Wright writes.....

[FarrMan]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyway, what more appropriate an A4 to have running on LB than MALLARD? Especially as this sign is only a couple of miles away..................

 

 

Tony

 

I passed this point quite often in the early 60's and have no memory of this sign being there. Do you have any idea when it was erected?

 

Lloyd

[MJI]

I will admit to a Triang 4472 I started detailing in the 80s with under boiler daylight, started modding the tender to the 1970s/80s version then it get left.

 

Does require new name plates.

 

Will be like a few of my steam locos, preserved mainliners, used to see more mainline steam than say 37s on passenger, but mainly SVR or Tyseley stuff.

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I rejoice in being a snob, and rejoice even more in having MALLARD on Little Bytham.

 

[johndon]

28 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

I passed this point quite often in the early 60's and have no memory of this sign being there. Do you have any idea when it was erected?

 

29 July 1998 according to the Gresley Society: https://www.gresley.org/sir-nigel/memorials/#:~:text=The plaque was unveiled by Sir Martin Wedgwood%2C,traction%2C at 126 mph. The record still stands.

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by johndon

[davidw]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Having '22' on LB is entirely appropriate given the history. But you must admit that the disproportionate number of Mallards 'flying' around is a little tedious.

 

After looking at some photos which David W of this parish kindly sent me, I think Seagull's tender was slightly different to 34's as on 33 the cut down side faring was carried all the way along rather than just to the rear of the coal division plate. 

 

Either way I have a problem with the Wills tender as the corridor tunnel seems too high to cut the faring back (see photo). Did you have this problem or did SE Finecast change the castings?

Andy

 

Andy, when I started thinking of a cut down tender not only was 33 and 34 different. But irrespective of tender type, each and every one was slightly different. The cut downs however, are quite noticeable. Strange that Hornby should do 60029 as the first model produced with a 1928 exchanges tender when there were many others to choose from.

[Barry Ten]

Here's where I've got to with my LSWR corridor coaches:

 

 

Still a fair bit to be done in terms of final detailing and decals. but (even though I mean  to build an additional brake) I felt that I needed the reward of seeing them running on the the layout, or else motivation would stall. The coaches were airbrushed in Railmatch malachite and I'm now awaiting a delivery of HMRS transfers so I can add the sunshine lettering. These must have looked fantastic in the immediate post-war years.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, FarrMan said:

Tony

 

I passed this point quite often in the early 60's and have no memory of this sign being there. Do you have any idea when it was erected?

 

Lloyd

Lloyd,

 

Some time early this century, I think.

 

From another post, late in the last...................

 

Tony. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Having '22' on LB is entirely appropriate given the history. But you must admit that the disproportionate number of Mallards 'flying' around is a little tedious.

 

After looking at some photos which David W of this parish kindly sent me, I think Seagull's tender was slightly different to 34's as on 33 the cut down side faring was carried all the way along rather than just to the rear of the coal division plate. 

 

Either way I have a problem with the Wills tender as the corridor tunnel seems too high to cut the faring back (see photo). Did you have this problem or did SE Finecast change the castings?

Andy

Good afternoon Andy,

 

I don't think you've fitted it correctly. It should be flat on the top, not raised up towards the outer edge.

 

Though I can't remember now, I probably had to file a bit off the tunnel top's bottom (if that makes sense).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, davidw said:

 

Andy, when I started thinking of a cut down tender not only was 33 and 34 different. But irrespective of tender type, each and every one was slightly different. The cut downs however, are quite noticeable. Strange that Hornby should do 60029 as the first model produced with a 1928 exchanges tender when there were many others to choose from.

Good afternoon David,

 

I believe 60029's tender was the one towed by MALLARD in the '48 Exchanges. 

 

 

From this low angle, the cut-down to the tender's rear is only just visible, though it's there. 

 

WOODCOCK reverses on to Grantham's triangle for turning in the summer of 1960. 

 

Note the sludge tender (though it still seems to have coal in it), still showing its pre-1948 ownership...............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[davidw]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon David,

 

I believe 60029's tender was the one towed by MALLARD in the '48 Exchanges. 

