Wright writes.....

[Dylan Sanderson]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Occasional a surprise can be a wonderful thing.........

 

This lunchtime, our postman delivered a little box.

 

In it was this..................

 

 

It's a gift from Dylan Sanderson, which he's built from a 51L white metal kit for a Dia. C10 NER 12T open goods wagon. 

 

The reason for making it for me is because I've given him assistance in his building models. He states 'It might not be up to LB standards' (he's talking b0ll0cks of course!). 

 

What a lovely surprise. Thank you ever so much, Dylan. 

 

I'll paint it, and it'll definitely find use on Little Bytham; especially since it's been so well-made. 

 

Dylan is one of the team in Scale Model Scenery. 

Glad it arrived safely @Tony Wright, sorry it's not painted, I definitely don't have the ability to paint and number wagons yet!

If the couplings aren't suitable, blame @Jesse Sim, I couldn't get them to work so he told me to just solder them in!

 

Merry Christmas everyone,

 

Dylan

[Jesse Sim]

3 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Glad it arrived safely @Tony Wright, sorry it's not painted, I definitely don't have the ability to paint and number wagons yet!

If the couplings aren't suitable, blame @Jesse Sim, I couldn't get them to work so he told me to just solder them in!

 

Merry Christmas everyone,

 

Dylan

Painting is easy mate, lettering is easy as well, get Tatlows books or ask me for a photo of the real wagon. Lettering can be tricky! 
 

I did say to you “this is how I do it” 

 

It does look good mate, is that your third metal wagon? 

[Dylan Sanderson]

14 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

It does look good mate, is that your third metal wagon? 

2nd completed, 3rd started. The one we started together isn't finished yet...

[Tony Wright]

15 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

why not just produce a ballast train to go with your ballast brake?

 

 

The 1960 and 1950 dates are a bit random. A couple of things to consider, you really need the figures for the individual year that is being modeled. In the case of LB that should be 1957 I think. Railway modelers have a terrible tendency to extract information from one time period of railway history and transpose it onto another. As for the 'replacement' off big four stock after Nationalization, it is often forgotten that the newly created British railways continued to build pre Nationalised wagons for some time. many of them, such as the LNER high steel goods for example, became a BR standard types. On percentages, specialist wagons dominate on model railways, in reality and excluding mineral wagons, three quarters of the wagons produced by the big four were General merchandise opens.

 

 

One of the biggest problems with model railway freight stock is the over emphasis on specialist vehicles and on pre WW2 layouts, fitted stock. Invariably the specialist stock is dominated by GWR types on the majority of model railways, as if the big builders of the LMS and LNER never built a bogie bolster or well wagon of their own, rather they unauthentically relied on the moderately produced products of the GWR. LB is rather guilty of this one.

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

Is there a standard formation for a ballast train?

 

Regarding LB's freight stock; I don't have a well wagon (should I?). I do have two ex-GWR Bogie Bolster A wagons, one kit-built (not by me) and the other modified RTR (out of a complement of over 350 wagons, is that too many?). The other three bogie bolsters are of LNER/LMS origin (judging by their prefixes, though these might be incorrect - they're kit-built or modified RTR).

 

I admit, the freight side of things on LB has never had the scrutiny from me it should have. That said, you're the only one who's really commented critically. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Geoff Haynes brought round a couple of locos this morning he's completed the patch-painting/varnishing/weathering on for me. 

 

 

 

What a difference a dome makes! 

 

Readers might recall this loco had been built with a banjo dome (totally incorrect for an A3 post-1938). I took off the banjo one (fortunately, it was only held in place with superglue), gave Geoff a streamlined one, which he painted (in the same Railmatch BR green as the original) and stuck back in place, weathering the top to blend it in. The footprint of the replacement dome was larger than the banjo one, so the change is 'invisible'.

 

Whoever built/painted it did a fine job using a South Eastern Finecast kit (though it could really do with a better 'face'), and it runs superbly. 

 

 

 

Hornby's rendition of BR green is questionable to say the least. However, with a touch of Geoff's magic, it can be much-improved. However, beware; just a sniff of enamel thinners shifts the lining in moments! 

