Grantham had the O2s, which for some reason never seemed to travel west of Colwick. Did you work on them, Roy?

[grahame]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

''look like a string of identical boxes on wheels'

 

 I'm not sure I agree with that.....

 

 

In fact, I definitely don't.

 

Obviously, I don't have a model picture of a modern Freightliner train, but I'd be surprised (indeed, astonished) if it displayed as much variety as these......

 

 

Surely the hobby isn't a competition about what individuals consider to be the most interesting era with the most variety and declaring that is the only period worth modelling. However, that's the impression I'm getting from many posts recently.

 

If people have an interest and affection for a period and location then they will find variety, personal nuances and worthwhile modelling content in it. And they will often fail to 'see' any variety and interest in other genres and periods. That is borne out by many of the dismissive comments of anything 'modern'. But it doesn't mean that there isn't variety and excitement in other eras. Nor does it diminish them as worthwhile modelling periods and genres. That in itself brings variety to the hobby and helps promote a wider interest to the public. 

 

I'm afraid that to me those train loads of mainly brown box vans do look rather samey and lacking variety (rather like, as previously mentioned, many GWR steam locos) and you do tend to see a lot of them on a lot of layouts. It's probably in the same way some people can't see variety in 'modern' freight trains, and, consequently, I'd rather see a more modern freight train or even better some EMUs. However, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the modelling or understand that some people find great interest in other eras. Nor does it prevent me getting some enjoyment from observing it.

 

 

 

 

[johndon]

2 hours ago, Steven B said:

As for the demolition of historic buildings - yes it's sad when it happens but not everything can find a new use. Some times progress is good - ask anyone who grew up with an outside toilet! I'm sure the likes of Brunel and the Stephenson's weren't worried about knocking down a few old buildings to make way for their "modern image".

 

No worries at all, the East Coast Main Line for example, was built straight through the historic Norman castle in Newcastle...

[Theakerr]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

CLONK - CLONK - CLONK .........

 

Worn big end bearings?

 

John Isherwood.

The WDs had such a distinctive sound so it amazes me that I don't think I have heard a single sound equipped WD that had the correct sound. 

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Theakerr said:

The WDs had such a distinctive sound so it amazes me that I don't think I have heard a single sound equipped WD that had the correct sound. 

 

The restored one is probably too well maintained to give the sound recorders a good "clank" to capture but there must be some on old recordings.

[Jim Martin]

2 hours ago, jacko said:

 

I'd have to go along with that statement Tony.  I regularly get stuck at the Cleghorn crossing north of Carnwath on the WCML and apart from empty flatbeds, I couldn't tell the difference between any of the containers passing by apart from logos.  

 

Graeme

 

 

 

With respect, though, isn't that because you don't know what you're looking at, or where the differences are?

 

I don't know how many different diagrams were issued for 16-ton mineral wagons, but I know that it was more than a couple (and I have read the Modeller's Backtrack article cited by someone recently). To most observers, they all look the same: that's just a fact, with the possible exception of the SNCF type and the ones with the sloping sides. The variety resides in features which are either superficial - livery and weathering - or in details not readily apparent to a casual observer: axleboxes, brakes, buffers, welded or riveted body and so on. You might know where to look to see that variety on a 16-tonner or an early BR-era van, but most people - probably even most enthusiasts - don't.

 

Exactly the same is true of containers. I'm guessing that you neither know nor care what the range of options for fork pockets are, how to tell whether a container is ventilated or not, or even if it's ribbed or corrugated side (roughly the equivalent of whether a van has planked or plywood sides in terms of its obviousness as a starting point, for people who do know the difference). That's absolutely fine: none of this is a measure of anyone's worth, after all; and in any case, you're definitely on the side of the majority. I'd just ask that you (not just you: people generally) keep in mind that "these things are all the same" and "these things look the same to me, because I don't know how to tell them apart" aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

Little Bytham's a lovely layout, by the way. I particularly like the goods trains. I like most freight stock.

 

Jim

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Surely the hobby isn't a competition about what individuals consider to be the most interesting era with the most variety and declaring that is the only period worth modelling. However, that's the impression I'm getting from many posts recently.

