Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, nerron said:

Is this the Yorkshire spelling of Murray Bridge?

It could be the Murray Bridge spelling of Murray Bridge...

[nerron]

2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

It could be the Murray Bridge spelling of Murray Bridge...

The Mureay is plausible, but Bridhe???

[jwealleans]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

Last year I built and painted one of the Masterclass models dia 210 twins.

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

I was looking at the Isinglass drawing of these vehicles at the weekend.   There are a number of errors I've picked up on - he doesn't show either vacuum or steam heat pipes, for example - but I saw in the notes that he says that all the GC sets were declassified in 1943.   Is that also in error?

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A nice job, Andy,

 

It's not that I don't enjoy painting. However, other than plain black (and the occasional lined BR black) I cannot reach the standard I insist upon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

For me this is strictly a hobby and one of the things I like about it most is building the trains, so my standards are set by what I can reasonably achieve given my level of skill and (lack of) patience. I think I’m slowly improving but my standards are unlikely to ever reach museum quality!

 

As for your painting, I think it meets all the tests I would set. When ‘playing trains’ on Little Bytham it was not apparent to me which locos were painted by you and which were done professionally. I would probably have been able to tell if I examined them really closely but that’s not really the ‘point’ of LB. I appreciate the sense of pride when a newly completed loco is photographed but once it enters the cut and thrust of the layout roster I think it makes less difference.
 

Andy

 

 

 

[grahame]

31 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

For me this is strictly a hobby and one of the things I like about it most is building the trains, so my standards are set by what I can reasonably achieve given my level of skill and (lack of) patience. I think I’m slowly improving but my standards are unlikely to ever reach museum quality!

 

Yep, likewise. And for me the important thing is to enjoy having a bash. The benefit is that by doing so you do improve and can end up with models few others have.

 

Setting standards and a too high an expectation that if you fail to achieve will therefore no longer attempt isn't progression and development or enjoyment of the hobby. It's a potential stumbling block.

 

I often hear people say they won't attempt constructional modelling because they could never match the standards and finish of RTR. But who says that you have to - maybe that's just an unrealistic expectation, although clearly there are individuals who do meet and exceed them. Me, I'm just happy with what I can produce.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by grahame

[FarrMan]

13 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The perfect roundy roundy layout, big station one side and a loco depot the other.

 

Not too keen on wearing waders when standing in the operating well.

Not sure how deep the Tyne is there, but if you can manage in waders, how long are your legs?

 

Lloyd

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

Not sure how deep the Tyne is there, but if you can manage in waders, how long are your legs?

 

Lloyd

As long as they reach the bottom that should be good enough.

[Tony Wright]

54 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yep, likewise. And for me the important thing is to enjoy having a bash. The benefit is that by doing so you do improve and can end up with models few others have.

 

Setting standards and a too high an expectation that if you fail to achieve will therefore no longer attempt isn't progression and development or enjoyment of the hobby. It's a potential stumbling block.

 

I often hear people say they won't attempt constructional modelling because they could never match the standards and finish of RTR. But who says that you have to - maybe that's just an unrealistic expectation, although clearly there are individuals who do meet and exceed them. Me, I'm just happy with what I can produce.

 

 

A sound post, Grahame,

 

Many thanks.

 

'I often hear people say they won't attempt constructional modelling because they could never match the standards and finish of RTR. But who says that you have to'

 

A good question. I have to say it's personally annoying to find (historically) that I'll have built, say, a loco type from scratch, only to find that weeks (if not days!) after its finished, a kit for the same appears. Or, I'll build a kit, and in even less time there's an RTR equivalent! Such annoyances have usually been accompanied at shows by questions such as 'Is that such and such a kit?' (with regard to the scratch-built item). Or, 'Is that Hornby or Bachmann?' (with regard to a kit-build). I suppose it's a kind of compliment.

 

But then, I don't build things for compliments. And, as has been said many times, what price the ability to say 'I built that'? Even though it might not be as good as current RTR.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

To me, the hobby has always been about seeing what I can do, rather than seeing how good my models could be if somebody better than me did some of it for me.

