Jump to content
 

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

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

Good afternoon Tony,

I agree totally with Cctransuk above. Your Engineers train looks very much Eastern Region flavour in my opinion too, and it is something unique that you built, so why remove it?

If someone can provide photographic evidence of something  completely different, then perhaps fair enough to remove.

I'm fairly confident I know what Mr Jackson may well have said to Mt Headstock's contribution!

 

Pete

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

Good afternoon, Andrew.  You are absolutely right of course, though perhaps I should have pointed out that this particular train does most of its running on our club layout, depicting the WR in west London.  So it is not photographed in its usual habitat!

  

Good afternoon Chamby,

 

there were a couple of incidents that demanded the attendance of the Colwick and Woodford break down Crain's in the late 40s, just to the south of LCS. One involved an O4 that went down the embankment just to the south Braunston gate bridge. The breakdown trains were quite well documented as a result.

 

43 minutes ago, bbishop said:

I thought only Rowland Emmett used two wheelers.  Bill

 

Bad joke?

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I think the best thing will be to completely remove the train from Bytham. 

 

I've never claimed it was accurate; just based on the occasional photograph of engineers' trains here and there. 

 

'Perhaps their (sic) just more polite than I, or just haven't got a clue'. Who knows?

 

As for the WR van in question, perhaps I really should have thrown it away! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

A bit of an over reaction Tony,

 

I'm trying to understand what it is I'm looking at and how you think about what your modeling. Genuine question, why use multiple photographs of an engineers trains? Why not pick just one train and copy it? Is there a danger that multiple trains used as prototype inspiration, could produce a Frankenstein's monster, a 'Flying Talisabethan', for example?

 

The rather anachronistic ex GWR bogie full brake,  dose jar with what you have said that you won't tolerate in model railways in the past. I appreciate it is your model to do with what you like but I don't understand why you would consider throwing it away either?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pete55 said:

Good afternoon Tony,

I agree totally with Cctransuk above. Your Engineers train looks very much Eastern Region flavour in my opinion too, and it is something unique that you built, so why remove it?

If someone can provide photographic evidence of something  completely different, then perhaps fair enough to remove.

I'm fairly confident I know what Mr Jackson may well have said to Mt Headstock's contribution!

 

Pete

 

I'm sure your right about Mr Jackson but I was never afraid of him or worshiped his opinion.

 

So what is so eastern about a GWR bogie brake, GWR bogie bolster and a modern LMS van that would be still in revenue traffic at the time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Headstock said:

  

Good afternoon Chamby,

 

there were a couple of incidents that demanded the attendance of the Colwick and Woodford break down Crain's in the late 40s, just to the south of LCS. One involved an O4 that went down the embankment just to the south Braunston gate bridge. The breakdown trains were quite well documented as a result.

 

 

Bad joke?

 

 

A bit of an over reaction Tony,

 

I'm trying to understand what it is I'm looking at and how you think about what your modeling. Genuine question, why use multiple photographs of an engineers trains? Why not pick just one train and copy it? Is there a danger that multiple trains used as prototype inspiration, could produce a Frankenstein's monster, a 'Flying Talisabethan', for example?

 

The rather anachronistic ex GWR bogie full brake,  dose jar with what you have said that you won't tolerate in model railways in the past. I appreciate it is your model to do with what you like but I don't understand why you would consider throwing it away either?

 

Tony has made it quite clear that wagons and other such ephemera are not something about which he has much knowledge (or interest). That is fair enough - I can't get worked up about head and tail lamps!

 

That being the case, if the existing departmental train conveys to Tony and the majority of his visitors the atmosphere intended, then he has satisfied 'Rule 1' on his railway.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

wagons and other such ephemera

 

Wagons! Ephemera! The blood boils. The revenue-earning life-blood of the British railway system, the absolute bread and butter compared to which passenger carriages are the merest icing on the cake! (As for locomotives - don't get me started on locomotives: revenue-consuming wastrels, especially those big fast ones.) What was it @34theletterbetweenB&D said on my spoof chaldron thread? It can be applied to mineral wagons in general:

 

Quote

These are the very vehicles responsible for creating the trend of the large scale exploitation of fossil fuels which has brought about ecological disaster; and beside them Napoleon Bonaparte looks like an innocent daydreamer.

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Wagons! Ephemera!

 

To you and me - and there is no greater wagon addict than I - blasphemy indeed !!

 

Nonetheless, we must accept that there are less enlightened people on the planet - and we would want to be labelled the 'Wagon Taliban' would we?!? ;)

 

John Isherwood.

