Wright writes.....

[Leander]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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?

I make that a tad over 159 miles!

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

Totting up the running sessions on Buckingham, it is the equivalent of a minimum of 2,000 worth of 8 hour exhibition days. Probably much more as I have calculated that on a running session 2 hours and many are longer, sometimes all day.

 

I am not suggesting for one moment that Roy's locos (and yours) don't run well and work hard. Just that they don't do as many miles as the Buckingham ones do.

 

If you think they have an easy job on Buckingham, think again. Inside bearings on almost all the stock and some tight curves mean that the trains need a bit of brute force to move them. No nice pin point bearings here. If you pick a wagon or carriage up and try to spin the wheels, they hardly turn. So it is like running them with the brakes on. When you and I were there together and we tried some of them on the heaviest Retford trains, they struggled because the flanges were riding on the chairs and the wheels were not gripping the rails properly but I have had the Sacre 2-4-0T thrashing round Retford (it has smaller flanges on the Hamblings brass wheels) at 70mph on the long fish train with no problems.

 

When you have locos that are so worn that the axle holes are so oval the only thing keeping the gears meshed is the weight of the body, or locos where the coupling rod holes have worn through, or as I said, locos that have decreased the diameter of the driving wheels (hence the deep flanges), you can't say that they have had an easy life.

 

I wasn't comparing the mileages with the ones for your locos as I know yours have done many more shows and you run your layout far more often than Retford got run. High Dyke and Dunwich did a tiny number of shows compared to Charwelton, Stoke Summit etc.

 

But if you want to suggest that Roy's locos have run more miles than the Buckingham ones, it is simply not so. It is the other way by a considerable margin.

 

Changing subjects to the "Boat Train" 

 

I do recall an early visit of mine to see Roy, before I really got involved with him. I went with Ken Hill and we took a few locos. Ken put his GEM Midland Compound on the "Boat train" as at the time, Roy's locos were struggling and he was thinking about building the B17 with the tender drive.

 

The Compound, with a whitemetal chassis block, an XO4 motor and Triang gears and the old style Romfords with cast metal tyres one side romped away up the hill with the train. I don't know who was more gobsmacked, Roy or Ken.

 

It says something but I am not sure what.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pete55]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

Changing subjects to the "Boat Train" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure what Tony(W) meant by the B17 wouldn't run properly, but it did have its driving wheel tyres treated with some Bullfrog Snot to enable it to pull the boat train up the gradient out of the yard. If that had been cleaned off the wheels, then it probably wouldn't climb out of the yard with the train.

 

Pete

[thegreenhowards]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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.

 

New RTR can be a good incentive. I’ve had a Graeme King A2/3 conversion kit waiting for me to get round to it for almost 4 years. But Hornby’s announcement forced me to get it out and do the conversion. Here she is.

 

She still needs light weathering (despite being from New England I’m basing her on a couple of photos from mid 1958 when she looked clean), lamps and cylinder drain cocks but is otherwise complete.

 

I took her down to my club last week and told the crowd that I’d got a pre production example from Hornby. They believed me for a while but then I ‘fessed up!

 

Andy

[sandra]

1 hour ago, pete55 said:

Not sure what Tony(W) meant by the B17 wouldn't run properly, but it did have its driving wheel tyres treated with some Bullfrog Snot to enable it to pull the boat train up the gradient out of the yard. If that had been cleaned off the wheels, then it probably wouldn't climb out of the yard with the train.

 

Pete

 

 

Pete,

There is only one B17 on Retford, Sheffield Wednesday, and I must admit I do plead guilty to cleaning the wheels.  However in my defence she was not running well and had difficulty hauling the boat train out of the storage sidings. There is quite a gradient out of the storage sidings in the up direction and the boat train is 11 coaches, so it’s a challenge for any loco. I’ve put the Britannia on the train for the time being and she has no difficulty with the train.

 

In the meantime I’m open to any suggestions about improving the hauling power of Sheffield Wednesday.