 

If people have an interest and affection for a period and location then they will find variety, personal nuances and worthwhile modelling content in it. And they will often fail to 'see' any variety and interest in other genres and periods. That is borne out by many of the dismissive comments of anything 'modern'. But it doesn't mean that there isn't variety and excitement in other eras. Nor does it diminish them as worthwhile modelling periods and genres. That in itself brings variety to the hobby and helps promote a wider interest to the public. 

 

I'm afraid that to me those train loads of mainly brown box vans do look rather samey and lacking variety (rather like, as previously mentioned, many GWR steam locos) and you do tend to see a lot of them on a lot of layouts. It's probably in the same way some people can't see variety in 'modern' freight trains, and, consequently, I'd rather see a more modern freight train or even better some EMUs. However, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the modelling or understand that some people find great interest in other eras. Nor does it prevent me getting some enjoyment from observing it.

 

 

 

 

Who ever said it was a competition?

 

It's nothing of the sort.

 

It's a simple matter of fact, not opinion, not prejudice, nothing to do with preference and, to me, blindingly-obvious. 

 

If one goes back 60 years, there was much more variety in terms of locomotives and rolling stock (and just about everything else) on our home railways than there is today. Why is it so difficult for some to grasp that fact? 

 

Because there was much greater variety, that is why I (personally) find it more interesting, especially since I saw that variety. I'm not claiming it's better, just more interesting, to me. I've never claimed anything else. 

 

'I'm afraid that to me those train loads of mainly brown box vans do look rather samey and lacking variety'.  

 

I'm sure that's the case in your view (which I respect), but I bet out of a train of 50-odd 'mainly brown box vans', there were probably 30 different types. Is there any contemporary freight train which has 30 different wagons in it? 

 

In October 1965, my brother and I took a trip from Retford to York to photograph the remaining steam on 50A. Before our train arrived, I took a picture of a Deltic passing through non-stop with an Up express (which has been published). Just as interesting (at least to me) in the picture was the variety of 'mainly brown box vans' in the adjacent sidings (yes, sidings, of which there were several), along with other vehicles. Not only that there were surviving GNR somersault signals controlling those sidings. The main line was controlled by a forest of upper-quadrant semaphores, themselves controlled by a delightful GNR signal box. The whole picture oozed variety.

 

Assuming one could take a picture today from the same viewpoint (impossible because of track realignment), where would be the variety? There aren't any sidings now to park any wagons on (perhaps one?), and any passing passenger train would be a fixed formation (the Deltic's train was far more mixed). As for a mixture of upper-quadrant and somersault signals - well, there is one, at right angles to the tracks, in a chip shop car park! Oh, I forget - the last time I passed through Retford (in October last year), there was a single yellow wagon parked in what used to be the truncated access road to 36E (GN). Surely it cannot be denied that 55 years ago there was much greater variety to be seen on our railways? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, johndon said:

 

No worries at all, the East Coast Main Line for example, was built straight through the historic Norman castle in Newcastle...

And Berwick......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[john new]

27 minutes ago, Jim Martin said:

 

With respect, though, isn't that because you don't know what you're looking at, or where the differences are?

 

I don't know how many different diagrams were issued for 16-ton mineral wagons, but I know that it was more than a couple (and I have read the Modeller's Backtrack article cited by someone recently). To most observers, they all look the same: that's just a fact, with the possible exception of the SNCF type and the ones with the sloping sides. The variety resides in features which are either superficial - livery and weathering - or in details not readily apparent to a casual observer: axleboxes, brakes, buffers, welded or riveted body and so on. You might know where to look to see that variety on a 16-tonner or an early BR-era van, but most people - probably even most enthusiasts - don't.

 

Exactly the same is true of containers. I'm guessing that you neither know nor care what the range of options for fork pockets are, how to tell whether a container is ventilated or not, or even if it's ribbed or corrugated side (roughly the equivalent of whether a van has planked or plywood sides in terms of its obviousness as a starting point, for people who do know the difference). That's absolutely fine: none of this is a measure of anyone's worth, after all; and in any case, you're definitely on the side of the majority. I'd just ask that you (not just you: people generally) keep in mind that "these things are all the same" and "these things look the same to me, because I don't know how to tell them apart" aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

Little Bytham's a lovely layout, by the way. I particularly like the goods trains. I like most freight stock.

