Wright writes.....

[Michael Edge]

8 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

6858 Woolston Grange made it to Huddersfield (with only minimal damage to platform edges!) Possible justification at Retford?

 

Mike Wiltshire

I think it got there from the GC via Penistone.

[APOLLO]

58 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I think it got there from the GC via Penistone.

 

Indeed it did. The full story is in a book "The Railways of Huddersfield Dewsbury & Batley" (Bellcode). Having arrived at Huddersfield, having damaged the wooden platform edging at Denby Dale the crew wanted to take it on to Leeds, but Control had other ideas and she was replaced with a Black 5. She was entombed deep inside Huddersfield Hillhouse under police guard to keep away such as us lot !!, The loco was returned to Oxley shed via Manchester & Crewe on very early the 26 August running as 8Z02 with a Farnley Jcn crew, and limited to 35mph. 

 

Reminds me of another tale, Stanier Pacific this time. They were banned over the viaduct at Salford on the Liverpool - Manchester line due to weight, but one managed to get to Exchange, and was effectively boxed in. She went home back over the viaduct, with hell to play apparently !!!!

 

No such fun these days !!!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by APOLLO
typo

[Willie Whizz]

A revised K2 kit, eh?

 

Jolly good - can a R-T-R version be more than a year or two away now, then?

 

[Oh!  Oh, all right, sorry, I'll get my coat ...]

[LNER4479]

C'mon 70015 - if you're going to tell the tale, tell the full tale!

 

The train involved was 1N72, 08.55 Bournemouth West to Leeds on 15 August 1964.

6858 got involved at Oxford , as the rostered Farnley Junct loco had been prevented reaching Oxford on its outbound working, due to an earlier derailment. Leicester (GC) was a perfectly normal place for GWR locos to work to ... Nottingham was a little more unusual, and it was here that the loco had been expected to be replaced (by the Farnley junction loco, presumably?).

 

However, nothing doing at Nottingham, so they pressed on to Sheffield, by now definitely unusual, albeit still within gauge and thus 'cleared' for ex-GW locos.

At Sheffield, the relieving Low Moor crew initially refused to work it, eventually relenting, on condition that they were accompanied by an inspector. Now venturing into the unknown, they reputedly got on so well with the loco that by Penistone they were game for anything and thus worked on - alone - clipping the platform edge at Denby Dale along the way.

 

As you say, (Leeds) Control then got involved and spoilt everyone's fun, instructing that it must be detached at Huddersfield, due to - amongst other things - concerns that it might have got stuck in Morley tunnel(!) - shades of Henry the green engine!

 

It was certainly 'rule 1 applies' on the big railway that day! 

[jwealleans]

I've heard a theory that someone in Control thought 6858 was a Type 3 diesel and that was why it was allowed to continue past Leicester.

[sandra]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good news for all those who are interested in a K2.

 

Yesterday, Dave Ellis (now of Nu-Cast Partners) phoned me with news of the imminent release of the (much) revised ex-Nu-Cast K2. 

 

He's made completely new moulds, added detail and prepared an etched brass chassis (the first Nu-Cast K2s had a white metal lump). He's sending me all the bits to conduct a test-build, which I'll do as a matter of urgency, and I'll write the instructions, taking step-by-step pictures.

 

 

This is an original Nu-Cast K2 which I built for Ian Wilson (running on a brass chassis - not me; the loco!). Geoff Haynes painted it.

 

 

It sees service from time to time on Little Bytham. It's representative of an ex-GE allocated example, where the Westinghouse equipment has been removed. 

 

I've suggested this before, but now that this project is definite, may I suggest that anyone really interested in a K2 get in touch with Dave at daveellis05@gmail.com

 

Or phone him on 01342 822270

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

Its good news that Nucast Partners are going to produce a revised K2. Unfortunately it’s rather too late for me for guess what I’m building at the moment, an old Nucast kit for the K2 with the original white metal underframe. I’ve got quite far with it but still some way to go and here’s a picture of it.

Retford already has a K2 which is used on a local to Lincoln. However I don’t think two is too many and also I might well buy one of the new kits. This model has had the axle holes reamed out and brass bearings fitted into the white metal chassis. It has a Mashima motor and a Comet gearbox. It does seem to run reasonably well.

 

I did mention that I had built a M & L body kit for a Grange class. In the unlikely event anyone’s interested here’s a photo of it.It’s got a K’s 3500 gallon tender and the underframe is from a Mainline Manor. It’s painted in the pre 1956 livery of plain black which was applied to the Granges. After 1956 they got lined green livery.  I did know that a Grange did reach Huddersfield via the Great Central. I don’t think this really gives an excuse for it to appear on Retford. Anyway this is still OO gauge and it would require an entirely new chassis to run on Retford.