 

 

From this low angle, the cut-down to the tender's rear is only just visible, though it's there. 

 

WOODCOCK reverses on to Grantham's triangle for turning in the summer of 1960. 

 

Note the sludge tender, still showing its pre-1948 ownership...............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony - I think the photo's in your Locomotives up close and a colour is in a colour portfolio. I have yet to run 60029. Currently I'm putting together attic boards.

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, davidw said:

 

Thanks Tony - I think the photo's in your Locomotives up close and a colour is in a colour portfolio. I have yet to run 60029. Currently I'm putting together attic boards.

Thanks David,

 

The picture is in one of my books (though it's not taken by me - aged 14, I don't think I'd have been able to take such a fine shot). 

 

As such, it's subject to copyright restrictions, which I hope all will respect. 

 

It would appear that Andy (The Green Howards) doesn't think that the SEF A4 is as good (in terms of appearance) as the Hornby equivalent. Granted, there are issues with it, but, to me, it captures the 'bulk' of an A4 very well. The biggest difference is, of course, below the body, where the Hornby version is very weak, particularly with regard to the motion. How many A4s had slidebars which were (substantially) higher at the rear end than at the front? 

 

Though the Hornby A4 is good, give me a kit-built one every time in preference.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Clem]

Good afternoon.

 

I have a question.. Particularly for Robert (robertcwp) or Andrew (Headstock) regarding CWNs. Do we know how accurately these notices were carried out? I ask because I've been checking one or two against photographs of known trains (time, origin and destination) on known dates and whilst the flavour of the CWN is pretty close, the detail i.e. what carriages used seems to have differed a little in quite a few. One for instance is a Nottingham-Derby Friargate train, the 12-45pm from Nottingham on June 29th (Tuesday) 1954 (see photo below from the excellent book Steam in the East Midlands and Lincolnshire by Roderick Fowlkes) . The CWN states:  BT(4), CL(3-4), BT(4)  - 3 vehs but the photo is clearly BT(5), Twin - CL(2-5)-BT(6). In others the CWN states 3 vehicles but the photo clearly shows 4 or 5 vehicles albeit it looks like the correct or something close to correct, plus 'strengtheners'. The most common discrepency seems to be the number of compartments on the BTs in one case it is 3 when 5 is stipulated, but you get the idea. Any thoughts?

 

(BTW thanks for the PDFs Robert)

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

I don't think you've fitted it correctly. It should be flat on the top, not raised up towards the outer edge.

 

Though I can't remember now, I probably had to file a bit off the tunnel top's bottom (if that makes sense).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I rather feared that might be the case - Looks like I have some disassembly to do!

[robertcwp]

8 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good afternoon.

 

I have a question.. Particularly for Robert (robertcwp) or Andrew (Headstock) regarding CWNs. Do we know how accurately these notices were carried out? I ask because I've been checking one or two against photographs of known trains (time, origin and destination) on known dates and whilst the flavour of the CWN is pretty close, the detail i.e. what carriages used seems to have differed a little in quite a few. One for instance is a Nottingham-Derby Friargate train, the 12-45pm from Nottingham on June 29th (Tuesday) 1954 (see photo below from the excellent book Steam in the East Midlands and Lincolnshire by Roderick Fowlkes) . The CWN states:  BT(4), CL(3-4), BT(4)  - 3 vehs but the photo is clearly BT(5), Twin - CL(2-5)-BT(6). In others the CWN states 3 vehicles but the photo clearly shows 4 or 5 vehicles albeit it looks like the correct or something close to correct, plus 'strengtheners'. The most common discrepency seems to be the number of compartments on the BTs in one case it is 3 when 5 is stipulated, but you get the idea. Any thoughts?

