Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clem, you've only just started on the CWN's and formations malarkey, it's a vast subject and a bit like digging for Dinosaurs, in that nobody has a complete picture of everything. The advantage you have in modeling your area and I with my overlapping one, is that we are dealing with a much smaller carriage fleet than the East coast mainline for example, so you can be much more specific across a range of trains. It gets somewhat more complicated the more years you try and take on board. You could do with a percentage breakdown of passenger trains that used your route. This would make it easier to concentrate on exactly what you need and what you don't. At the moment it probably feels a bit overwhelming.

 

I have done a similar thing for passenger trains south of Leicester, so I know what the percentages of named trains are against cross country expresses, Manchester expresses, ordinary passenger and other miscellaneous trains. I know that if I have one southern set, I need two WR sets for example. The totals are then spread out between North and Southbound.

 

Because of your interest, I now Know an awful lot more about the passenger trains in your neck of the woods. I suspect that as a minimum,  you probably only require two articulated sets and only one of these needs to be dia. 210. The GN set is so untypical it drops of the percentages, the articulated steel twins being more common. Only an example but I'm sure it would be of benefit to yourself.

 

There is a rather nice thread or two in kit and scratch building were a BT(5) has been produced from a Kirk parts by Ken W. There is the Isinglass model but there are certain things about that kit you should be aware of in terms of accuracy. It may not be an issue but at least you are making an informed decision. To be fair, you could say the same about Kirk, you have made magnificent models out of them. I will post links later to avoid crash. I thought that Mousa did the BT (5) but if it was there, it is now gone.

 

 

I don't like this new link thing but the people are nice, there is another one, I will look.

 

I wonder if there would be any interest in an LNER carriage and workings thread?

Good evening again Andrew,

I would simply say yes to most of this - certainly your comments on the size of the task going through the CWNs, photos etc. and deciding what to do to best reflect the line. I have thought about using  a Kirk kit or kits for a BT(5) and also for a D246 BT(6) which appears quite regularly in photos but not so much in the CWNs. I've also thought of trying to butcher one or two Hornby non-gangwayed Gresleys but yet to bite the bullet. It is encouraging to know that the information on formations is out there, albeit, to some extent, spread around.

I'll take a look at this John Tomlinson link. Thanks for the heads up on it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

If it covered LNER and BR(ER) steam days as well, then ... yes please!!!

 

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I would certainly join if there was one. I doubt it would offer anything that isn’t already covered on this thread, PN or one or two others. But it would keep a lot of useful information together rather than having the search through 1955 pages for that gem you remember a year or two ago. So on balance a good idea.

 

 

 

Thinking about it,

 

I may just do a little thread of my own, where I can witter on to my heart's content and have conversation with myself. It might provide some incentive now that exhibitions are unlikely for a couple of years.

Edited by Headstock
spelling
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Forgive me if I get this wrong,

 

But I was told that each page has 25 entries, irrespective of whether there are numerous photographs, repeated or not. Thus, if you look at the bar on the right of the page, sometimes it's minute towards the end of a page (indicating lots of images, repeated or not) or shorter (indicating fewer images). 

 

Perhaps someone will confirm this, please. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 


You are correct, the number of posts per page remains the same regardless of the length of each post. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, bbishop said:

 

Al, are you sure about the coach ends being green?  I thought only the Bournemouth sets had green ends - everything else was black.  I can e-mail Mike King and ask him, if you like.  

 

I've answered your later question on livery from Mike's book.  The Southern Railway was experimenting with various green liveries from 1935.  In 1936 or 37 a bright olive green (called Dover Green) was chosen but Bulleid didn't like it and it wore badly, so in 1938 he introduced malachite.  Bill

 

Hi Bill

 

The ends should indeed be black - it's covered in the Roxey Mouldings notes - but I just haven't got around to doing them yet.