 

Jim

 

I agree it is about observation, but as Jim says you have to know what to look for. The one often quoted is with the Fed-Ex logo, do you see or not see the embedded arrow? Once you know it is there you can't un-see it if you get my drift. 

 

As to how much "wrongness" you can then tolerate in the models you possess, even when you have noticed the dimensional inaccuracy or detail error, is an individual choice that starts, at least in 4mm modelling with the choice of gauge.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by john new
To make better sense.

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Who ever said it was a competition?

 

It's nothing of the sort.

 

It's a simple matter of fact, not opinion, not prejudice, nothing to do with preference and, to me, blindingly-obvious. 

 

If one goes back 60 years, there was much more variety in terms of locomotives and rolling stock (and just about everything else) on our home railways than there is today. Why is it so difficult for some to grasp that fact? 

 

Because there was much greater variety, that is why I (personally) find it more interesting, especially since I saw that variety. I'm not claiming it's better, just more interesting, to me. I've never claimed anything else. 

 

'I'm afraid that to me those train loads of mainly brown box vans do look rather samey and lacking variety'.  

 

I'm sure that's the case in your view (which I respect), but I bet out of a train of 50-odd 'mainly brown box vans', there were probably 30 different types. Is there any contemporary freight train which has 30 different wagons in it? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

You are totally correct, and there isn't a viable stance to the contrary.

 

Looked at from any perspective; origins of motive power; designers of motive power; ditto rollings stock; ditto age of rolling stock; ....... etc., etc., .....

 

I don't dismiss those who enthuse over today's railways at all; it's just that they can have no concept of the variety and difference in character of all aspects of Britains railways back in the times that we remember.

 

.... and today's railway scene is the blander for it.

 

John Isherwood.

[Mike 84C]

The WD 2-10-0 at the North Norfolk makes all the right noises, could be louder but its a WD and well looked after. Unlike 99% of those BR owned.

[grahame]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Who ever said it was a competition?

 

It's nothing of the sort.

 

It's a simple matter of fact, not opinion, not prejudice, nothing to do with preference and, to me, blindingly-obvious. 

 

 

 

I didn't say anyone said it was a competition but that's the impression I'm getting from some posts. I'm glad you don't think it is.

 

However, of course, the alternative view regarding what is of interest and has most variety is blindingly obvious to me. AFAIC it does have a lot to do with preference and what people choose to 'see' or know and care about (as Jim has indicated).

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by grahame

[robmcg]

6 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

You are totally correct, and there isn't a viable stance to the contrary.

 

Looked at from any perspective; origins of motive power; designers of motive power; ditto rollings stock; ditto age of rolling stock; ....... etc., etc., .....

 

I don't dismiss those who enthuse over today's railways at all; it's just that they can have no concept of the variety and difference in character of all aspects of Britains railways back in the times that we remember.

 

.... and today's railway scene is the blander for it.

 

John Isherwood.

 

Not only that but intercity travel was fast and comfortable in 1930....  probably more comfortable than today.

 

You tell that to young people today and they won't believe you.

 

'Queen of Scots', Ivatt C1 'Large Atlantic', King's Cross-Leeds-Edinburgh, probably didn't have headboard north of Leeds but hey, it's only a 'chocolate box' or 'cigarette card' picture. Edited. Bachmann RTR engine Hornby RTR carriages, (well, a photo edited and based on such models). Will remove if it offends.

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by robmcg
correction

[grahame]

18 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't dismiss those who enthuse over today's railways at all; it's just that they can have no concept of the variety and difference in character of all aspects of Britains railways back in the times that we remember.

 

 

It's rather presumptuous to claim that people who enthuse over todays railways can have no concept of the variety in the past. I certainly well remember some of the steam era and didn't find it very characterful. And there are other older enthusiasts who remember a longer period but choose to model the D&E scene.

 

 

 

[Jim Martin]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

You are totally correct, and there isn't a viable stance to the contrary.

 

Looked at from any perspective; origins of motive power; designers of motive power; ditto rollings stock; ditto age of rolling stock; ....... etc., etc., .....