 

Sandra

[Chuffer Davies]

20 minutes ago, sandra said:

 

I did mention that I had built a M & L body kit for a Grange class. In the unlikely event anyone’s interested here’s a photo of it.It’s got a K’s 3500 gallon tender and the underframe is from a Mainline Manor. It’s painted in the pre 1956 livery of plain black which was applied to the Granges. After 1956 they got lined green livery.  I did know that a Grange did reach Huddersfield via the Great Central. I don’t think this really gives an excuse for it to appear on Retford. Anyway this is still OO gauge and it would require an entirely new chassis to run on Retford.

 

Sandra

Hi Sandra,

I’m interested....  Keep ‘em coming. That makes two of us who’ve modelled the GW in the past and now the LNER.  

Frank

[LNER4479]

2 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

That makes two of us who’ve modelled the GW in the past and now the LNER.  

... aka: 'seen the light'.

 

(sorry - couldn't resist. I'll get back into my box ...)

[APOLLO]

47 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I've heard a theory that someone in Control thought 6858 was a Type 3 diesel and that was why it was allowed to continue past Leicester.

 

Interesting theory.

 

The Bellcode book suggests Shefield Victoria was the farthest north on the GC that ex GW locos were allowed to go.

 

Brit15

[B661Sutton]

On the subject of the Grange reaching Huddersfield, I found a caption from an issue of Steam Days magazine telling the story.

Also, speaking of Grange models, here's my Hornby Grange. It's been slightly detailed and repainted from BR black to lined green, as well as weathered in my usual fashion. It's now 6853 Morehampton Grange as it was in 1965, and is one of my favourite models. 

[Norton961]

Re the wondering of the Grange into deepest Yorkshire, the change over point for the inter regional workings going north was in fact Nottingham and there are lots of photos of ex GW locos at Nottingham using the turntable at the station. I have a photo of the Grange sitting at Huddersfield shed and apparently the shed master was doing his best to keep photographers away. The loco when it arrived at Crewe went down the line to Wellington and then on to Oxley.

David

 

[Northmoor]

16 minutes ago, B661Sutton said:

On the subject of the Grange reaching Huddersfield, I found a caption from an issue of Steam Days magazine telling the story.

 

I wonder if this story is one of those that gets embellished with every re-telling.

 

EE Type 3 D6858 wasn't introduced until August 1963; there were only about 50 of the type in service by that time.  Did they even run up the GC or in South Yorkshire generally at that point, so would not have been well known by operational control?

[The Fatadder]

I have been working on detailing and weathering a Bachmann Austerity 280 which I have backdated from a Swindonised version back to 1947 condition.  It has a new topfeed, chimney, snifter and smokebox dart from Dave Bradwell, Finney lamp irons and a scratch built fire iron rack.  Weathering is a mix of paints and powders, would welcome any feedback as to how the weathering could be improved.

 

 

While the soldering iron was out, I also build an L25 to finish off my TPO, so I now have an accurate formation for October 47.  Just need to get it painted now...  without the cutaways in the sides it makes a nice contrast with the rest of the rake

[Woodcock29]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As soon as a locomotive build reaches this stage, it starts to look like (or one hopes) what it's supposed to be, and the end is in sight.

 

 

Shouldn't be too long now........................

 

 

Tony what's the ride height like on the County? The second-hand one I've got at present sits a bit high.

Andrew

[Gibbo675]

15 hours ago, jwealleans said:

I've heard a theory that someone in Control thought 6858 was a Type 3 diesel and that was why it was allowed to continue past Leicester.

Hi There,

 

That reminds me of when 45407 was derailed on the trap points at Bury Bolton Street about twenty years ago. As it was a mainline registered locomotive it had to have an ultrasonic axle test, and so the man from Derby turned up with his oscilloscope to do the examination but couldn't because he had brought with him the trace diagram for the axle of a class 45 diesel.

 

Gibbo.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Gibbo675
Improper grammar.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

I have been working on detailing and weathering a Bachmann Austerity 280 which I have backdated from a Swindonised version back to 1947 condition.  It has a new topfeed, chimney, snifter and smokebox dart from Dave Bradwell, Finney lamp irons and a scratch built fire iron rack.  Weathering is a mix of paints and powders, would welcome any feedback as to how the weathering could be improved.

 

 

While the soldering iron was out, I also build an L25 to finish off my TPO, so I now have an accurate formation for October 47.  Just need to get it painted now...  without the cutaways in the sides it makes a nice contrast with the rest of the rake

Good morning Rich,

 

The weathering on the 'Dub-Dee' looks excellent to me. However, I think you've cranked the top lamp bracket the wrong way. It's the same as those on the front platform (which are correct). It should crank to the left when looking at the loco head-on. 

 

It's much easier to get the lamp irons correct if one doesn't model the GWR! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony what's the ride height like on the County? The second-hand one I've got at present sits a bit high.