 

(BTW thanks for the PDFs Robert)

 

 

 

I think your opening sentences sum it up well. They provide a flavour but not a definitive position. The most common variations seem to be in the exact carriage types. There were amendments during the course of timetables - I have some LMR and WR ones that are festooned with amendments. New stock was being introduced all the time, old stock withdrawn and stock in between moved from one service to another. Sometimes it took a while for the books to catch up. I have looked more at principal expresses than local services and what I have found there is that things on the whole are a pretty close match. Variations include, for example, Thompson stock replacing Gresley or BR Standard stock being introduced, as well as what appear to be strengthening carriages at busy times. Lots of photos were taken on Saturdays, when things were often different.

 

At least with the major expresses, I am getting to the stage where the carriage workings often tell me the photo caption is wrong. This is especially true of East Coast Pullmans in the diesel era but also of other services. I was looking at a book of Eric Treacy photos the other day. He was notorious for not writing down dates or trains. One photo was captioned as the morning King's Cross-Glasgow train - a quick comparison to carriage workings indicated it was much more likely to be the Norseman.

 

Caption writers are often caught out by headboards too. I have lost count of the number of Saturday trains captioned as being the Elizabethan because the engine has the headboard when they clearly are not of that train (which did not run on Saturdays after a date I now forget in the early 1950s). The Saturday 'Bristolian' hauled by a King is another one. 

[thegreenhowards]

56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks David,

 

The picture is in one of my books (though it's not taken by me - aged 14, I don't think I'd have been able to take such a fine shot). 

 

As such, it's subject to copyright restrictions, which I hope all will respect. 

 

It would appear that Andy (The Green Howards) doesn't think that the SEF A4 is as good (in terms of appearance) as the Hornby equivalent. Granted, there are issues with it, but, to me, it captures the 'bulk' of an A4 very well. The biggest difference is, of course, below the body, where the Hornby version is very weak, particularly with regard to the motion. How many A4s had slidebars which were (substantially) higher at the rear end than at the front? 

 

Though the Hornby A4 is good, give me a kit-built one every time in preference.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

It was the Wills A4 that I was commenting on. I don’t know if SEF have redone any of the castings.
 

Don’t get me wrong, I like the kit but the fit of the castings was poor, so it took a lot of filling and filing and the fine detail is much better on the Hornby one. I also think the nose looks a bit squat compared to the Hornby one.

 

Andy

[Iain.d]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's where I've got to with my LSWR corridor coaches:

 

 

Still a fair bit to be done in terms of final detailing and decals. but (even though I mean  to build an additional brake) I felt that I needed the reward of seeing them running on the the layout, or else motivation would stall. The coaches were airbrushed in Railmatch malachite and I'm now awaiting a delivery of HMRS transfers so I can add the sunshine lettering. These must have looked fantastic in the immediate post-war years.

 

Al

 

They look great Al, thank you for showing us. In fact, I've been waiting to see if/when you'd post them!

 

Any chance of some closer images?

 

How does the Railmatch Malachite compare to the Humbrol Matt 101 you previously mentioned? I've bought a couple of tinlets; it seems dull compared to your photo.

 

My coaches are close to being finished also. If time allows I'll try and take some photos tomorrow and post them.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Barry Ten]

8 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

 

They look great Al, thank you for showing us. In fact, I've been waiting to see if/when you'd post them!

 

Any chance of some closer images?

 

How does the Railmatch Malachite compare to the Humbrol Matt 101 you previously mentioned? I've bought a couple of tinlets; it seems dull compared to your photo.

 

My coaches are close to being finished also. If time allows I'll try and take some photos tomorrow and post them.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Thanks, Iain. Yes, I will certainly endeavour to take some closer images. I took some yesterday but they were underexposed, so mean to have another go.

 

Although I've used the Railmatch malachite before, I was a little surprised at how vibrant a green this appears, especially next to the more restrained olive of the E1. I think the choice of undercoat may have a big influence, as these were sprayed over Halford's matt white whereas in the past I might have painted malachite over a base coat of green. However, I did build up several layers so the green should be nice and opaque. Layout lighting will have a role to play as well (that E1 looks almost umber in this shot) and the eye will read the green differently once the roofs are painted.

 

I think I'm right in saying that there are two shades of malachite used by the Southern, pre and post-war? The Railmatch just gives one option. I notice that Hornby's rendition on a CCT is somewhat bluer in hue, but I personally find their usual malachite to be rather too dull and dark for my taste.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Good afternoon.