 

This 'collectors' item' is now seriously devalued because of my fitting new bogie wheels, detailing it, fitting scale 'plates, a crew, and gluing real coal into the tender. So what? I'm sure it'll find work on Shap next year. 

[LNER4479]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

This 'collectors' item' [46252] is now seriously devalued because of my fitting new bogie wheels, detailing it, fitting scale 'plates, a crew, and gluing real coal into the tender. So what? I'm sure it'll find work on Shap next year. 

Very much look forward to it, Tony. (York, with a fair wind). I'll be fascinated to see how a modern 'Hornby Dublo' fares alongside a genuine original (and we could always throw in a DJH Duchess as a further comparison)

 

Here's Dad's venerable and original HD Duchess of 60 years vintage shifting 11 bogies from a standing start without a trace of a slip. I'm sure she would take a lot more, though bearing in mind a combination of vintage and considerable sentimental value, I'm minded to treat her with 'kid gloves' going forward.

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Very much look forward to it, Tony. (York, with a fair wind). I'll be fascinated to see how a modern 'Hornby Dublo' fares alongside a genuine original (and we could always throw in a DJH Duchess as a further comparison)

 

Here's Dad's venerable and original HD Duchess of 60 years vintage shifting 11 bogies from a standing start without a trace of a slip. I'm sure she would take a lot more, though bearing in mind a combination of vintage and considerable sentimental value, I'm minded to treat her with 'kid gloves' going forward.

 

Good evening Graham,

 

You can treat 46252 with 'boxing gloves' if you wish. 

 

I have no idea what it'll actually pull. By the time 30 metal carriages were hung behind her on LB, the tender was the limiting factor, tending to 'collapse' inwards on the end curves. 

 

She'll walk away with 15 on Shap.

 

I suppose the reason for Hornby choosing to do a 'metal Duchess' was an homage of sorts to the great name of Hornby Dublo during Hornby's centennial year (though there is little commonality between this 46252 and HD's 46252 of 70 years ago, other than it having a metal body). As such (500 pieces being made), it's aimed at the collectors' market. I'm told all have sold, which makes the other 499 examples even more valuable, since I've 'ruined' it in that regard.

 

I've heard that they've been sold for more than new on Ebay, folks who bought them first, cashing in by reselling them. I suppose that's how the market works. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

Is there a standard formation for a ballast train?

 

Regarding LB's freight stock; I don't have a well wagon (should I?). I do have two ex-GWR Bogie Bolster A wagons, one kit-built (not by me) and the other modified RTR (out of a complement of over 350 wagons, is that too many?). The other three bogie bolsters are of LNER/LMS origin (judging by their prefixes, though these might be incorrect - they're kit-built or modified RTR).

 

I admit, the freight side of things on LB has never had the scrutiny from me it should have. That said, you're the only one who's really commented critically. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

yes there is a standard formation for a ballast train, a bunch of wagons full of ballast and a ballast brake. Sometimes you will get a second brake van. It is not normal to find vehicles, such as tool and mess vans, in the actual ballast train, they are normally in a separate workman's trains. I include a link to the wonderful  Dave F thread that shows a typical ballast train working wrong line at Bulwell on the GC. The ballast brake on this train is a converted ex GNR brake third.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-5613-0-67316400-1367246113.jpg

 

I believe that one of your E prefixed bogie bolsters is actually an ex WD design. I don't recall seeing an ex LMS bolster. The GWR bogie bolsters A is endemic on model railways, often being lettered as LMS, LNER, BR, SR, PO and even GWR on occasion, it is still being sold under many an erroneous identity. I would note that special vehicles also include ex GWR Fruit D's and ex GWR pipe wagons amongst others, how about the LNER equivalents on an ECML layout? 

 

I comment critically because I think LB would easily fit into the category of an exhibition standard layout. It is in most respects better than the majority of exhibition layouts that you would see. Most exhibition layouts nowadays have really good scenery, there is no problem for LB in that regard. The railway infrastructure is often of a more variable quality across exhibition layouts, LB is superior in this regard, it is probably the layouts most authentic feature. LB still edges out most layouts in terms of locomotives and is still ahead of the game as far as carriage stock is concerned*.