 

The modellers I have always admired most are the "all rounders" who have been as self reliant as they can possibly be.

 

The present trend towards using technology represents a huge advance for many but to me, it represents a diminishing in traditional craftsmanship skills. The number of "I drew it and had it laser cut/3Dprinted" articles appearing now show how much things have moved on but I will stay at my workbench with my saws, knives and files. I don't want to see how straight and square a laser cutter can cut out a building. I want to know how straight I can cut it.

 

The same comes with painting. There are many people better at painting and lining than I am but I still do it for myself as it is all about seeing what I can do and finding out if I can get any better at it.

 

Having seen Tony W's painting and lining close up, if that isn't good enough, the bar must be set very high!

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

I was looking at the Isinglass drawing of these vehicles at the weekend.   There are a number of errors I've picked up on - he doesn't show either vacuum or steam heat pipes, for example - but I saw in the notes that he says that all the GC sets were declassified in 1943.   Is that also in error?

 

 

 

Good morning Jonathan,

 

the isinglass drawing has quite a few errors, the arrangement of the vertical beading for example. The composites were declassified during the war, however, Isinglass fails to mention that they reverted to type after the cessation of hostilities.

[sandra]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Some of Retford's locos now carry lamps!

 

 

This is a modified Hornby A4, though its plastic lamp brackets had long since gone the way of all flesh. All I've done is to drill holes in the base of the lamps to take a piece of brass wire, drilled holes in the plastic footplate to take them and fixed them in place (permanently) with superglue (a sort of reverse lamp bracket). This A4 (SILVER LINK) is rostered for 'The Flying Scotsman', so won't need to change lamps.

 

 

In the same way that this 'Brit' will always work the boat train (only one bracket had gone from this modified Hornby BR Standard 7MT). This time, the lamps are held in place with Blak Tak (far superior to the blue equivalent, though I've probably got the spelling wrong). 

 

The lamps are Dave Franks' wonderful Lanarkshire Models' LNER ones (thanks again Dave), and they're not even painted! Even so, what a difference with regard to realism. 

 

I fitted several more today (with Blak Tak), especially suitable for locos with no lamp brackets (of which there are many). 

 

I think this magnificent layout's locos deserve to carry lamps. 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

Thanks for all your help yesterday with the lamps. I’ve now got to get on with fitting lamps to the rest of the stock. I estimate there are about another sixty locos to fit. The Black Tac is really good for this as it is still possibles to remove the lamps if you want to change the head code but it does hold the lamp quite firmly.

 

I do think the lamps make an immense improvement, they somehow lift the appearance of the locomotive. I also want to fit glazing to the few locos that don’t have it.

 

Most of Roy’s locomotives are magnificent but one or two date from High Dyke days and whilst they run very well, they do need some attention to improve their appearance. I might get round to them all eventually.

 

Sandra

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A sound post, Grahame,

 

Many thanks.

 

'I often hear people say they won't attempt constructional modelling because they could never match the standards and finish of RTR. But who says that you have to'

 

A good question. I have to say it's personally annoying to find (historically) that I'll have built, say, a loco type from scratch, only to find that weeks (if not days!) after its finished, a kit for the same appears. Or, I'll build a kit, and in even less time there's an RTR equivalent! Such annoyances have usually been accompanied at shows by questions such as 'Is that such and such a kit?' (with regard to the scratch-built item). Or, 'Is that Hornby or Bachmann?' (with regard to a kit-build). I suppose it's a kind of compliment.

 

But then, I don't build things for compliments. And, as has been said many times, what price the ability to say 'I built that'? Even though it might not be as good as current RTR.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Hello Tony

 

I like the excitement of "What shall I build next" when that blank sheet of plastic card is looking at me.

 

Kits I find a bit disappointing when part A does not fit part B. Kits take me longer than scratchbuilding or converting RTR because of that reason. With building my own if part A and part B do not fit, I make a new part B, only to find out I made part A wrong to start with.

 

As for RTR if I cannot think what to convert it to,  the challenge especially with modern packaging is getting back in its box without damaging it.

 

See far more fun making your own.