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

23 hours ago, Ray Flintoft said:

I'm sure I have seen the odd report of Brits reaching Newcastle , so rare but not unknown

 

 I can't find much evidence, Ray. I have photos of 70048 at Darlington and Newcastle on a Kings X-Edinburgh (in 1958) .  North of York, which was the normal northern limit, 70020 got to Hartlepool in 1963 on an excursion taking fans to a Durham-Warwickshire Rugby match.  I have photos of the loco on the shed and in (West) Hartlepool Station, It was one of 2 trains, the other being The Midland Pullman set, (now there's one to challenge the  it never happened experts). I saw 70000 in 1964 at Darlington on an excursion. It pulled in, we copped it, then jumped on an A1 hauled train back to Newcastle, enjoying what was by then a rare chance to be steam-hauled.

In the context of the latest debate on prototype fidelity, I suspect I am in the middle ,in that I try to run reasonable accurate stock, but will readily tolerate anomalies. So Tony's breakdown train would be fine with me, but it does seem to jar with Tony's usual standards. But throwing it out seems a bit harsh.. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Headstock said:

  

Good afternoon Chamby,

 

there were a couple of incidents that demanded the attendance of the Colwick and Woodford break down Crain's in the late 40s, just to the south of LCS. One involved an O4 that went down the embankment just to the south Braunston gate bridge. The breakdown trains were quite well documented as a result.

 

 

Bad joke?

 

 

A bit of an over reaction Tony,

 

I'm trying to understand what it is I'm looking at and how you think about what your modeling. Genuine question, why use multiple photographs of an engineers trains? Why not pick just one train and copy it? Is there a danger that multiple trains used as prototype inspiration, could produce a Frankenstein's monster, a 'Flying Talisabethan', for example?

 

The rather anachronistic ex GWR bogie full brake,  dose jar with what you have said that you won't tolerate in model railways in the past. I appreciate it is your model to do with what you like but I don't understand why you would consider throwing it away either?

Good evening Andrew,

 

If I could find a series of pictures illustrating one engineers' train, from just about all angles, I would model it 'correctly', or try to. 

 

In most of the images I've got which show them, Departmental vehicles often appear in the background, tantalisingly indistinct. 

 

On page 13 of Eastern Steam in Colour, by Hugh Ballantyne, Jaynes, 1986, there is a wonderful picture of Boston's breakdown train. Apart from the crane itself and a match-truck, there are three black-painted elderly carriages. One looks very similar to the four-wheeler in mine and another looks similar to the ex-GN one I've built. The third has duckets. I copied the position of the brandings on these heavily-weathered vehicles, and John Isherwood very kindly made me engineering transfers to put on them (for the Peterborough and/or Doncaster districts). Unfortunately, the brandings in the prototype shot cannot be read. Yes, I know it's a breakdown train, but surely such vehicles would be used in general engineers' trains. Where mine is parked, I've set up a little group repairing a buffer stop (after a heavy shunt?). A crane would not be required, but a tools and/or stores van would be needed. That's what mine are. 

 

I can't believe that such ancient carriages would be permanently-coupled, never being split from the formation they're in. That's why I look at as many Departmental vehicle pictures as I can, having no intention of creating monsters of any kind.

 

As for that infamous ex-GWR van, it was placed in the rake for its photograph. Out of interest, I left it there when three friends visited last week. All are highly-experienced, highly-talented and highly knowledgeable modellers. Their opinions, criticisms and talents, I respect most-highly. Not one commented on how 'out of place' it was, and all thought it 'rather interesting'. I won't be leaving it in the train, and will probably donate it to the first 'worthy cause'. 

 

I think (at least I hope) in a 'layout context', my engineers' train (which varies from time to time) 'looks the part', as illustrated by the following views. 

 

931030878_Engineeringtrain.jpg.aa29da5ee3bd82916cc0951930c67563.jpg

 

184919456_MousaModelsGNRBrakeThird.jpg.7aa824ae7cd98cdb467665fc15764f2c.jpg

 

960201987_O4onengineerstrain.jpg.098f5ef3e2da048d747a24b19e3c2b87.jpg

 

From time to time, the last movement in the sequence calls for a loco to tow it away. 

 

This last picture was taken before the proper girder bridge was installed.

 

You are quite right to highlight slipshod modelling and errors. No one should be exempt, least of all me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

If I could find a series of pictures illustrating one engineers' train, from just about all angles, I would model it 'correctly', or try to. 

 

In most of the images I've got which show them, Departmental vehicles often appear in the background, tantalisingly indistinct. 