 

 When it comes to the modeling of freight stock, most steam era model freight stock is way below the standard of the scenic elements on a layout. The latter usually comes out on top and the former is usually at the bottom. I look at the weaknesses in freight stock from the point of view of what is missing that should be there, what is over abundant or shouldn't be there, trains that have no apparent real world function, stock that is fictitious and a poor understanding of how wagons and trains were loaded in the steam era. 

 

I'm not saying that LB is a particularly terrible example, though I could point out examples of all of the above on the layout, rather that it is typical in regard to the lowly position that the freight stock occupies, if you value consistency of approach. I can tell by looking at LB, that if I was to ask a question about the infrastructure, I would get informative and knowledgeable answers. I suspect that questions about the freight stock would very quickly start to draw a blank. This state of affairs as regards freight stock is quite normal on model railways, thus it is an excellent way to weed out the really good layouts from the rest. It is also a relatively easy way to improve the authenticity of a model railway. 

 

As for me being the only person to comment on LBs freight stock, that's not actually true and it is something that you have even noted yourself.
 

*Noting that Bachman MK1 carriages are much of the same across model railways, though you have improved yours considerably.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Headstock
clarify a point. Add,

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've heard that they've been sold for more than new on Ebay, folks who bought them first, cashing in by reselling them. I suppose that's how the market works. 

 

No Tony, it works like this:

1. You get enjoyment from "Duchess", by using it for the (or a) purpose for which it was intended.
2. Those who display them on a shelf, are also using them for the (or a) purpose for which they were intended. 
3. The rest were purchased by people who are unable to enjoy anything for its own sake, only for how much money they can make out of it.  Unless these people are actually a bona fide model shop, they deserve our pity.

[Andy Hayter]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But I'll refer you again to the photographic evidence from the 1918-1923 period. This film has been bandied about recently:

 

https://www.ampthill.tv/playvideo.html?id=94&fbclid=IwAR3eZd3oo2SmzR3lPCLlZFnI0z2UhhIrzBpa1gesRaXH8i5pKFLCL8hqur0

 

... see the bricks being loaded from 8:45. Pooled opens: NE, GN, GC, MR, ?, LNWR, MR, GW, ?, LNWR, NE, LNWR, TV, GC (then a jump in the film?), more MR & LNWR wagons, then: GE, LBSC, CR, LY, SECR, several more LNWR and MR, NE, LNWR, brake. This is a LNWR location; it's certainly true that there are a lot of LNWR wagons, with Midland ones being common too. These two companies, along with the GWR and NER, had the largest fleets of open wagons so naturally their vehicles predominate; also, there are several LNWR D10 20 ton wagons - originally for sand traffic - which I'm fairly sure weren't pooled because of their non-standard capacity; these may be dedicated to this brickworks traffic.

 

 

You are right to point out that in some places with very specific flows you would end up with disproportionate mixing.  I am sure the same would be found around major ports.  Single and exceptional examples do not however make the norm - although they may well influence it.

 

You remember the coins in my wallet.  There was a single Portuguese coin.  A bit of an outlier except that I regularly get the odd Portuguese coin in my change.  And why?  Because just over 1km away is a significant Portuguese immigrant population whose movements to and from their home land and the visits of relatives keeps a regular flow of local to then coins.  

 

When I was living in Germany I saw a bigger range of Euro coins but then I was only a 50 minute drive from Strasbourg with MEPs and their teams as well as judges from around Europe keeping up a steady influx of new and foreign coinage.

 

 

So I will stick with the general level of mixing being rather low although I fully concede that in some specific locations that would not be the case.  

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

yes there is a standard formation for a ballast train, a bunch of wagons full of ballast and a ballast brake. Sometimes you will get a second brake van. It is not normal to find vehicles, such as tool and mess vans, in the actual ballast train, they are normally in a separate workman's trains. I include a link to the wonderful  Dave F thread that shows a typical ballast train working wrong line at Bulwell on the GC. The ballast brake on this train is a converted ex GNR brake third.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-5613-0-67316400-1367246113.jpg 374.34 kB · 0 downloads

 

I believe that one of your E prefixed bogie bolsters is actually an ex WD design. I don't recall seeing an ex LMS bolster. The GWR bogie bolsters A is endemic on model railways, often being lettered as LMS, LNER, BR, SR, PO and even GWR on occasion, it is still being sold under many an erroneous identity. I would note that special vehicles also include ex GWR Fruit D's and ex GWR pipe wagons amongst others, how about the LNER equivalents on an ECML layout? 