 

Al

Edited by Barry Ten
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good evening again Andrew,

I would simply say yes to most of this - certainly your comments on the size of the task going through the CWNs, photos etc. and deciding what to do to best reflect the line. I have thought about using  a Kirk kit or kits for a BT(5) and also for a D246 BT(6) which appears quite regularly in photos but not so much in the CWNs. I've also thought of trying to butcher one or two Hornby non-gangwayed Gresleys but yet to bite the bullet. It is encouraging to know that the information on formations is out there, albeit, to some extent, spread around.

I'll take a look at this John Tomlinson link. Thanks for the heads up on it.

 

I've butchered the Thompsons Clem, I'm not a fan of the Glazing, I think it works much better in teak Gresley carriages. The main reason is so that I can paint a better 'painted teak' on to the carriages. That provided at source is not very good. If the new Isinglass sides were the right length, I wouldn't give it a seconds thought of wacking a set of their BT (5) sides into a Hornby BT (4). The latter I repainted into a more realistic crimson and weathered it last year. It will become redundant after the second dia. 210 is up and running. Or should I say, up and standing very still?

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours 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?

 

Hello Clem,

 

A favourite subject of mine, not least because I actually had some practical experience of it, towards the end of widespread LHCS workings on BR in the late 1980s. One could write a book on the subject and still not fully answer your question.

 

In my experience there was a plan, coaches were 'allocated' accordingly and every attempt was made to keep sets in their prescribed formations ... but then 'things happen'. Coaches develop defects in pretty much the same way that locomotives do and a 'knock out' could happen at any time, anywhere on the system. You'd then have to find a replacement coach to take its place in the set. If you were lucky, you'd have a spare one of the right type / configuration, otherwise, you'd have to find the nearest one which would do.

 

Meanwhile, the stricken defective coach has somehow got to make its way back home and there was a network of ECS workings to facilitate such moves. It could sometimes take several weeks to get the vehicle back home, repaired and back in its planned set ... by which time other 'things' had happened and so it went on, a continuous game of running to stand still.

 

Spare sets were also allocated for maintenance cover and these may be of the same formation as the sets they were supposed to cover, but not always. So sometimes in photos you might actually be seeing the spare set out in traffic.

 

And then there was (is) always the issue of priorities. Quite obviously, the coaching stock sets for the more prestigious services would get the most attention and focus to keep their formations correct. Thereafter, the less important the service the less ability to keep them all as per the CWN. Some sets were on 4-day cyclical diagrams so, once it had left the depot on Monday morning, you wouldn't see it again till Thursday night. No-one else was going to help you - they equally had their own sets and formation requirements to be getting on with.

 

Finally (for now), a timetable change, involving change of train formations could wreak havoc for weeks until it all settled down. I well remember being on shift the night of one of these - it was a complete impossibility! Undertaking a major re-shunt takes time and there's still all the ongoing maintenance and cleaning tasks to be done irrespective. So it was a case of focussing on the prestigious services and picking away at the lesser sets as you got a chance over the following days and weeks. Meanwhile, 'things' kept on happening ...

 

All fascinating stuff!

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, et al  the A4's all show good and bad points. I think the Hornby body does look the most convincing. (infact it is making me think about starting a kit I have in the bottom draw... though I have to finish the V2's which have stalled some what) I am wondering if the "best A4" could be a mash up of a lot of kits and RTR. Take the Hornby body, add a SEF tender and may be a comet chassis with the Markits bogie wheels?  No doubt a expensive way to achieve the outcome? 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I think it depends on which services you are looking at. The regular front rank expresses (except the Elizabethan) were dominated by Mark 1 stock other than the catering cars and dining cars by 1957 but the second tier of dated services, MFO or SO workings, reliefs, less important trains, etc would still have been largely pre-nationalisation designs. This is clear from the 1956 GN Main Line carriage workings, which include lots of unadvertised or dated relief trains.

 

I'm currently going through the Summer 1956 GN Main Line workings, in the absence of the 1957 book in my collection, and summarising the formations. 

Thanks Robert,

 

I think as well, as has been noted before, many prototype pictures were taken at weekends, often in summer, when many extras were run.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

 

 Dwight show how good the overall finish and design is on the Hornby version. Slidebars are poor but a covering of dark weathering improves the look.