 

I have a question.. Particularly for Robert (robertcwp) or Andrew (Headstock) regarding CWNs. Do we know how accurately these notices were carried out? I ask because I've been checking one or two against photographs of known trains (time, origin and destination) on known dates and whilst the flavour of the CWN is pretty close, the detail i.e. what carriages used seems to have differed a little in quite a few. One for instance is a Nottingham-Derby Friargate train, the 12-45pm from Nottingham on June 29th (Tuesday) 1954 (see photo below from the excellent book Steam in the East Midlands and Lincolnshire by Roderick Fowlkes) . The CWN states:  BT(4), CL(3-4), BT(4)  - 3 vehs but the photo is clearly BT(5), Twin - CL(2-5)-BT(6). In others the CWN states 3 vehicles but the photo clearly shows 4 or 5 vehicles albeit it looks like the correct or something close to correct, plus 'strengtheners'. The most common discrepency seems to be the number of compartments on the BTs in one case it is 3 when 5 is stipulated, but you get the idea. Any thoughts?

 

(BTW thanks for the PDFs Robert)

 

 

 

 

 

Afternoon Clem,

 

Robert is right, captions are inherently less accurate than either photographs or CWN's. Even accepting the caption is correct, one photograph alone may not indicate anything about the accuracy of a particular CWN's. This is especially true on local services, that were more prone to short term replacement of an entire set, as opposed to an individual carriage in a formation. It could be a one off set, a stand in for a failure. If more than one or two sets was involved in the working, the others deployed could match the CWN's perfectly. All sets had to be cleaned at some period. New Basford for example, maintained spare sets for all these occurrences, they didn't always match the services in the CWN's that they were deployed too. It is also worth checking the CWN's either side of the one you are using. That may tell you if there has been a change in the deployment of sets yet to be recorded in your CWN's. Sometimes they can be ahead of or behind reality.

 

My own experience, of my own section of the GC and its workings leads me to conclude that BT (5) were very common in most sets in the late forties and early fifties. BT (4) seem to become more numeriouse around 54 and go on to the most common type, first around Nottingham and then elsewhere. It may be that this is reflected in the photo.

 

I've just checked the CWN's, the set in the photo doesn't match any of the Derby workings for 54, it being a twin 210 and BT (5). I've seen these sets working before though. The 54 CWN's probably doesn't reflect events on the ground, a little project for you to find out more about.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[micklner]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

It was the Wills A4 that I was commenting on. I don’t know if SEF have redone any of the castings.
 

Don’t get me wrong, I like the kit but the fit of the castings was poor, so it took a lot of filling and filing and the fine detail is much better on the Hornby one. I also think the nose looks a bit squat compared to the Hornby one.

 

Andy

SE Finecast A4 and W1 Body are both poor compared to the Hornby A4 and I expect the awaited W1 , the only plus point if you need it is the weight, both of mine were sold on. There is plenty of room in a Hornby A4 for lead, if needed.

 

The Tender(s) are a very overweight juggernaut with again poor detail. The Hornby current version(s) while not perfect are light years ahead. IMHO .

Edited August 5, 2020 by micklner
Kitmaker added

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

It was the Wills A4 that I was commenting on. I don’t know if SEF have redone any of the castings.
 

Don’t get me wrong, I like the kit but the fit of the castings was poor, so it took a lot of filling and filing and the fine detail is much better on the Hornby one. I also think the nose looks a bit squat compared to the Hornby one.

 

Andy

Sorry Andy,

 

I should have been more specific.

 

If it's the Wills one, were the many body castings in four pieces? The SEF version is certainly superior in that it's only in two main pieces. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, micklner said:

A4 and W1 Body are both poor compared to the Hornby A4 and I expect the awaited W1 , the only plus point if you need it is the weight, both of mine were sold on. There is plenty of room in a Hornby A4 for lead, if needed.

 

The Tender(s) are a very overweight juggernaut with again poor detail. The Hornby current version(s) while not perfect are light years ahead. IMHO .