 

I comment critically because I think LB would easily fit into the category of an exhibition standard layout. It is in most respects better than the majority of exhibition layouts that you would see. Most exhibition layouts nowadays have really good scenery, there is no problem for LB in that regard. The railway infrastructure is often of a more variable quality across exhibition layouts, LB is superior in this regard, it is probably the layouts most authentic feature. LB still edges out most layouts in terms of locomotives and is still ahead of the game as far as carriage stock is concerned*.

 

 When it comes to the modeling of freight stock, most steam era model freight stock is way below the standard of the scenic elements on a layout. The latter usually comes out on top and the former is usually at the bottom. I look at the weaknesses in freight stock from the point of view of what is missing that should be there, what is over abundant or shouldn't be there, trains that have no apparent real world function, stock that is fictitious and a poor understanding of how wagons and trains were loaded in the steam era. 

 

I'm not saying that LB is a particularly terrible example, though I could point out examples of all of the above on the layout, rather that it is typical in regard to the lowly position that the freight stock occupies, if you value consistency of approach. I can tell by looking at LB, that if I was to ask a question about the infrastructure, I would get informative and knowledgeable answers. I suspect that questions about the freight stock would very quickly start to draw a blank. This state of affairs as regards freight stock is quite normal on model railways, thus it is an excellent way to weed out the really good layouts from the rest. It is also a relatively easy way to improve the authenticity of a model railway. 

 

As for me being the only person to comment on LBs freight stock, that's not actually true and it is something that you have even noted yourself.
 

*Noting that Bachman MK1 carriages are much of the same across model railways, though you have improved yours considerably.

Thanks for the picture Andrew,

 

I'll have to make-up two 'engineering' trains. 

 

As for 'specialist' wagons on LB, I'll have to take some pictures of more-common types. Are the Parkside Dundas pipe wagons I've made ex-GW ones? 

 

I admit my knowledge of freight wagons is sadly lacking, though I try to use prototype pictures as a guide when I can.

 

I did qualify your constructive criticism by using 'really'. As you know, I invite criticism. That way I learn, and my modelling should improve (though 'should' is open to conjecture). I tire of the occasional examples of 'pussy-footing' around issues, in case someone is 'offended'. If one puts posts on an open forum, then brickbats come as often as bouquets, which is as it should be. I'm not advocating being deliberately offensive, but free speech and opinions should be sacrosanct in my view, so, please, keep on firing away. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Looking further at the pictures of TRIGO shown earlier, one item which made her 'face' less than a true likeness was the smokebox numberplate. It's etched, but by whom I don't know, but it's too squeezed up. 

 

 

An immediate improvement was achieved by fitting one of Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' numberplates, just stuck over the original. 

 

I've also changed the generic (and very thin-tyred) bogie wheels with 'proper' Markits LNER Pacific bogie wheels. Though thin tyres might be more accurate, their road-holding on LB was not good (it's only OO FS after all). 

 

The new dome makes a big difference.

 

What of this model? I think it's well-built, and, as a layout loco, looks the part (it's really too late for LB). It now runs really well, though it didn't to start with. Coming from a glass case and static environment, its late owner probably didn't bother about its dud running (or didn't know). I've cured it by some tweaking, bad langue and belligerence. 

 

Its tender has no brakes, though the builder has at least made a fist of producing a streamlined non-corridor tender, despite the slight turn-in at the front. 

 

I'd describe it as a 'journeyman' model, generally well-made and nicely painted. I think it has some merit.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

So I will stick with the general level of mixing being rather low although I fully concede that in some specific locations that would not be the case.  

 

I conclude, then, that most of the photos I've seen were taken at such a specific location!

 

B.L. Jackson & M.J. Tattershall, The Bridport Branch (OPC,1976) p. 80, photograph of train collecting timber direct from the lineside near Powerstock, during the Great War: GN GW NE? MR GW GC MR GN SECR MR LNWR...

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for the picture Andrew,

 

I'll have to make-up two 'engineering' trains. 

 

As for 'specialist' wagons on LB, I'll have to take some pictures of more-common types. Are the Parkside Dundas pipe wagons I've made ex-GW ones? 