 

Lord Faringdon, sorry nowhere as good as the Hornby version, body lacks any crispness to the detail and the Tender as said before poor plus the additional  weight, I call that lumpen quality suitable for the standard 30 or more years ago . The fit of the Valance in front of the cylinders is way out ,all the photos I have seen of the Finecast version also suffer this problem.The Dome cover is very pronounced above the main body as well also again a Finecast problem .I presume the photo has misbehaved because the lower bufferbeam area looks most strange on my computer.

 

Miles Beevor

 

Much better looking than Faringdon, howver similar faults as the previous Loco , plus the lower washout plugs as just holes. Oversized Superheater covers.  The Tender however look finer the sides at the front have been reduced in thickness ? .

 

As to motion when running each to their own opinion , I would never think of looking that closely . As to Body versus Chassis , body every time for me ,it could pull 30 coaches but if looks wrong its wrong !!!

 

As said before how many people have such layouts or needs for pulling large trains , I presume very few . R.t.r is not designed or intended for such use, so why keep mentioning it, its not a valid comparison.  R.t.r its designed for light loads and tight curves. No more no less.

 

Yes I enjoy building kits (most of the time!!) I like the challenge, it wont however stop me buying r.t.r when it covers my needs , without the challenge being needed of how to make the thing work !!

 

cheers

 

Mick

 

 

Good morning Mick,

 

The overall finish on DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER is entirely due to Ian Rathbone. Hornby's BR green at source never looks the right colour to me.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on many points. LORD FARINGDON was put together many years before Hornby's most-recent A4 came into being, though not quite 30 years ago.

 

No matter how good the body, if the motion is wrong, then it's wrong. 

 

Why do I keep mentioning the inability of (some) RTR steam-outline locos to be able to pull prototype-length loads? Because I consider haulage ability to be at least the equal of a loco's appearance. I don't really give a fig whether others don't have layouts where scale-length (and scale-weight?) trains can be run, though I'd agree they were in a majority. 

 

I also accept that nowhere does it claim on RTR boxes that what's inside will be capable of hauling in excess of a dozen all-metal carriages, though nowhere on the boxes is it explained that it won't.

 

For what it's worth, most (if not all) current RTR steam-outline locos (in OO) will pull RTR plastic carriages to a number that most 'modellers' will be entirely happy with; their layouts won't accommodate longer, scale-length expresses/goods trains, anyway. And, I'm sure they're happy with that. 

 

However, I was once taken to task by the leader of a company making RTR locos because, in my review, I commented that his new ECML Pacific model  would not pull the heaviest expresses on Stoke Summit. It slipped, then faded away, getting very hot in the process. One train was the all-plastic eight-car 'Talisman', which it was happy with. However, on the 13-car 'Heart of Midlothian', the picture was very different. Much of the train consisted of heavier, all-metal cars, and there was no way that the new loco would take this rake. 'Not everyone has layouts which run such trains' I was told, in no uncertain manner. 'Ah, but some do' I replied, 'And you're offering a great big loco which many who have such layouts might like to buy'. Which, I assume they did. To the point where many of the new locos were returned. Indeed, the whole lot was eventually recalled for 'motor replacement'. It mattered nothing that the body was excellent - it failed dramatically when its chassis was unable to do what its prototype equivalent could do; that being the case, it was very wrong. 

 

To conclude, you have your 'needs', and I have mine. They're very different, obviously. My view is that a loco capable of hauling any prototype-equivalent weight train will then be able to pull whatever is put behind the tender. That to me is of equal importance as appearance.

 

The history of real locomotive practice in this country is littered with many examples of locos which look very pretty/elegant/well-proportioned, yet have failed when it comes to being able to haul the train weights expected of them. What's the saying? 'Handsome is as handsome does'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Some time ago I was told that the ribs on the Mk 1 roof of a Bachmann carriage were there because somebody mis-read the drawings. There is a hoop that the roof panels are attached to but the hoop is under the panels on the real carriages. It was interpreted as a rib on the outside by mistake. Whether that story is true or not I have no way of knowing.

 

So it was wrong from the outset.