Sandra

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, pete55 said:

Not sure what Tony(W) meant by the B17 wouldn't run properly, but it did have its driving wheel tyres treated with some Bullfrog Snot to enable it to pull the boat train up the gradient out of the yard. If that had been cleaned off the wheels, then it probably wouldn't climb out of the yard with the train.

 

Pete

Thanks Pete,

 

I heard that some weird and wonderful substance had been put on a B17's drivers (I think it was Tony Gee who told me). Ironically, a month ago it took the boat train with ease, but something now seems to have gone wrong internally; if the sounds issuing from its insides yesterday were anything to go by. The prop shaft kept on jumping out. I wonder whether this is cause and effect - the 'snot' allowed it to pull a heavy train, but then this impacted on the drive. I don't know, but the D11 with the same drive system was making a racket as well. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

New RTR can be a good incentive. I’ve had a Graeme King A2/3 conversion kit waiting for me to get round to it for almost 4 years. But Hornby’s announcement forced me to get it out and do the conversion. Here she is.

 

Hi Andy

 

It can be a disincentive, I had got this far with them , then Heljan said they would make a class 15.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Totting up the running sessions on Buckingham, it is the equivalent of a minimum of 2,000 worth of 8 hour exhibition days. Probably much more as I have calculated that on a running session 2 hours and many are longer, sometimes all day.

 

I am not suggesting for one moment that Roy's locos (and yours) don't run well and work hard. Just that they don't do as many miles as the Buckingham ones do.

 

If you think they have an easy job on Buckingham, think again. Inside bearings on almost all the stock and some tight curves mean that the trains need a bit of brute force to move them. No nice pin point bearings here. If you pick a wagon or carriage up and try to spin the wheels, they hardly turn. So it is like running them with the brakes on. When you and I were there together and we tried some of them on the heaviest Retford trains, they struggled because the flanges were riding on the chairs and the wheels were not gripping the rails properly but I have had the Sacre 2-4-0T thrashing round Retford (it has smaller flanges on the Hamblings brass wheels) at 70mph on the long fish train with no problems.

 

When you have locos that are so worn that the axle holes are so oval the only thing keeping the gears meshed is the weight of the body, or locos where the coupling rod holes have worn through, or as I said, locos that have decreased the diameter of the driving wheels (hence the deep flanges), you can't say that they have had an easy life.

 

I wasn't comparing the mileages with the ones for your locos as I know yours have done many more shows and you run your layout far more often than Retford got run. High Dyke and Dunwich did a tiny number of shows compared to Charwelton, Stoke Summit etc.

 

But if you want to suggest that Roy's locos have run more miles than the Buckingham ones, it is simply not so. It is the other way by a considerable margin.

 

Changing subjects to the "Boat Train" 

 

I do recall an early visit of mine to see Roy, before I really got involved with him. I went with Ken Hill and we took a few locos. Ken put his GEM Midland Compound on the "Boat train" as at the time, Roy's locos were struggling and he was thinking about building the B17 with the tender drive.

 

The Compound, with a whitemetal chassis block, an XO4 motor and Triang gears and the old style Romfords with cast metal tyres one side romped away up the hill with the train. I don't know who was more gobsmacked, Roy or Ken.

 

It says something but I am not sure what.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I'm not suggesting for one moment that Roy's (or my) locos have done more miles than those on Buckingham (I was only two when Peter started his 'layout of a lifetime', and had yet to build my first loco). Your descriptions of them rather suggests they're worn out in some cases. Can't you take pity on them by making the stock freer-running? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, sandra said:

 

 

Pete,

There is only one B17 on Retford, Sheffield Wednesday, and I must admit I do plead guilty to cleaning the wheels.  However in my defence she was not running well and had difficulty hauling the boat train out of the storage sidings. There is quite a gradient out of the storage sidings in the up direction and the boat train is 11 coaches, so it’s a challenge for any loco. I’ve put the Britannia on the train for the time being and she has no difficulty with the train.

 

In the meantime I’m open to any suggestions about improving the hauling power of Sheffield Wednesday.