 

I admit my knowledge of freight wagons is sadly lacking, though I try to use prototype pictures as a guide when I can.

 

I did qualify your constructive criticism by using 'really'. As you know, I invite criticism. That way I learn, and my modelling should improve (though 'should' is open to conjecture). I tire of the occasional examples of 'pussy-footing' around issues, in case someone is 'offended'. If one puts posts on an open forum, then brickbats come as often as bouquets, which is as it should be. I'm not advocating being deliberately offensive, but free speech and opinions should be sacrosanct in my view, so, please, keep on firing away. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

Thanks for the reply. 

 

LB is such a large undertaking that it is not surprising that there is the odd 'rough edge', that unscrupulous people like myself can exploit. The truth is that none of us are infallible. I have tried to pay particular attention to those things that are repeated across hundreds of layouts whilst also recognise the qualities in LB. My hope would be that those following the thread would perhaps think a little bit more or seek a bit of knowledge before making that vital purchase, be it kit or RTR. Do I really need the latest RTR SR bogie van for my Outer Hebrides layout? Could it be that not having even one of the 350,000 wagons owned by the LMS, is a bit of an oversight? Other companies wagons or fake wagons with LMS legend or M prefix don't count!

 

Copying photographs is fine if modelers stick to copying. My own experience is that modelers quickly start to substitute one type or companies wagons  for whatever they have available, or mix and match different trains, or even trains from different years, it kind of negates the point of looking at a photograph. The unintentional result is that if you are not careful, you lose what makes the ECML the ECML or the Great Western the Great Western. 

 

I had some thoughts on the pooling of railway wagons, as it has come up again in the general discussion. It occurs to me that most Railway modelers don't actually model the kind of big four wagons that were pooled. They much prefer to 'pool' the comparatively rare special types that often worked specific diagrams in particular geographic locations. There's something amusingly 'Orwellian' in the historical reinterpretations of Railway modelers.
 

[andytrains]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Graham,

 

You can treat 46252 with 'boxing gloves' if you wish. 

 

I have no idea what it'll actually pull. By the time 30 metal carriages were hung behind her on LB, the tender was the limiting factor, tending to 'collapse' inwards on the end curves. 

 

She'll walk away with 15 on Shap.

 

I suppose the reason for Hornby choosing to do a 'metal Duchess' was an homage of sorts to the great name of Hornby Dublo during Hornby's centennial year (though there is little commonality between this 46252 and HD's 46252 of 70 years ago, other than it having a metal body). As such (500 pieces being made), it's aimed at the collectors' market. I'm told all have sold, which makes the other 499 examples even more valuable, since I've 'ruined' it in that regard.

 

I've heard that they've been sold for more than new on Ebay, folks who bought them first, cashing in by reselling them. I suppose that's how the market works. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I would rather have a model that's been detailed rather than a sterile, out of the box item.

[LNER4479]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I conclude, then, that most of the photos I've seen were taken at such a specific location!

 

B.L. Jackson & M.J. Tattershall, The Bridport Branch (OPC,1976) p. 80, photograph of train collecting timber direct from the lineside near Powerstock, during the Great War: GN GW NE? MR GW GC MR GN SECR MR LNWR...

Sheer fluke, but looking through some of my historic reference material just now, I came across the following - full house, deep in the heart of LMS territory!

Can't draw too many conclusions from one photo but there you go.

 

[Bernard Lamb]

Re unusual working of wagons in model form.

I did smile when I read the obituary of Don Rowland recently to see a LGW "cottage" on his layout set in Cheshire.

Bernard 

[Jesse Sim]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

sacrosanct 

A what 

[drmditch]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

Could it be that not having even one of the 350,000 wagons owned by the LMS, is a bit of an oversight? Other companies wagons or fake wagons with LMS legend or M prefix don't count!
 

 

But what about the SR Vans built for the LMS, or the five-plank opens built by the SR (I think) to an LNER design?

 

(Can supply references if required, but only when house has warmed up!)

 

I do try to take care with my freight/goods/mineral stock, although I probably do have too high a proportion of NE labelled vehicles.