 

I remember watching Roy Jackson attacking the ribs with a narrow but very sharp chisel. Each rib took a couple of cuts but he could do a carriage in a few minutes. I didn't like watching and I was sure that a trip to A & E was going to be needed at any moment but I don't recall seeing any blood while I was there. There were a couple of times when he had fingers or thumbs bandaged.

 

One of my "tests" as to whether a model is any good is whether the origin is obvious or not. If it just looks like what it is supposed to be, then it has been done well.

 

A Bachmann Mk 1 with the ribs still on just shouts very loudly "Hey folks, look at me, I am a Bachmann and you can tell because my roof is wrong". It is rather like the backwards facing return crank on some RTR models.

 

It isn't just RTR either. Some kits have faults that if not corrected, they just shout out whose name was on the box. Mostly older ones from the days when we were lucky to have anything! I can tell a Ks O4 or a BEC D11 from miles away unless they have had some serious remedial work done.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DougN said:

Tony, et al  the A4's all show good and bad points. I think the Hornby body does look the most convincing. (infact it is making me think about starting a kit I have in the bottom draw... though I have to finish the V2's which have stalled some what) I am wondering if the "best A4" could be a mash up of a lot of kits and RTR. Take the Hornby body, add a SEF tender and may be a comet chassis with the Markits bogie wheels?  No doubt a expensive way to achieve the outcome? 

 

 

 

 

Good morning Doug,

 

I'll have to give it a go, though I think Mike Edge might have already done the same thing on a Carlisle A4 (though not the tender). 

 

That could well be the 'best' 4mm A4 - Hornby loco body and tender, Comet or South Eastern Finecast frames, Markits wheels all round, a great big motor/gearbox and plenty of lead ballast. Not only a very good-looker, but also a very good hauler. It would suit both Mick and me, then!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DougN said:

Tony, et al  the A4's all show good and bad points. I think the Hornby body does look the most convincing. (infact it is making me think about starting a kit I have in the bottom draw... though I have to finish the V2's which have stalled some what) I am wondering if the "best A4" could be a mash up of a lot of kits and RTR. Take the Hornby body, add a SEF tender and may be a comet chassis with the Markits bogie wheels?  No doubt a expensive way to achieve the outcome? 

 

 

 

 

I think the Brassmasters Easychas and detailing kit would be a good starting point for the Hornby A4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

I think the Brassmasters Easychas and detailing kit would be a good starting point for the Hornby A4

 

I have seen those fitted and working very nicely but making a whole new mechanism such as a Comet one does allow the builder to open up lots of space inside the body for weight, rather than have it full of the lightweight gubbins that modern RTR seems to be full of.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember visiting LB with Morgan Gilbert. Morgan had with him possibly the best A4 I'd seen. Hornby body, brass chassis. Se finecast or comet I can't remember. Perhaps he can comment.  And boy it would pull. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Mick,

 

The overall finish on DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER is entirely due to Ian Rathbone. Hornby's BR green at source never looks the right colour to me.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on many points. LORD FARINGDON was put together many years before Hornby's most-recent A4 came into being, though not quite 30 years ago.

 

No matter how good the body, if the motion is wrong, then it's wrong. 

 

Why do I keep mentioning the inability of (some) RTR steam-outline locos to be able to pull prototype-length loads? Because I consider haulage ability to be at least the equal of a loco's appearance. I don't really give a fig whether others don't have layouts where scale-length (and scale-weight?) trains can be run, though I'd agree they were in a majority. 

 

I also accept that nowhere does it claim on RTR boxes that what's inside will be capable of hauling in excess of a dozen all-metal carriages, though nowhere on the boxes is it explained that it won't.

 

For what it's worth, most (if not all) current RTR steam-outline locos (in OO) will pull RTR plastic carriages to a number that most 'modellers' will be entirely happy with; their layouts won't accommodate longer, scale-length expresses/goods trains, anyway. And, I'm sure they're happy with that. 