Sandra

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Pete,

 

I heard that some weird and wonderful substance had been put on a B17's drivers (I think it was Tony Gee who told me). Ironically, a month ago it took the boat train with ease, but something now seems to have gone wrong internally; if the sounds issuing from its insides yesterday were anything to go by. The prop shaft kept on jumping out. I wonder whether this is cause and effect - the 'snot' allowed it to pull a heavy train, but then this impacted on the drive. I don't know, but the D11 with the same drive system was making a racket as well. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Sandra & Tony,

 

As Pete says, the B17 did struggle with pulling the train until Roy was introduced to the delights of "Bullfrog Snot". This was applied to one pair of driving wheels, the rear ones from memory and acted like a traction tyre. I thought it was just not "the done thing" somehow but it worked. I thought it would alter the diameter of the wheels slightly and lift the centre ones off the track, thereby reducing the pick ups by two driving wheels each side but it didn't seem to.

 

If the wheels have been cleaned, it has probably been taken off.

 

The D11 was always very noisy and I don't think Roy was ever really happy with either of the tender mounted motored locos.

 

I do recall that they needed very careful handling as the drive shafts could come out of their mountings unless the loco and tender were kept together in a fairly straight line. If they did come adrift, it would take Roy ages to get them back together again properly.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

New RTR can be a good incentive. I’ve had a Graeme King A2/3 conversion kit waiting for me to get round to it for almost 4 years. But Hornby’s announcement forced me to get it out and do the conversion. Here she is.

 

She still needs light weathering (despite being from New England I’m basing her on a couple of photos from mid 1958 when she looked clean), lamps and cylinder drain cocks but is otherwise complete.

 

I took her down to my club last week and told the crowd that I’d got a pre production example from Hornby. They believed me for a while but then I ‘fessed up!

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

Snap!

 

 

Tim Easter's King/Bachmann A2/3, done for Gilbert Barnatt.

 

 

And my own SUN CASTLE. Built by me from a DJH kit and painted by Geoff Haynes. This is the actual loco which was loaned to Hornby (unpainted) during the development of the firm's Thompson Pacifics. 

 

Might I suggest wiggly pipes on yours? However, full marks for the extended lamp brackets!

 

And the real thing.....................

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I'm not suggesting for one moment that Roy's (or my) locos have done more miles than those on Buckingham (I was only two when Peter started is 'layout of a lifetime', and had yet to build my first loco). Your descriptions of them rather suggests they're worn out in some cases. Can't you take pity on them by making the stock freer-running? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Some of them are indeed knackered! The play in the coupling rods is so great that it is remarkable that they run at all and one loco has had to have new coupling rods. This was the former Buckingham but now Grandborough station pilot, LNER Class J63.

 

 

That leading crankpin was just a pin, with no retainer (clearance problems behind the crosshead) and that was the axle that the motor drives on. How it ran like that for all those years is beyond me. Every once in a while, on a curve, the pin would come out and the wheel would go round and the pin would come up and bend the coupling rod. Eventually it broke in two, so I made a new one, cutting out the rod on the Denny fretsaw machine, just as he would have done. I used thinner metal for the rod and was able to fit a retaining pin and since then, it has run very nicely.

 

I have thought long and hard about the stock but I prefer to keep as much original Denny as I can. He used inside bearings with a home made springing method. If I wanted to fit pin points every item of stock would need new axles, as they have axles cut off flush with the wheels. I would need to drill out the very delicate axleguards and boxes and I would still need some form of springing or compensation as the track is just too un-level for rigid vehicles to work well. It would mean replacing almost the whole underframe of a wagon, so I am not too keen.

 

So it is probably as easy to fix the locos as and when they need it. There are a couple that struggle on the stiffest trains but we just make sure they are not brought off shed when those trains are due to be run.

 

The fact that the loco axle holes are worn actually helps as they have some built in "compensation".

 

I do go round the stock periodically and clean the inside bearings and lubricate them, which does make a difference for a while.   