 

I do try to make my stuff to a standard I can live with, sod it if anyone else thinks it isn't as good as an RTR model. I made it for me, they can wait 10 , 20 even 30 years after I made mine to buy one. If someone says well done I am very grateful and pleased.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

To me, the hobby has always been about seeing what I can do, rather than seeing how good my models could be if somebody better than me did some of it for me.

 

The modellers I have always admired most are the "all rounders" who have been as self reliant as they can possibly be.

 

The present trend towards using technology represents a huge advance for many but to me, it represents a diminishing in traditional craftsmanship skills. The number of "I drew it and had it laser cut/3Dprinted" articles appearing now show how much things have moved on but I will stay at my workbench with my saws, knives and files. I don't want to see how straight and square a laser cutter can cut out a building. I want to know how straight I can cut it.

 

The same comes with painting. There are many people better at painting and lining than I am but I still do it for myself as it is all about seeing what I can do and finding out if I can get any better at it.

 

Having seen Tony W's painting and lining close up, if that isn't good enough, the bar must be set very high!

Hi Tony

 

I am not going to disagree with your own aims in modelling but some of the more modern methods of arriving at the same place are still better and creative than waiting to see how straight Mr Manufacturer can make it.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

To me, the hobby has always been about seeing what I can do, rather than seeing how good my models could be if somebody better than me did some of it for me.

 

The modellers I have always admired most are the "all rounders" who have been as self reliant as they can possibly be.

 

The present trend towards using technology represents a huge advance for many but to me, it represents a diminishing in traditional craftsmanship skills. The number of "I drew it and had it laser cut/3Dprinted" articles appearing now show how much things have moved on but I will stay at my workbench with my saws, knives and files. I don't want to see how straight and square a laser cutter can cut out a building. I want to know how straight I can cut it.

 

The same comes with painting. There are many people better at painting and lining than I am but I still do it for myself as it is all about seeing what I can do and finding out if I can get any better at it.

 

Having seen Tony W's painting and lining close up, if that isn't good enough, the bar must be set very high!

Thanks Tony,

 

With regard to painting (proper painting) of models, I tend to come at it from the point of view of a professional loco-builder (as you are). Nowadays, I only indulge in for myself, for mates (and many of my past customers have become just that) and as barter (with Geoff Haynes). While I'm convinced that many out there can build to an excellent standard (as shown frequently on this thread), the numbers of top-class painters can be counted on one's fingers. Even as accomplished a loco builder as Mike Edge hands over his exquisite creations to Ian Rathbone to be painted.

 

In my own case, I don't own an airbrush, neither do I possess a bow-pen. Both are prerequisites for successful painting/lining to the highest standard. I can get away (for myself) with rattle cans, enamels, sables and transfer lining, but no 'true' professional model painter would use transfer lining (unless he/she made his/her own to go around, say, complex shapes). Since I'd like to think that the locos I've built for others down the decades have been up to 'professional' standards (in the accepted sense of the word, though it's no guarantee of quality in many cases), then they must be painted (for customers) to the same 'professional' standard; and they have been. Had I painted many of these locos myself, then my customers would have not been impressed I'm sure. 

 

Of course, the hobby should be about doing things for oneself (goodness knows, I'm always advocating that), but I'm not in your 'all-round' category. For instance, though I have made track, it's nowhere near as good as that made by Norman Solomon. Thus, if I'd made Bytham's scenic-side trackwork (which I could have done), the running would have been compromised (something I'm not prepared to accept). Similarly, I've also made signals, but nowhere near your standards (or Mick Nick's or Graham Nicholas'), so they'd have been compromised - again, unacceptable to me. The same goes for architectural modelling - I'm all right with the vernacular, but that's it. 

 

Al the above said, unless I have a large personal input into a project such as LB (locos/rolling stock) then I'm not interested. Making stuff has always been more important to me than operating (how many times did folk see me operating Stoke Summit? I was always 'front of house', wind-bagging!). That said, I'm a zealot when it comes to good running and will not tolerate poor performance from any elements. 