 

On page 13 of Eastern Steam in Colour, by Hugh Ballantyne, Jaynes, 1986, there is a wonderful picture of Boston's breakdown train. Apart from the crane itself and a match-truck, there are three black-painted elderly carriages. One looks very similar to the four-wheeler in mine and another looks similar to the ex-GN one I've built. The third has duckets. I copied the position of the brandings on these heavily-weathered vehicles, and John Isherwood very kindly made me engineering transfers to put on them (for the Peterborough and/or Doncaster districts). Unfortunately, the brandings in the prototype shot cannot be read. Yes, I know it's a breakdown train, but surely such vehicles would be used in general engineers' trains. Where mine is parked, I've set up a little group repairing a buffer stop (after a heavy shunt?). A crane would not be required, but a tools and/or stores van would be needed. That's what mine are. 

 

I can't believe that such ancient carriages would be permanently-coupled, never being split from the formation they're in. That's why I look at as many Departmental vehicle pictures as I can, having no intention of creating monsters of any kind.

 

As for that infamous ex-GWR van, it was placed in the rake for its photograph. Out of interest, I left it there when three friends visited last week. All are highly-experienced, highly-talented and highly knowledgeable modellers. Their opinions, criticisms and talents, I respect most-highly. Not one commented on how 'out of place' it was, and all thought it 'rather interesting'. I won't be leaving it in the train, and will probably donate it to the first 'worthy cause'. 

 

I think (at least I hope) in a 'layout context', my engineers' train (which varies from time to time) 'looks the part', as illustrated by the following views. 

 

931030878_Engineeringtrain.jpg.aa29da5ee3bd82916cc0951930c67563.jpg

 

184919456_MousaModelsGNRBrakeThird.jpg.7aa824ae7cd98cdb467665fc15764f2c.jpg

 

960201987_O4onengineerstrain.jpg.098f5ef3e2da048d747a24b19e3c2b87.jpg

 

From time to time, the last movement in the sequence calls for a loco to tow it away. 

 

This last picture was taken before the proper girder bridge was installed.

 

You are quite right to highlight slipshod modelling and errors. No one should be exempt, least of all me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

thank you very much for the comprehensive reply and photographs. That's the difference between myself and many a modeler. I wouldn't ignore anything, every train has a story to tell, at least those built rather than bought, I want to know the stories behind everything. The engineers train looks better without the GWR bogie van, I still think there's a lot of space given over to tools though. That's a joke, before the anointed White Knights descend on their virtual chargers. 

Edited by Headstock
glitch posted reply before ready.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Wagons! Ephemera! The blood boils. The revenue-earning life-blood of the British railway system, the absolute bread and butter compared to which passenger carriages are the merest icing on the cake! (As for locomotives - don't get me started on locomotives: revenue-consuming wastrels, especially those big fast ones.) What was it @34theletterbetweenB&D said on my spoof chaldron thread? It can be applied to mineral wagons in general:

 

 

 

Do you need to sit down now? ;)

 

Plenty of GWR junk at York these days, so no reason why there can't be the odd bit at Little Bytham too ;)

Edited by Bucoops
  • Like 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 22/11/2021 at 14:18, Roger Sunderland said:

Tony

I hope you’ll forgive me if I use your thread to try and get some accurate information on breakdown crane support vehicles.

I wonder if anyone has any information on the type of support vehicles that might have been used on cranes in West Yorkshire during the 60’s. I’m looking for tool vans, mess vans, staff riding vans and any other support vehicles, wagon or coach, that were in use. Liveries and numbers would be useful. 
I’m not overly concerned about modelling a specific breakdown train eg Holbeck/Wakefield as just getting the type of vehicles right for the time period and area.

I have made enquiries on the forum before with absolutely no success so here’s hoping some of the very knowledgeable people on this thread might be able to help.

Roger

I seem to remember this was your original query and there have been a number of ideas and opinions. Hopefully you have a route forward now. I would be interested to know what is your plan.

I would like to do something similar on my layout as a breakdown crane and an odd assortment of supporting stock would add character albeit not the main focus of attention.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I would keep the PW train for now, Tony, for the reasons others have given above.  But it could be flagged as a future candidate for  ‘continuous improvement’, in much the same way as you approached the girder bridge.

 

I don’t think a model railway can ever be ‘finished’.  There’s always something that can be improved... it’s just that these things tend to become less profound over time!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - definitely keep the engineers train Tony - another vote! It adds character and interest.

 

Mine is probably wrong too, but at least the maroon 6 wheeler is copied from a colour photo...

 

Engineers_2.jpg.80e6e4226cd2f678f63c1a51cf0a2a52.jpg

 

Regards

Tony

  • Like 13
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's why I look at as many Departmental vehicle pictures as I can, having no intention of creating monsters of any kind.