[Tony Wright]

Seen in the layout context (and not necessarily in close-up), the lamps really add something to Retford's locos......................

 

 

I rather hope the great man would have approved.....................

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Another example of my painting................

 

 

The hybrid J6 featured recently. Just Halfords rattle can satin black.

 

Strictly speaking this Nu-Cast/SEF/Branchlines GNR tender type is not appropriate for a 521 Series J6 - they all had equal wheelbase tenders. 

 

No matter, after weathering, I'll swop it for a more suitable type off a 536 Series J6 I've made some time ago. 

 

 

[sandra]

Tony,

I have got the B17 to run reasonably well in that it doesn’t keep stopping or cutting out but it still can’t get up the hill. I’m not sure what Bullfrog Snot is but it doesn’t seem the ideal solution. I do think the motor in the tender idea is flawed as it makes working on the loco difficult and the shaft easily falls out when you are handling it. I would really like to convert the loco so that it has the motor in the locomotive.

 

The D11 failed completely and I found that the motor had become unsoldered. It is actually soldered to the tender frames which is probably why it makes a terrible noise. It has now been repaired but it does not run very smoothly. I think I will certainly change the arrangement in due course but as Retford now has 2 other D11s it’s not urgent.

 

Tony G is right, I enjoy running the layout more than Roy did, in fact I was working on it this afternoon and took the opportunity to run a few trains, just for testing purposes you understand.  In fact I do find running the layout very addictive.

 

Sandra

[Chas Levin]

On 17/10/2020 at 14:45, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

I've had gummed-up Portescaps brought to me at shows. I've always been able to release them by moving the driving wheels by hand (with some force!) and then let the motor do the rest using crocodile clips. It would appear to be the fault of the original red lubricant. Some proper oil after that and they were fine...........

 

I like your description 'rescuing' kits from various sources. Unless they're effectively 'given away', I'd never touch them. Why not? Because every one I've had through my hands has taken me longer to undo and put right than it would if starting with a virgin kit. And, the end result (despite that extra time) rarely (if ever) matches the 'standard' I set myself when building a pristine loco kit. I say 'given away', and by that I mean considerably less than the component parts' original cost. That way, in the same way that car enthusiasts use the term 'spares or repairs', I might well recover things like wheels and motor and use any recoverable body bits as spares. 

 

However, all the above said, on occasions, I have 'resurrected' locos built by others............

 

Cases in point.....

 

 

This DJH A1 was largely-built when I acquired it from the estate of a deceased modeller. It didn't go very well, but the cure was relatively simple (just some minor tweaking to pick-ups, motor/gearbox mount and coupling rods - like your list). I completed it and Geoff Haynes painted it.

 

Initial cost £50.00. Worth it?

 

 

Another DJH A1, this time with the bodywork built by a good friend. I built the chassis, adding the cost of the motor/gearbox. This one was painted by Ian Rathbone.

 

Initial cost £100.00. Worth it? 

 

 

Built from a virgin DJH kit by me; painted by Ian Rathbone.

 

 

And another from the same source.

 

Viewers might draw their own conclusions.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Interested Tony to read where you say:

 

"I've had gummed-up Portescaps brought to me at shows. I've always been able to release them by moving the driving wheels by hand (with some force!) and then let the motor do the rest using crocodile clips. It would appear to be the fault of the original red lubricant. Some proper oil after that and they were fine..........."

 

Another area I work in is restoring reel to reel tape machines. Those made by Teac (including those made for the European market under the Tascam brand) show the same problem with alarming frequency. The mechanism that moves the pinch rollers into position for playback was greased at the factory with a type of very viscous lubricant, a brown grease, that aged very badly, turning a dark treacle-like colour and with a similar consistency, often to the point of near solidity, rather like old fashioned toffee. By that stage, even the type of solution you've had success with on Portescaps doesn't work and the only solution is complete stripping down (frequently difficult and time-consuming because of the glue-like way some parts are almost fused together), laborious removal with suitably powerful solvents and much elbow grease of the gunk, and re-assembly with modern silicone based grease.