 

However, I was once taken to task by the leader of a company making RTR locos because, in my review, I commented that his new ECML Pacific model  would not pull the heaviest expresses on Stoke Summit. It slipped, then faded away, getting very hot in the process. One train was the all-plastic eight-car 'Talisman', which it was happy with. However, on the 13-car 'Heart of Midlothian', the picture was very different. Much of the train consisted of heavier, all-metal cars, and there was no way that the new loco would take this rake. 'Not everyone has layouts which run such trains' I was told, in no uncertain manner. 'Ah, but some do' I replied, 'And you're offering a great big loco which many who have such layouts might like to buy'. Which, I assume they did. To the point where many of the new locos were returned. Indeed, the whole lot was eventually recalled for 'motor replacement'. It mattered nothing that the body was excellent - it failed dramatically when its chassis was unable to do what its prototype equivalent could do; that being the case, it was very wrong. 

 

To conclude, you have your 'needs', and I have mine. They're very different, obviously. My view is that a loco capable of hauling any prototype-equivalent weight train will then be able to pull whatever is put behind the tender. That to me is of equal importance as appearance.

 

The history of real locomotive practice in this country is littered with many examples of locos which look very pretty/elegant/well-proportioned, yet have failed when it comes to being able to haul the train weights expected of them. What's the saying? 'Handsome is as handsome does'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Tony

      Interesting comments .

 

Quite sad the "fig" comment perhaps a throw away comment, you are in a very priviliged postion and extremely lucky to have what you have . Many people are however not so lucky and never will be.

 

30 year old Locos are what they are, of their time . Luckily for everybody better examples of models  exist of many prototypes, and in general getting better every year. From China mainly ,but we are very lucky to have them.

 

As already said r.t.r in general are not designed to pull heavy loads , why should anyone expect it too.  They are now bringing out bodies made of mainly metal , so things are looking up on that front.

Motion wrong on the the Loco , very simple the crank faces the wrong way. Reason why ?  to change the Crank angle is a new mould to change the angle on the fitting of the Crankpin. You then pay for the mould ,and then a seperate assembly line to make and fit the gear on one side the other way around .

Result ? prices higher to cover the new mould and assembly line wages . Hardly surprising it is ignored by the makers and 90% or more of the buyers dont even notice or are bothered about it if they do. R.t.r is price driven people simply  wont pay for such corrections, as a result the makers sell less and go bust or just stop making things.

 

Obviously I presume  the overheating  Bachmann A1 is referred to , it simply had a defective motor when released, Bachmann did the right thing and changed the motors at no cost to the buyers, so well done Bachmann. Not surprising you were taken to to task over it , did you really expect any other reaction. Even the prototypes fail on such trains, even in preservation !!

 

Everybody needs will always be different and always will be .

 

regards

 

Mick

 

One of mine de valanced A4 Merlin, as Hornby still havent done a post war Blue A4 . I know what I prefer !!

 

post-7186-0-90833300-1407781027_thumb.jpg

 

 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I think that it will always survive,  people will always want to make things for fun and without a care for profit. 

Sadly the world survives on profit on everything in life, no one cares for profit other than the manafacturer.

 

No profit = everybody would be scratchbuilding in the case of Model railways .

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
53 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I'll have to give it a go, though I think Mike Edge might have already done the same thing on a Carlisle A4 (though not the tender). 

 

That could well be the 'best' 4mm A4 - Hornby loco body and tender, Comet or South Eastern Finecast frames, Markits wheels all round, a great big motor/gearbox and plenty of lead ballast. Not only a very good-looker, but also a very good hauler. It would suit both Mick and me, then!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I've put this photo on before and I know there's a mistake on it (electrification flashes?) but this is what I did with the Hornby A4s and A3s for Carlisle.

60011.JPG.5d705e0675ae74687ff5b0d08a6abc1c.JPG

I've not used Comet frames for any of these, what I did was to etch all the frame and motion with some spacing blocks. This is assembled and fitted outside the Hornby mazak block to bring the frames out to EM gauge, the addition of proper bearings behind te wheels improves the running of the loco and there is enough power in the motor to use the limited weight that can be squeezed into the plastic body. The motion is built up from layers of n/s in my usual way although in this scale I don't usually add a working 2:1 lever for the valve gear.