 

There are several I know who insist on 'high-standards', yet are incapable of personally reaching them in any modelling disciplines. They've kept the likes of you and me in work!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Steven B]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

The present trend towards using technology represents a huge advance for many but to me, it represents a diminishing in traditional craftsmanship skills. The number of "I drew it and had it laser cut/3Dprinted" articles appearing now show how much things have moved on but I will stay at my workbench with my saws, knives and files.

3d printers and laser cutters are just another tool available to a modeller.

Would you use an electric drill to build a baseboard or a bit and brace? The bit and brace is the traditional method but I bet very few people building a layout would use one in preference to electrically powered one. Drawing the CAD and adapting to ever changing limitations of machines & materials can need as much time and skill as learning how to work with hand tools.

 

The modellers skill is in deciding which tool or technique to use for which item one's modelling, regardless of if it's Grandad's patern making tools or the latest 3d printing machine. I've seen etched kits needing a degree in origami to produce a part that should have been mastered on a 3d printer. Likewise, I've seen dozens of 3d printed models where plasticard could have been used for the bulk of the body.

 

The newer technology can also be a great time saver. I recently made some stock storage trays from 2mm card. The first few I cut out by hand, but after a few hours I decided to get the remainder laser cut. The end result was better and left me with more time to spend on the contents of the stock trays, rather than the trays themselves.

 

Steven B.

[pete55]

54 minutes ago, sandra said:

 

Most of Roy’s locomotives are magnificent but one or two date from High Dyke days and whilst they run very well, they do need some attention to improve their appearance. I might get round to them all eventually.

 

Sandra

 

Hello Sandra,

some go back a lot further than High Dyke, particularly the K's Robinson 04's, but yes, they do run well!

 

Pete

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, pete55 said:

 

Hello Sandra,

some go back a lot further than High Dyke, particularly the K's Robinson 04's, but yes, they do run well!

 

Pete

Good afternoon Pete,

 

I wonder how many (real) miles they've done down the years? Roy's locos work brilliantly, and always have done. 

 

Many of the older locos don't have lamp brackets, but just fixing on lamps with Blak Tak as appropriate really enhances their appearance of 'realism'. The eye just doesn't see the missing bracket(s). Similarly, adding cab glazing will just 'lift' them into something really special.

 

The following images are close-ups from shots taken yesterday which still have to be processed................

 

 

A case in point? The Blak Tak needs tidying up...............

 

 

At last the 'Lizzie' loco has class 'A' lamps. No brackets, and I think these lamps will need need lowering slightly. The camera is a great modelling aid. 

 

What a lovely 'box as well! 

 

 

This A2/1 does have lamp brackets on the front platform (tall ones, even though 60508 never received electric lighting; thus, the lamps, correctly, ride high). Just holes drilled in their bases and a blob of Blak Tak to secure. They're not even painted yet, but DUKE OF ROTHESAY's empty stock/parcels duty is clearly-defined now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[pete55]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Pete,

 

I wonder how many (real) miles they've done down the years? Roy's locos work brilliantly, and always have done. 

 

Many of the older locos don't have lamp brackets, but just fixing on lamps with Blak Tak as appropriate really enhances their appearance of 'realism'. The eye just doesn't see the missing bracket(s). Similarly, adding cab glazing will just 'lift' them into something really special.

 

The following images are close-ups from shots taken yesterday which still have to be processed................

 

 

A case in point? The Blak Tak needs tidying up...............

 

 

At last the 'Lizzie' loco has class 'A' lamps. No brackets, and I think these lamps will need need lowering slightly. The camera is a great modelling aid. 

 

What a lovely 'box as well! 

 

 

This A2/1 does have lamp brackets on the front platform (tall ones, even though 60508 never received electric lighting; thus, the lamps, correctly, ride high). Just holes drilled in their bases and a blob of Blak Tak to secure. They're not even painted yet, but DUKE OF ROTHESAY's empty stock/parcels duty is clearly-defined now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

how many miles have some of them run indeed! As I said, some will hark back to pre Gainsborough Central days. Incidentally, part of the backscene of that layout were still under the GN fiddleyard last time I looked!

 

Lamps certainly do improve the look, I agree, and I don't think Roy would disagree either. The problem was I think that the only lamps available back in time were the very chunky ones, which he certainly did not like.

