Peterborough North

[Donington Road]

Time I did some more photos, I thought. So I did. However, when I came to activate Paint.Net I got an urgent update message, and guess what? Update failed, and message from AVG to say threats detected. So, no way of shopping stuff for the time being, and it is back to the bad old days. I'll find out tomorrow if I have virus problems.

 

Anyway, here is the one that I shopped before everything went pear shaped. Having said that though, the light was so strong that the right hand side of the shot has melted. A3 2.jpg Its a nice clean A3 folks.

 

I now have working signals at this end, and so can show the rather strange placement of the signals for the Down Main. This is what the driver of the A3 would see as he got the road.down main signals.jpg

A3 3.JPG

For the sake of clarity, this shows the third signal involved, which is partly hidden in the previous shot.

A3 and 9F 2.jpg

 

And the A3 pulls away, passing a 9F waiting for the road to take coal empties into New England yard. All of which leaves just one question. Which A3 is it?

 

A3 4.jpg

 

This one. On trial after a general, and must have failed at KX, because it is being very gently run in on the 0640 to Grantham. Hot box probably.

Gilbert,

Did you ever solve what the mystery indicator was at the north end?

Attached photo shows the ladder on the signal box side which I had not noticed before, so presumably the indicator is facing the station therefore could it be something used for light engine to shed or shunting movements?

[60027Merlin]

Re picture post 4471. Lovely to view a pristine A3 Gilbert, number 90 being a rare bird down your way. Hopefully you will help the local cleaner(s) to keep it that way. If you cannot manage that, you could, of course, send it homewards up here as there is always space for another one of Gresley's pacifics.

 

As always a wonderful set of photos.

 

Eric

[Tony Wright]

When I used to visit Peterborough North (I hope I'll be invited again in the future), Great Northern always used mention the TW 'stabbing finger', pointing out an error or inaccuracy (the wrong dome position on a V2 springs to mind), so may I make some observations (I hope in not too pointed a digit fashion) with regard to the latest pictures showing GRAND PARADE, please?

 

Firstly, the answer as to how to achieve an ex-works finish on my 60054 has been given (see Wright Writes) - Johnson's KLEAR. Is that applied by brush or air-brush? It's certainly most effective, and brings the Hornby plastic finish to life. However, for the period depicted, 60090 should not have a Smith-Stone speedometer (not even one at that most peculiar angle). The cabside numbers appear to be sloping down to the rear slightly. Though this might not have been uncommon, it looks a bit odd. My dodge for getting them absolutely horizontal is to use a very soft pencil and make a line just below where the numbers' bases are to be, giving a natural datum. It's easily removed afterwards with a 'putty' rubber.

 

Secondly, are you sure the Down platform starter was changed to an upper quadrant semaphore as early as 1958? Though I can't locate the exact picture now (why can I not remember which book it's in?), I have a picture of an A3 on an Up express, taken in September 1958, entering the station from the north, with the signal clearly visible and it appears to be a GER-pattern lower-quadrant type, not a GNR somersault - which one might expect. Fincham's little books show it in 1957/'58 (though I would question every single date he gives - most are at least a year later than claimed, including one of 60090 itself which he purports to be in 1957. With a double chimney?).

 

Thirdly, the coaching stock. Unless a gangwayed vehicle were coupled to a corridor tender, as fitted to the first vehicle in a train, the corridor connector would never be extended. It would be retracted and an end-board fitted. Otherwise unwitting passengers could tumble to their deaths.

 

Though the two visible carriages (a Thompson and a BR Mk.1) look well-finished, their relative roof heights aren't right. Look at any prototype picture where a Thompson coach is marshalled adjacent to a Mk.1 and note the difference. The former, though it couldn't be out of gauge, because of its more bulbous roof profile appears to be much taller. The opposite is true in this case.

 

In case I'm perceived as being 'nit-picking', I've been very impressed by the progress on Peterborough North. The work is to a consistently high standard and it absolutely captures the flavour of the place. The crowded, almost overlapping positioning of the signals at the north end is depicted exactly. Now, with them working, it's an almost perfect scene.