 

I don't dismiss those who enthuse over today's railways at all; it's just that they can have no concept of the variety and difference in character of all aspects of Britains railways back in the times that we remember.

 

.... and today's railway scene is the blander for it.

 

John Isherwood.

 

I wouldn't dispute that there was more variety on the railway in the past, for all the reasons you mention; but I'd question whether someone whose stance is "a box is a box is a box" is ideally equipped to judge exactly how much variety there is now. As I discussed in my earlier post, maybe there's more variety than you realise but you can't see it.

 

Jim

[jrg1]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Who ever said it was a competition?

 

It's nothing of the sort.

 

It's a simple matter of fact, not opinion, not prejudice, nothing to do with preference and, to me, blindingly-obvious. 

 

If one goes back 60 years, there was much more variety in terms of locomotives and rolling stock (and just about everything else) on our home railways than there is today. Why is it so difficult for some to grasp that fact? 

 

Because there was much greater variety, that is why I (personally) find it more interesting, especially since I saw that variety. I'm not claiming it's better, just more interesting, to me. I've never claimed anything else. 

 

'I'm afraid that to me those train loads of mainly brown box vans do look rather samey and lacking variety'.  

 

I'm sure that's the case in your view (which I respect), but I bet out of a train of 50-odd 'mainly brown box vans', there were probably 30 different types. Is there any contemporary freight train which has 30 different wagons in it? 

 

In October 1965, my brother and I took a trip from Retford to York to photograph the remaining steam on 50A. Before our train arrived, I took a picture of a Deltic passing through non-stop with an Up express (which has been published). Just as interesting (at least to me) in the picture was the variety of 'mainly brown box vans' in the adjacent sidings (yes, sidings, of which there were several), along with other vehicles. Not only that there were surviving GNR somersault signals controlling those sidings. The main line was controlled by a forest of upper-quadrant semaphores, themselves controlled by a delightful GNR signal box. The whole picture oozed variety.

 

Assuming one could take a picture today from the same viewpoint (impossible because of track realignment), where would be the variety? There aren't any sidings now to park any wagons on (perhaps one?), and any passing passenger train would be a fixed formation (the Deltic's train was far more mixed). As for a mixture of upper-quadrant and somersault signals - well, there is one, at right angles to the tracks, in a chip shop car park! Oh, I forget - the last time I passed through Retford (in October last year), there was a single yellow wagon parked in what used to be the truncated access road to 36E (GN). Surely it cannot be denied that 55 years ago there was much greater variety to be seen on our railways? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Spalding is a prime example for me.  Comparing what was a major steam era railway centre to the pared-down characterless country station today is just depressing.  

[jrg1]

8 hours ago, Northmoor said:

HMG are complicit in this of course.  Considerately refurbish the interesting or even listed building for a new purpose and you have to pay VAT on all the work, because it is classed as repairs.  Demolish it and replace it with identikit flats, houses or offices and because the development work is new build, it's exempt from VAT. 

Euston Arch?

[jrg1]

8 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I suppose a chassis assembled under wartime conditions had rather a lot of 'play'; slop in the bearings would be needed to compensate for this.

 

John Isherwood.

The WDs were developed as a quick build using the Stanier 8F as a basis-around 12K hours versus 18-20K manhours to build during the war.  Every effort was made to cut down construction time, such as wheels without separate tyres, cast driving wheels unbalanced, and round top firebox.  After the war, they were upgraded and improved.  

I remember the long mineral trains at the bottom of the street being opened up for the climb from Stamp End to Market Rasen, and the WDs lurching from side to side with the crew hanging on-rough riders indeed, but sadly missed.

 

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

There was a story told by  guy who worked at Wakefield shed that they oncd set out to stop a WD clanking. All the bearings were renewed and machined to close tolerances. One problem emerged. It wouldn't pull. So the besrings were machined to the normal tolerances and it clanked but pulled well.

 

Jamie

Same thing with some wagons. If you followed the drawings the axle bearings would run hot after about 50 miles. The chap at Eastleigh who fitted bearings for about 30 years knew all about this. It was when he retired and someone else took over who did the job as directed that the rest of us found out.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, APOLLO said:

One working arse first past

Strange how the Word Police are OK with that word but not with d0ng.