What's odd is that I've never seen anything similar in other brands of tape machine: surely whoever supplied the grease to Teac must have had other customers? As far as I know they were ever a big enough concern to be manufacturing their own lubricants in-house.

Has anyone ever seen anything similar on other makes of model motor?

 

Oh, and in answer to your questions as to whether some of those A1s were worth the £100 or so, I'd say 'yes, definitely'!

[Chas Levin]

On 17/10/2020 at 15:25, Chamby said:

 

I've also got something of a lamp factory going on today.   More lamps from Dave at Lanarkshire Models, a mix of LNER and ex-LMS versions, the quality I agree is superb.   Just a small moulding 'pip' to remove from the base of a few of them, and then straight into the spray booth.  It was quite a surprise when I calculated how many I'd need to 'top and tail' the balance of my Loco fleet and rakes of rolling stock!  

 

 

 

What a lovely sight! 

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

I have got the B17 to run reasonably well in that it doesn’t keep stopping or cutting out but it still can’t get up the hill. I’m not sure what Bullfrog Snot is but it doesn’t seem the ideal solution. I do think the motor in the tender idea is flawed as it makes working on the loco difficult and the shaft easily falls out when you are handling it. I would really like to convert the loco so that it has the motor in the locomotive.

 

The D11 failed completely and I found that the motor had become unsoldered. It is actually soldered to the tender frames which is probably why it makes a terrible noise. It has now been repaired but it does not run very smoothly. I think I will certainly change the arrangement in due course but as Retford now has 2 other D11s it’s not urgent.

 

Tony G is right, I enjoy running the layout more than Roy did, in fact I was working on it this afternoon and took the opportunity to run a few trains, just for testing purposes you understand.  In fact I do find running the layout very addictive.

 

Sandra

 

Bullfrog Snot is a liquid rubber type solution, that goes on as a liquid but then dries to become a hard material that sticks very well to the metal wheel. I haven't used it myself but I can imagine that getting a smooth, even layer all round a wheel must be almost impossible.

 

It never seemed like good practice to me but it did seem to work for a while on the B17.

 

A conventional loco with the motor in the loco can haul the train, as Ken's Compound illustrated. That had the tender resting on rear of the loco to increase adhesion. It was always adhesion rather than power that was the problem up the hill.

 

I recall that most of the boat train is made up of metal kit built vehicles, or it certainly was at one time.

 

If there are any lighter RTR carriages that could be used instead of the metal ones, that would help too.

 

I have seen some lovely running with motors in the tender, including on Clayton. Roy was most impressed by those on Adavoyle, which were very smooth and quiet.  He tried to emulate what they had done but never really got them running as well as he would have liked and he had been muttering about doing something with them for ages.  

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

As Pete says, the B17 did struggle with pulling the train until Roy was introduced to the delights of "Bullfrog Snot". This was applied to one pair of driving wheels, the rear ones from memory and acted like a traction tyre.

In the past I've used Evo-Stik to do this. @Barry O and @Michael Edge will remember.

[Barry O]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

In the past I've used Evo-Stik to do this. @Barry O and @Michael Edge will remember.

Yes. We also tried double sided tape on my mainline rebuilt Patriot. That still works!

Of course pouring woods metal into the boiler via the chimney may also help?

Baz

[robertcwp]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Bullfrog Snot is a liquid rubber type solution, that goes on as a liquid but then dries to become a hard material that sticks very well to the metal wheel. I haven't used it myself but I can imagine that getting a smooth, even layer all round a wheel must be almost impossible.

 

It never seemed like good practice to me but it did seem to work for a while on the B17.

 

A conventional loco with the motor in the loco can haul the train, as Ken's Compound illustrated. That had the tender resting on rear of the loco to increase adhesion. It was always adhesion rather than power that was the problem up the hill.

 

I recall that most of the boat train is made up of metal kit built vehicles, or it certainly was at one time.