 

Thus, my points, I hope, should be taken as constructive criticisms, for these things are usually easy to get right.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

The leading Thompson coach looks to have a BSL clip over roof, a problem if it has been put on Comet 1 inch high sides. The best option would have been the MJT extruded ali roof.

[great northern]

The leading Thompson coach looks to have a BSL clip over roof, a problem if it has been put on Comet 1 inch high sides. The best option would have been the MJT extruded ali roof.

It is a Lawrence Scale Models coach, Larry. The little brass plaque underneath says so, and that it was "rebuilt" for someone, name undecipherable, in 1986. On checking my stock, I find that other builders of excellent reputation, yourself included, have built brake coaches for me with fixed corridor connectors at both ends. I don't mind that at all, as BR(E) rostered a lot of brakes within formations rather than at the ends, and they then of course look perfectly correct. As usual, one can't have everything.

[great northern]

When I used to visit Peterborough North (I hope I'll be invited again in the future), Great Northern always used mention the TW 'stabbing finger', pointing out an error or inaccuracy (the wrong dome position on a V2 springs to mind), so may I make some observations (I hope in not too pointed a digit fashion) with regard to the latest pictures showing GRAND PARADE, please?

 

Firstly, the answer as to how to achieve an ex-works finish on my 60054 has been given (see Wright Writes) - Johnson's KLEAR. Is that applied by brush or air-brush? It's certainly most effective, and brings the Hornby plastic finish to life. However, for the period depicted, 60090 should not have a Smith-Stone speedometer (not even one at that most peculiar angle). The cabside numbers appear to be sloping down to the rear slightly. Though this might not have been uncommon, it looks a bit odd. My dodge for getting them absolutely horizontal is to use a very soft pencil and make a line just below where the numbers' bases are to be, giving a natural datum. It's easily removed afterwards with a 'putty' rubber.

 

Secondly, are you sure the Down platform starter was changed to an upper quadrant semaphore as early as 1958? Though I can't locate the exact picture now (why can I not remember which book it's in?), I have a picture of an A3 on an Up express, taken in September 1958, entering the station from the north, with the signal clearly visible and it appears to be a GER-pattern lower-quadrant type, not a GNR somersault - which one might expect. Fincham's little books show it in 1957/'58 (though I would question every single date he gives - most are at least a year later than claimed, including one of 60090 itself which he purports to be in 1957. With a double chimney?).

 

Thirdly, the coaching stock. Unless a gangwayed vehicle were coupled to a corridor tender, as fitted to the first vehicle in a train, the corridor connector would never be extended. It would be retracted and an end-board fitted. Otherwise unwitting passengers could tumble to their deaths.

 

Though the two visible carriages (a Thompson and a BR Mk.1) look well-finished, their relative roof heights aren't right. Look at any prototype picture where a Thompson coach is marshalled adjacent to a Mk.1 and note the difference. The former, though it couldn't be out of gauge, because of its more bulbous roof profile appears to be much taller. The opposite is true in this case.

 

In case I'm perceived as being 'nit-picking', I've been very impressed by the progress on Peterborough North. The work is to a consistently high standard and it absolutely captures the flavour of the place. The crowded, almost overlapping positioning of the signals at the north end is depicted exactly. Now, with them working, it's an almost perfect scene.

 

Thus, my points, I hope, should be taken as constructive criticisms, for these things are usually easy to get right.

Many thanks to Tony for his comments. I can assure him they have not been taken in a negative way. As to 60090, she was a commission, and in most respects one which I was very happy with. I did, and still do, take the view that if I commission a loco, or anything else for that matter, I am entitled to expect the builder to do the necessary research and get things right, which includes detail such as the speedometer, and the proper application of numbers, particularly when the builder is himself an ECML modeller. As to the numbers, well, although the camera doesn't lie, it can exaggerate. There is a slight slope, but it was not sufficiently obtrusive in my view to require remedial action. I freely admit that I tend to apply the "does it look like a" test to models, and that if the answer is in the affirmative I can and do ignore inaccuracies which seem to get others into a real lather. Thus I missed the speedo error, and I have no doubt at all that there are many such just waiting to be discovered amongst the rest of my locos and stock, but not those built by Tony, who does make sure that things are correct, and that his locos run as well as they look.