 

Definitely looking forward to being able to return to Retford when the situation allows us to once again.

 

Pete

[65179]

Apologies if this has been brought to people's attention before, but on another forum I'm on someone has highlighted this possibly wartime footage from Mottram marshalling yard on Youtube:

 

 

For those of you who mysteriously don't have a fondness for the GC, at least one GN loco features as do lots of wagons.  It makes it pretty plain how dangerous the job of a 1930s/40s shunter was even at a then new-ish yard!

 

Simon

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Steven B said:

3d printers and laser cutters are just another tool available to a modeller.

Would you use an electric drill to build a baseboard or a bit and brace? The bit and brace is the traditional method but I bet very few people building a layout would use one in preference to electrically powered one. Drawing the CAD and adapting to ever changing limitations of machines & materials can need as much time and skill as learning how to work with hand tools.

 

The modellers skill is in deciding which tool or technique to use for which item one's modelling, regardless of if it's Grandad's patern making tools or the latest 3d printing machine. I've seen etched kits needing a degree in origami to produce a part that should have been mastered on a 3d printer. Likewise, I've seen dozens of 3d printed models where plasticard could have been used for the bulk of the body.

 

The newer technology can also be a great time saver. I recently made some stock storage trays from 2mm card. The first few I cut out by hand, but after a few hours I decided to get the remainder laser cut. The end result was better and left me with more time to spend on the contents of the stock trays, rather than the trays themselves.

 

Steven B.

 

I agree with all of that.

 

Any problem I have with more modern techniques is purely down to me.

 

I just find sitting at a workbench with traditional tools hugely more satisfying and enjoyable than sitting at a keyboard working in CAD.  I tried to learn it a couple of times as I fancied getting some parts etched but I just didn't enjoy it and whatever I learned was quickly forgotten.

 

Yet sit me at the bench with a few tools and a kit or some sheets of metal/plastic and I am happy. 

 

I long since stopped worrying about how long something takes me to build as long as I get what I want at the end and I have enjoyed doing it.

 

So each to their own. I have seen some super work done in laser cutting or 3D printing but it isn't for me.

 

 

 

 

[96701]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

As long as they reach the bottom that should be good enough.

I thought waders were supposed to reach above the bottom? Anyway, you would not want have been standing in it when the oil separator in Gateshead Depot got inundated. The first sign that a valve had been closed in error was when the  Tyne turned pink with neat diesel oil.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, pete55 said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

how many miles have some of them run indeed! As I said, some will hark back to pre Gainsborough Central days. Incidentally, part of the backscene of that layout were still under the GN fiddleyard last time I looked!

 

Lamps certainly do improve the look, I agree, and I don't think Roy would disagree either. The problem was I think that the only lamps available back in time were the very chunky ones, which he certainly did not like.

 

Definitely looking forward to being able to return to Retford when the situation allows us to once again.

 

Pete

 

I once had this very discussion with Roy, as I dared to suggest that the locos on Buckingham had many more miles on the clock than his and that they were still running much further than his ever did on a regular basis. He was a bit put out about the idea so I did some working out.

 

The average Buckingham loco runs (or did before lockdown paused the twice weekly running sessions) approximately 160ft per week. That is a round trip to the fiddle yard and back twice, once each session. Over 75 years, that adds up and I reckon some of the oldest ones must have run upwards of 100 real miles. On some of them, it has been enough to wear the wheel treads down by between 0.5 and 0.75mm on the diameter of the wheel.

 

How often was Retford run? Once or twice a year properly, other than running a few round for visitors or to test a new loco. A "proper" run meant, in most cases, one circuit (approx. 160ft on the GNR line and maybe 80ft on the GCR section) of the layout per loco, although a few trains did more than one. I would suggest that the Buckingham locos run further in a month than most Retford locos did in a year.

 

I get the feeling that Sandra actually enjoys running the layout far more than Roy did, so that may change but being realistic about it, a loco that runs a handful of times a year isn't really clocking up the miles like one that runs twice a week, no matter what the size of layout. 