954161706_6003507-30a.JPG.315699151080c21f59726a94119e0d24.JPG

The same frame etch in one of Carlisle's A3s. One of the biggest failings with rtr motion is the lack of depth, particularly with the slidebars - and the LNER 3 bar type is worse than most since it usually ends up looking like a vertical 2 (very thin) bar arrangement. Slight complication in EM is that in these locos (and some others) the connecting rod passes between the two lower bars at top dead centre and thee isn't much clearance.

These two haven't been repainted, still in the slightly peculiar Hornby green but it does look a bit better when weathered.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon David,

 

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

 

735681227_cut-downtenderon60029.jpg.92d0db36bde107ae75816eb832660541.jpg

 

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. 

What you see on the sludge tender isn't exactly a surviving pre-nationalisation livery but the effect of paint wearing off over the years - later gone over with chalk, this was done quite often, sometimes by enthusiasts, sometimes by nostalgic railwaymen. I can't see any sign of a BR emblem but someone has enhanced the next layer with the wartime N E, underneath it the earlier L N E R is appearing. Most locos were just rubbed down and painted over at overhaul, some of the SR locos at Dai Woodham's yard showed successively every emblem/lettering they had ever carried after a few years out in the weather.

I think the pile of coal might actually be in another tender on the next road though.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

What you see on the sludge tender isn't exactly a surviving pre-nationalisation livery but the effect of paint wearing off over the years - later gone over with chalk, this was done quite often, sometimes by enthusiasts, sometimes by nostalgic railwaymen. I can't see any sign of a BR emblem but someone has enhanced the next layer with the wartime N E, underneath it the earlier L N E R is appearing. Most locos were just rubbed down and painted over at overhaul, some of the SR locos at Dai Woodham's yard showed successively every emblem/lettering they had ever carried after a few years out in the weather.

I think the pile of coal might actually be in another tender on the next road though.


 

There’s a tender between the sheds at Didcot that shows exactly that effect with several different logos on successive coats of paint.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, micklner said:

One of mine de valanced A4 Merlin, as Hornby still havent done a post war Blue A4 . I know what I prefer !!

 

post-7186-0-90833300-1407781027_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Thank you for posting. I want one of those. Have you posted anywhere as to how you achieved it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davidw said:

I remember visiting LB with Morgan Gilbert. Morgan had with him possibly the best A4 I'd seen. Hornby body, brass chassis. Se finecast or comet I can't remember. Perhaps he can comment.  And boy it would pull. 

 

 

Hi David,

 

Thanks! It was reported way, way back on page 97 (Tony's summary of our visit and my summary of the build standard).  Links below.

 

 

 

At the time of our visit the model wasn't quite finished. But I posted a photo a week or so later (Page 100). Just before I bid it farewell.

 

P1120404_sm.JPG

 

 

60012 was built as a companion for these two A3s.  Both essentially DJH kits out of the box.

 

P1100534_sm.JPG

 

P1100497_sm.JPG

 

P1100422_sm.JPG

 

Cheers...Morgan

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

What you see on the sludge tender isn't exactly a surviving pre-nationalisation livery but the effect of paint wearing off over the years - later gone over with chalk, this was done quite often, sometimes by enthusiasts, sometimes by nostalgic railwaymen. I can't see any sign of a BR emblem but someone has enhanced the next layer with the wartime N E, underneath it the earlier L N E R is appearing. Most locos were just rubbed down and painted over at overhaul, some of the SR locos at Dai Woodham's yard showed successively every emblem/lettering they had ever carried after a few years out in the weather.

I think the pile of coal might actually be in another tender on the next road though.

I don't think they are sludge tenders, there is no limescale down the sides of them. Plus sludge tenders normally have covers over the drain valves on their sides.

 

I agree the coal is behind the "NER" lettered one.

 

I think they are snowploughs, the photo does not show the plough as it has been either cropped off or it wasn't in the photo to start with.

003a.jpg.5d5110aca866d59c57b088b1cb4f3210.jpg

Group Standard with a curved plough, GN and GE with straight ploughs.

 

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...