 

Ken Gibbons built the signals, and I well remember that we discussed the vexed question as to when that platform signal was changed from lower to upper quadrant. Ken did some research, and concluded that it was upper quadrant by 1958. There was quite a major resignalling in 1957, particularly at the South end, and it would be logical for this signal to have been altered at the same time. That does not mean that it was of course, but again I take a fairly relaxed view. I don't even begin to pretend that this is a model of Peterborough North in 1958 which is accurate in every detail. It can't be, as it is too short and insufficiently wide, has a very oversimplified track formation particularly where the Down bays are concerned, and many other errors and omissions. Apart from that, if it is 1958, why does Deltic appear? Her debut on the ECML was not until February 1959. And why is there an A4 which was in pieces in the Crimpsall at the time when I allege the layout is set? The answer is that I can live with it, and that is the only test which matters, as I am the only person who makes the decisions.

 

As to the captions in Vic Fincham's otherwise invaluable albums, they are indeed in some if not most cases wildly incorrect. I have no doubt that the photo of number 90 was taken in August 1958 within a few days of my seeing the loco at Retford on her first running in trip. That glorious sight is still bright in my memory, and that is why Grand Parade features on the layout. I take advantage of the fact that she did spend up to three weeks down South in August '58 to include her, though otherwise the odds against seeing her at Peterborough would have been very high indeed.

 

Finally, those coaches. Again the camera has exaggerated, as I have put a spirit level across the two coaches, and the roof height is level!  I've mentioned the corridor connectors in reply to Coachmann above. I know it is wrong, but I put up with it, because I also know I can't have everything.

 

Any layout is going to reflect the character of its owner. In this case it shows that the owner has no objection to compromise, indeed he thinks the world would be a better place if there was more of it. He will also shamelessly take advantage of things that work in his favour, while conveniently ignoring others which do not, though he strongly supects that he is by no means alone in so doing. The "does it look like" test is rigorously applied, and, judging by the comments made on this thread, it does indeed look as Peterborough North station did in 1958. Well, sort of around that time anyway.

 

Tony is not, in some respects at least, as willing to overlook things which are wrong as I am. I accept that - he is just as entitled to his attitude as I am to mine. It does mean though I'm afraid that when he visits there will always be something for the stabbing finger to point out.

[jwealleans]

The finish on GP is outstanding - I'd be interested to know the sequence in which he applied the various materials (polish up the Hornby finish then Klear over it, or Klear onto the loco them T cut to get an even deeper shine?).  I hope that the next time you do some platform ending at Grantham you might bring her along.  I have some Hornby Thompsons to do for a club colleague and that finish is something to aim for.

[great northern]

Gilbert,

Did you ever solve what the mystery indicator was at the north end?

Attached photo shows the ladder on the signal box side which I had not noticed before, so presumably the indicator is facing the station therefore could it be something used for light engine to shed or shunting movements?60147-1963.jpg

No, I didn't, nor did I notice that the ladder was on the signal box side. I've delayed my reply while looking for an earlier photo, but I can't find it. It seems entirely logical though that it did indeed govern movements from the Up main into the complex of sidings and running lines at the North end. I reckon you have soved the problem. Many thanks.

[Oldddudders]

Gilbert - no doubt in your professional career you knew the penalties for failing to cross a "t" or dot an "i". Hopefully retirement doesn't quite have to be like that.

[coachmann]

I did not comment on Tony's thoughts on corridor connections. My own vehicles carry old Hornby/Bachmann or whoever's hard plastic corridor connections at guards end, as they do not stick out as much as the flexible ones. But existing flexible corridor connections can be adapted by applying some glue to some of the leaves and squeezing them shut so reducing the amount they stick out. Obviously I cannot presume to do this on customers models.