Thanks Mick,

 

I'm nor denying that the Hornby A4 bodyshell is excellent (the best RTR A4 in that respect, ever), though SE Finecast A4s can be knocked-up into something acceptable. 

 

You mention the weight, which, in the case of the cast metal loco is certainly an advantage. However, it's not just the lack of weight (in comparison) which militates against the Hornby A4 in my opinion; it's the motion. It's really puny, is incorrect in proportion and as for those upward-pointing slidebars; well............

 

I know it's been said before, but (for my particular needs) RTR ECML big steam-outline locos are just not powerful enough, even with extra ballast.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[thegreenhowards]

15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Sorry Andy,

 

I should have been more specific.

 

If it's the Wills one, were the many body castings in four pieces? The SEF version is certainly superior in that it's only in two main pieces. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes, four main pieces. And the fit of the nose and the circular dome cover (?) on the top was very poor.

[Clem]

44 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Robert is right, captions are inherently less accurate than either photographs or CWN's.

By experience of a lot of books and their captions, that rings true. However, Roderick Fowkes seems to be pretty on the ball for most if not all captions in that book with many of his captions indicating the time and date of the train - and they seem close enough to be acceptable. I suppose having a layout which is ficticious, albeit to the character of a prototype, I could get away with doing what I wanted, but somehow running to a timetable with the stock totally plausible from the CWNs is how I would like to go. I'm still trying to get hold of freight working timetables for the period, although on the coal side I think many ran as required depending on requests from the individual collieries through control.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Good afternoon.

 

I have a question.. Particularly for Robert (robertcwp) or Andrew (Headstock) regarding CWNs. Do we know how accurately these notices were carried out? I ask because I've been checking one or two against photographs of known trains (time, origin and destination) on known dates and whilst the flavour of the CWN is pretty close, the detail i.e. what carriages used seems to have differed a little in quite a few. One for instance is a Nottingham-Derby Friargate train, the 12-45pm from Nottingham on June 29th (Tuesday) 1954 (see photo below from the excellent book Steam in the East Midlands and Lincolnshire by Roderick Fowlkes) . The CWN states:  BT(4), CL(3-4), BT(4)  - 3 vehs but the photo is clearly BT(5), Twin - CL(2-5)-BT(6). In others the CWN states 3 vehicles but the photo clearly shows 4 or 5 vehicles albeit it looks like the correct or something close to correct, plus 'strengtheners'. The most common discrepency seems to be the number of compartments on the BTs in one case it is 3 when 5 is stipulated, but you get the idea. Any thoughts?

 

(BTW thanks for the PDFs Robert)

 

 

 

 

There are definitely two sets involved in the workings though and the 12.57 pm off Derby to Grantham is a set with 210 twins.

[Headstock]

27 minutes ago, Clem said:

By experience of a lot of books and their captions, that rings true. However, Roderick Fowkes seems to be pretty on the ball for most if not all captions in that book with many of his captions indicating the time and date of the train - and they seem close enough to be acceptable. I suppose having a layout which is ficticious, albeit to the character of a prototype, I could get away with doing what I wanted, but somehow running to a timetable with the stock totally plausible from the CWNs is how I would like to go. I'm still trying to get hold of freight working timetables for the period, although on the coal side I think many ran as required depending on requests from the individual collieries through control.

 

A minor flutter with the research indicates that Fowkes is right, I haven't got time to check it all out. You need more photographs and a look at latter CWN's I would not be surprised if the set in the photo is there, If not, the caption is BS. I'm certain there are more photographs of this combo, I have some but I'm not clear on dates.

 

P.S. The ex GC BT (7) upthread, is part of the 4.05 pm Nottingham Grantham service, returning at 6.11 pm.

 

I'm sure that we have freight WT's, I'm not certain if it covers your bit, I will ask. I can only comment on the runners as regards coal wagons, there was no room for additional trains, the whole system operated on the number of wagons required. A Northbound empties would leave Woodford with its final destination unknown. It would be redirected on route to whateverer colliery was asking for ex amount of wagons.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Headstock
add info