Andrew

Interesting, Andrew,

 

I never really thought to check, but it does ride a bit high. 

 

Other than shaving off the top of the frames (impossible now they're assembled) there's nothing that can be done. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[The Fatadder]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Rich,

 

The weathering on the 'Dub-Dee' looks excellent to me. However, I think you've cranked the top lamp bracket the wrong way. It's the same as those on the front platform (which are correct). It should crank to the left when looking at the loco head-on. 

 

It's much easier to get the lamp irons correct if one doesn't model the GWR! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks, this style of weathering was a new endeavour as most locos have been somewhat cleaner, but I thought for of of these locos it just had to be completely filthy.  

 

I have assumed that a loco loaned to the GWR would have at least been fitted with GWR lamp irons when inspected at Swindon prior to entering service (I know there were other small modifications made around the cab fittings prior to nationalisation as well).  So I have just fitted a standard GWR lamp iron from the Finney etch, which I thought I had folded up right.  I have attached a clearer photo, as I think it is folded correctly for a GWR iron (so possibly just not so clear in my original photo)

 

edit, the photo does show up that some of the paint has rubbed off the brass lamp iron, so that will need touching up before it goes back out to the layout...

Edited April 16, 2021 by The Fatadder

[Retro_man]

16 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I wonder if this story is one of those that gets embellished with every re-telling.

 

EE Type 3 D6858 wasn't introduced until August 1963; there were only about 50 of the type in service by that time.  Did they even run up the GC or in South Yorkshire generally at that point, so would not have been well known by operational control?

 

The Grange arrived in Huddersfield August 15, 1964, by which time EE Type 3s were widespread in Yorkshire.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Thanks, this style of weathering was a new endeavour as most locos have been somewhat cleaner, but I thought for of of these locos it just had to be completely filthy.  

 

I have assumed that a loco loaned to the GWR would have at least been fitted with GWR lamp irons when inspected at Swindon prior to entering service (I know there were other small modifications made around the cab fittings prior to nationalisation as well).  So I have just fitted a standard GWR lamp iron from the Finney etch, which I thought I had folded up right.  I have attached a clearer photo, as I think it is folded correctly for a GWR iron (so possibly just not so clear in my original photo)

 

edit, the photo does show up that some of the paint has rubbed off the brass lamp iron, so that will need touching up before it goes back out to the layout...

Thanks Rich,

 

I misinterpreted your original photograph.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

42 minutes ago, Retro_man said:

 

The Grange arrived in Huddersfield August 15, 1964, by which time EE Type 3s were widespread in Yorkshire.

 

 

That would make sense (and the Grange wasn't withdrawn until late '65) but the Steam Days article quoted said August 1962, so I assume that was a typo.  Clearly they didn't employ a Mr. A. Wright as proof-reader......

[Tony Wright]

23 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

That would make sense (and the Grange wasn't withdrawn until late '65) but the Steam Days article quoted said August 1962, so I assume that was a typo.  Clearly they didn't employ a Mr. A. Wright as proof-reader......

Hardly, at the time. 

 

I was only 18 years old! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Retro_man]

41 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

That would make sense (and the Grange wasn't withdrawn until late '65) but the Steam Days article quoted said August 1962, so I assume that was a typo.  Clearly they didn't employ a Mr. A. Wright as proof-reader......

The photo in the article was dated August 1962, however the text stated "Almost exactly 2 years after this photograph was taken No 6858 infamously collected the accolade of becoming the only ex-GWR locomotive to travel Huddersfield uninvited!"

 

I was 15 years old and living in Bradford at the time when I heard through the grapevine that there was a Grange in Huddersfield shed. After riding my bike there I was not allowed in the shed and unfortunately did not see 6858.

[Northmoor]

50 minutes ago, Retro_man said:

The photo in the article was dated August 1962, however the text stated "Almost exactly 2 years after this photograph was taken No 6858 infamously collected the accolade of becoming the only ex-GWR locomotive to travel Huddersfield uninvited!"

 

I was 15 years old and living in Bradford at the time when I heard through the grapevine that there was a Grange in Huddersfield shed. After riding my bike there I was not allowed in the shed and unfortunately did not see 6858.

Thank you for demonstrating why I don't work as proof-reader.

[Tony Wright]

Bodywork now complete on the Gibson 'County' 4-4-2T

 

 

The steps were incredibly flimsy, and I've added support in the form of square-section brass stock.

 

After testing on curves, I moved the front ones further forward. Soldered in exactly the right place, even on fairly generous curves, they fouled the front bogie wheels. A pragmatic compromise? Or is a pragmatic compromise tautology? 

 

Unlike many 'professionally-built' locos, this one will have to run on a layout, with a minimum radius of 3'. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error