[CF MRC]

There have been some Interesting conversations about new technologies in model railways. Like Tony G, I am very traditional in what and how I make things, but I’m also very happy to embrace new technologies in conjunction with other modellers.
There are things we can do now that would be horrendously difficult to achieve by conventional means.

 

Our (new) York Road tube layout will be a showpiece for modern manufacturing techniques on CF: I think our lifetimes would need extended if we were to attempt it by conventional methods. (There are some details of it on the CF thread in the 2mm section). However, at the end of the day it will still come down to how well it is assembled, painted & weathered as to whether we carry it off  or not. And of course it has to work...
 

Tim

[drmditch]

Roles I fill on my railway:-

 

Chairman of the Board

Chief General Manager

Chief Surveyor

Chief Engineer

Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer

Chief Stores (and therefore Procurement) Agent

Chief Accountant

Architect.

 

Foreman - Erecting Shop

Foreman - Paint Shop

(No Boiler Shop required owing to fireboxes being filled by large (proportionately) electric motors)

Locomotive Shed Foreman

Foreman Carpenter

 

Mineral Agent (this also involves mining and sorting local coal - and I mean that. This is County Durham - coal comes from my garden!)

 

Posts not filled by me:-

Passenger Agent (no passengers)

Goods Agent (plenty of traffic but no deliveries, invoicing, or demurrage) 

 

Now excuse me - I must go and make the tea!

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I once had this very discussion with Roy, as I dared to suggest that the locos on Buckingham had many more miles on the clock than his and that they were still running much further than his ever did on a regular basis. He was a bit put out about the idea so I did some working out.

 

The average Buckingham loco runs (or did before lockdown paused the twice weekly running sessions) approximately 160ft per week. That is a round trip to the fiddle yard and back twice, once each session. Over 75 years, that adds up and I reckon some of the oldest ones must have run upwards of 100 real miles. On some of them, it has been enough to wear the wheel treads down by between 0.5 and 0.75mm on the diameter of the wheel.

 

How often was Retford run? Once or twice a year properly, other than running a few round for visitors or to test a new loco. A "proper" run meant, in most cases, one circuit (approx. 160ft on the GNR line and maybe 80ft on the GCR section) of the layout per loco, although a few trains did more than one. I would suggest that the Buckingham locos run further in a month than most Retford locos did in a year.

 

I get the feeling that Sandra actually enjoys running the layout far more than Roy did, so that may change but being realistic about it, a loco that runs a handful of times a year isn't really clocking up the miles like one that runs twice a week, no matter what the size of layout. 

I think 'clocking up the miles' needs a bit of qualification.

 

Running light trains at low speeds is less likely to impact on a loco's running longevity than running heavy trains at high speeds. 

 

I've never really worked out what some of my locos have done in 'miles', scale or otherwise. Granted, I have at least a factor of three locos for every duty, be that on Stoke Summit or Little Bytham. However, in the case of KINGFISHER (which always ran on 'The Elizabethan' on Stoke Summit and was never substituted), she must have clocked up quite a bit of high-speed mileage. Stoke did nearly 80 shows. Given a typical two-day show (some were more, and we never attended a one-day show) of average eight hours' running (some longer) and a circuit measuring 30' x 10', and the 'Lizzie' running over three times an hour, how many 'miles' is that? Add on to that at least 50 'training days' for practice, and it adds up to a lot - who's good at 'hard sums'? Say, 75' (a Stoke circuit) x 3.5 (turns per hour) x 8 (a show day's duration) x 400 (show days, training and other layouts) - who's got a calculator? She's continued on that duty on LB, though that's never been run as much as Stoke. She's also guested on Biggleswade on few occasions. All in 25 years. And, still going strong.

 

Sandra does enjoy running the layout (as I enjoy videoing it and taking stills) and just about every loco on it runs perfectly (and some must be at least 50 years old, having seen service on Gainsborough Central, High Dyke, Dunwich and Retford). Not without good reason did Roy call Retford a 'loco killer'! I say 'just about' because a B17 with the motor in the tender, driving via a prop shaft and UJs to a gearbox in the loco defied attempts to make it go properly yesterday. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.