Tony,

 

in GWR terminology, Monsters are Carriage trucks used to carry scenery etc for theatrical troops. Therefore the model that you have created cannot be a Monster in the proper use of the term!

 

Lloyd

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

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

Roger

I seem to remember this was your original query and there have been a number of ideas and opinions. Hopefully you have a route forward now. I would be interested to know what is your plan.

I would like to do something similar on my layout as a breakdown crane and an odd assortment of supporting stock would add character albeit not the main focus of attention.

Well I have raised this subject on another part of the forum, but didn’t get any replies. Bearing in mind the flack Tony has taken from a certain quarter, I’m beginning to regret bringing it up here. I am also of the opinion that Tony’s engineers train is perfectly acceptable, looks the part and that 99% of people would not find it out of place.

I have now had some helpful advice by PM and have found a picture on Paul Bartlett’s site of the Holbeck staff riding van. It is a Gresley ex GN composite brake to diagram 218F. Andy Edgeson at Isinglass Models has it on his to do list. I’m going to scratchbuild the tool van.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the breakdown train should be described as "a layout breakdown train"? :P

 

I'm on the side of those who say that it looks just fine, tbh. It captures the atmosphere of such things nicely - a last gasp of life/usefulness for aged rolling stock...

 

Mark

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Surely the breakdown train should be described as "a layout breakdown train"? :P

 

I'm on the side of those who say that it looks just fine, tbh. It captures the atmosphere of such things nicely - a last gasp of life/usefulness for aged rolling stock...

 

But then you could say that any of Tony's expresses could be just "layout expresses" and so might as well be strings of any old MK1s; or indeed his engines could be just "layout locomotives". If one is to be fastidious about one aspect of the model railway, why not another?

 

Of course the logical conclusion of this line of argument is P4...

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dibateg said:

Yes - definitely keep the engineers train Tony - another vote! It adds character and interest.

 

Mine is probably wrong too, but at least the maroon 6 wheeler is copied from a colour photo...

 

Engineers_2.jpg.80e6e4226cd2f678f63c1a51cf0a2a52.jpg

 

Regards

Tony

Thanks Tony,

 

The term 'superlative' springs to mind.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But then you could say that any of Tony's expresses could be just "layout expresses" and so might as well be strings of any old MK1s; or indeed his engines could be just "layout locomotives". If one is to be fastidious about one aspect of the model railway, why not another?

 

Of course the logical conclusion of this line of argument is P4...

A valid point, Stephen,

 

But then, several of Bytham's expresses could be classed as just 'representative', rather than strictly prototypical, given that they're based on photographs of what were probably SO rakes; made-upon the day, and never to be repeated.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Well I have raised this subject on another part of the forum, but didn’t get any replies. Bearing in mind the flack Tony has taken from a certain quarter, I’m beginning to regret bringing it up here. I am also of the opinion that Tony’s engineers train is perfectly acceptable, looks the part and that 99% of people would not find it out of place.

I have now had some helpful advice by PM and have found a picture on Paul Bartlett’s site of the Holbeck staff riding van. It is a Gresley ex GN composite brake to diagram 218F. Andy Edgeson at Isinglass Models has it on his to do list. I’m going to scratchbuild the tool van.

Don't worry, Roger,

 

I've got a substantial 'tin hat'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 5
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I think the best thing will be to completely remove the train from Bytham. 

 

 

No, no no. It's a talking point. A curiosity. A throwback. A learning point. It's yours.

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trip to West Hartlepool 9 July 1968. Thornaby's breakdown train.

 

2013-01-10-15-48-52.jpg.003404988e0774f72e6375d05231d4d8.jpg

 

2013-01-10-15-49-37.jpg.f34cee678c7778bc99e36a01df77cd60.jpg

 

2013-01-10-15-50-29.jpg.288bcf5532efeecc00e15afb9fb4b817.jpg

 

Heading the train was this Clayton. What is the vehicle it was hauling, the first in the breakdown train ?

 

 

2013-01-10-15-48-34.jpg.538821028523a0dd0c91883c2f1f8376.jpg

 

Went to Hartlepool looking for steam - a year too late !! This was the only steam loco I saw. Never mind, Lostock Hall, Rose Grove & Carnforth beckoned a month later.

 

2013-01-10-15-51-45.jpg.06c0b6fe936fb73e237985a7386d9d91.jpg

 

1966 or so, Wigan Springs Branch crane off to a job.

 

1217468438_SPRINGSBRANCHND011.jpg.6fa55b7c0c3e080493b77465fd7fcf20.jpg

 

Brit15

  • Like 17
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...