I am still surprised by the absence of a 'one-source' provision for LMS fitted vehicles. (That is pre-1948 vehicles, not those altered under BR)

Since I 'model' (in my own inadequate way) the NEA of the LNER in the 1940s, most of my mineral stock is properly labelled NE, but I do have a question about 16t steel wagons. I'll try to sort out a picture first.

 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

A what 

It's not a 'what', it's a state of being.

 

It means inviolable - not to be violated, to be kept from infraction, profanation................

 

Isn't our language wonderful?

 

'See' you tomorrow.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[swampy]

9 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Sheer fluke, but looking through some of my historic reference material just now, I came across the following - full house, deep in the heart of LMS territory!

Can't draw too many conclusions from one photo but there you go.

 

I remember reading in an article on pooling wagons ( maybe an early MRJ Chris Crofts piece? ), where the author wrote that if you hesitate to put a GWR open with sheet bar and a coal load onto an LMS coal stage, you haven't understood the concept of wagon pooling. The photo illustrates this perfectly.    

Edited December 22, 2021 by swampy
To add that it can be found in MRJ 15 p162

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, swampy said:

The photo illustrates this perfectly.    

 

I think all five are wagons intended, when built, for merchandise traffic but here they are in coal traffic, apparently. The LMS wagon on the left is an ex-Midland D302 or D663A, built during the last decade before grouping; the middle GW wagon might be an O4 from the first decade of the 20th century - it has the Dean-Churchward brake - or one of the later varieties of 5-plank wagon; the one on the right is one of the 24,000 4-plank wagons built between 1887 and 1902. I'm afraid I'm not very well up on LNER and SR wagons.

[Jol Wilkinson]

There are some interesting (although not always very clear) photos on the excellent Warwickshire Railways site.

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/

 

The photos of the Rugby Exchange Sidings, Staverton Signal Box (LNER/GCR) and Catesby tunnel show a number of freight trains (plus a SR West Country with a LMS tender on the GCR route during the 1948 Exchange Trials).

[Dunsignalling]

In response to Tony's query about the Parkside Dundas Pipe wagon kit; it represents the BR pattern, but (AIUI) that was derived from a design built by/for the LMS and LNER, with the running gear of the owning company's type.

 

Some of the BR ones certainly ended up in departmental use on the WR and SR, generally branded as "Tunny", but that probably happened a bit later than LB's period.

 

Most engineering wagons in the fifties did tend to be pre-group/early grouping types withdrawn from traffic use on their home regions, though.

 

John

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Iain.d]

Well this is the completion of my last build for 2021, a Comet Coaches LMS D1810 Restaurant First in crimson and cream. It has taken longer than expected but that is tempered with having completed a few other bits and pieces that I wanted to do.

 

 

There’s nothing particularly special about it, but I am pleased with the way the tables, lamps, curtains and seats all seem to work together.

 

There are no diners - on the Somerset and Dorset in the early 1950s (which is where I hope to represent this carriage one day) Restaurant First were listed as being in a few summer Saturday Only services such as the 7.50am Bradford – Bournemouth, 10.30 Liverpool – Bournemouth and the 10.35 Manchester – Bournemouth. Most of these southbound services would likely have stopped serving lunch by the time they passed through Midsomer Norton in the mid to late afternoon, well, that’s my reasoning!

 

And here it is coupled to its attendant Third Open, a D1807 from a BSL/Phoenix kit. Both carriages have Stones Ventilators from etches by Rumney Models and are lined with Tamiya enamels. My lining is improving – thanks Geoff.

 

 

A request for assistance if I may? HMRS transfers are now very hard to get hold of and I only have enough 4mm ‘Ms’ for one more carriage – these are the running number letters from Sheet 14 BR steam era loco and coach insignia. Is there a modeller on this thread who would be willing to swap their ‘Ms’ for letters that I have loads of and they might need? I have plenty of ‘Es’, ‘Ws’, ‘Ss’ and ‘Sc’s’. In fact I have almost complete sheets of transfers less the ‘Ms’!! I’m happy to pay the postage costs to/from Australia. I have about another 6 LM region vehicles to do. Please PM me if you’re willing to help.

 

I will try, if time allows, to upload some different images of the things I have made in the last year, in the next few days, otherwise, I hope you all have a safe and happy Christmas.

 

Take care and kind regards,

 

Iain