 

If there are any lighter RTR carriages that could be used instead of the metal ones, that would help too.

 

I have seen some lovely running with motors in the tender, including on Clayton. Roy was most impressed by those on Adavoyle, which were very smooth and quiet.  He tried to emulate what they had done but never really got them running as well as he would have liked and he had been muttering about doing something with them for ages.  

There are now only two metal, kit-built carriages in the boat train, and one of those can easily be replaced by a Bachmann Thompson SK, of which I have a couple spare. The other is the buffet car, which is the wrong diagram for the train but the correct catering car is not available, even in kit form or simply etched sides. What Roy put in was a regular Gresley RB, of the type also modelled (badly) by Hornby. The train had a Thompson FK with ladies' retiring room, which is not correct for the train. There were only three such carriages and two were in The Elizabethan sets. The train now has a Bachmann Thompson FK instead. The remainder are Bachmann Mark 1s, which are not the most free-running of carriages.

[t-b-g]

58 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

There are now only two metal, kit-built carriages in the boat train, and one of those can easily be replaced by a Bachmann Thompson SK, of which I have a couple spare. The other is the buffet car, which is the wrong diagram for the train but the correct catering car is not available, even in kit form or simply etched sides. What Roy put in was a regular Gresley RB, of the type also modelled (badly) by Hornby. The train had a Thompson FK with ladies' retiring room, which is not correct for the train. There were only three such carriages and two were in The Elizabethan sets. The train now has a Bachmann Thompson FK instead. The remainder are Bachmann Mark 1s, which are not the most free-running of carriages.

 

Many of the plastic bogies on Retford were beginning to suffer from wear as the pin point axles were turning the holes in the side frames into vertical slots. That made the drag even worse.

 

A replacement program was underway to rebuild the bogies with an etched innards and brass bearings but I am not sure how far it got. There was a big pile of etched bogies knocking around in the room somewhere.

[Major Clanger]

Two possible solutions to the Boat Train problem - either use the banking engine, as per the newspaper train, or send it in the other direction, so it becomes the Manchester bound train rather than the Harwich bound one (assuming it would cope with the tighter curve out of the fiddle yard in this direction).

 

 

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Major Clanger said:

Two possible solutions to the Boat Train problem - either use the banking engine, as per the newspaper train, or send it in the other direction, so it becomes the Manchester bound train rather than the Harwich bound one (assuming it would cope with the tighter curve out of the fiddle yard in this direction).

 

 

 

I didn't know about the use of a banking engine! Mind you, I was usually on North Box and didn't pay too much attention to whatever dodgy stuff the GCR people got up to.

 

As for the other direction, I recall it may have been that way once. I don't know why it was changed other than it needed to be as the fiddle yards ran out of room.

[Tony Wright]

Regarding Retford's boat train.....................

 

Here's the westbound service, just west of Kiveton Park. It's probably a year or two earlier than Retford's period, but the formation will be the same. About ten cars it would appear.

 

The catering car will come off at Sheffield Vic'. 

 

Speaking of the catering car...........

 

 

From time to time, particularly during the Brits' period of operating the North Country Continental, an ex-GE Restaurant Car was employed. I built this one from a D&S kit; I'll see if Danny has any left..............

 

 

And the eastbound service, on the flat crossing itself.

 

In my experience, I never saw a big-tender B17 on the service. In fact GAYTON HALL and CLUMBER were by far the most common. March's best.

 

Did I say I'd make some telegraph poles for Retford?!

 

 

[Chamby]

11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

What a lovely sight! 

 

I find it remarkable that, with all the detailing parts provided by RTR manufacturers these days (including coal irons in a few cases) that lamps are not provided by the likes of Hornby and Bachmann as standard.  It would be a simple and low-cost addition that would generate a greater awareness and wider interest in railway operating practice.  Most continental suppliers provide working lamps as standard these days...

 

Still, it does provide an opportunity for specialist suppliers to fill the niche, and gives us all something to talk about re: ‘proper’ modelling!