 

Regarding LNER (and many of its constituents) coach roofs, they are much more domed than other railways roofs and the MJT extrusion is the best option. It is likely BSL Thompson coaches have LMS profile roofs. I never liked the BSL type roof as it clipped over the cantrail so reducing its height and making my task of lining them out quite challenging to say the least ! 

 

Derek Lawrence had set his stall out and would not budge when I suggested he move away from the old aluminium parts and into brass etchings and extruded roofs.

Edited September 4, 2013 by coachmann

[Donington Road]

No, I didn't, nor did I notice that the ladder was on the signal box side. I've delayed my reply while looking for an earlier photo, but I can't find it. It seems entirely logical though that it did indeed govern movements from the Up main into the complex of sidings and running lines at the North end. I reckon you have soved the problem. Many thanks.

Another thought, could it be a repeater for terminating services setting back into the carraige sidings or did it control the loading bay.

The photo came from http://www.peterboroughimages.co.uk/blog/?cat=11

I dont know if you have looked at that site lately but there have been quite a few new additons added recently.

[great northern]

Another thought, could it be a repeater for terminating services setting back into the carraige sidings or did it control the loading bay.

The photo came from http://www.peterboroughimages.co.uk/blog/?cat=11

I dont know if you have looked at that site lately but there have been quite a few new additons added recently.

Funnily enough, there is another subject which I have been pondering recently. How much use did those two carriage sidings get?  Up to now I've assumed a lot of use, and planned the sequence accordingly, but I'm now wondering if I'm right. I have plenty of photos showing locos which have arrived and terminated in Platform 2 taking their ECS down to Nene sidings, and plenty more showing stock being brought up from there. Most photos also show both of those Up sidings empty - in fact the only time I can find them being used is for the stock of the late afternoon working to Harwich. I store the stock of my E.Lincs and M&GN services there, but they then have to be worked across either to bay Platform 4 or to Platform 6 for the return working. I did this for added operational interest, but I'm now thinking I may be wrong. Given the intensive use of the main lines, and the Up in particular, would regular working of ECS right across the formation, and blocking both Up and Down main lines have been countenanced? Simpler surely to take the stock down to Nene sidings, which would involve only one short blocking movement, and then work it back on the Down, which would involve none at all?  It would actually be simpler for me too, now that so much local passenger stock is in cassettes. Comment from those who either worked on the real thing, or who have more knowledge than I would be very welcome indeed.

 

I do indeed visit the Peterborough images site regularly, as every now and then a gem of information appears, the latest being a shot of the back of Crescent Junction signlabox.

[great northern]

My PC expert came yesterday, and fortunately found nothing nasty lurking in the background. Apparently the fact that I took immediate action when AVG flagged up the problem will have helped greatly. He also reinstalled Paint.Net, but from a known source. It would be very unadvisable to try to install it direct from the website at present.

 

Having regained the ability to shop photos, it would surely be wrong not to use it, so here we go again.

 

It is now 8.35 am, and there are two almost simultaneous arrivals from East Anglia. Not only that, both are from the same area, March and Kings Lynn. Would one therefore expect to see them arrive from different directions? Well, this is Peterborough North folks, so really it shouldn't come as a surprise. First in was the Kings Lynn train, which came via the M&GN, and thus entered from the North. As usual an Ivatt 4 was in charge, this one being a South Lynn engine.

 

Down t'other end, the March local pulls in, this one having arrived from the South, having come up the connecting spur from East station.

 

With the Up main blocked by the Kings Lynn train, the 8.37 Newcastle - KX parcels has to make use of the Up slow.

 

 

Neither of these locos will have been the Shedmaster's pet at this time. Tottenham Hotspur is a very recent transfer from Stratford, and the March men will have groaned when they saw its mileage since it was last shopped. Three coaches and a 15 mile trip would be about right for its current state. The V2 is also a high mileage engine, this one being one of New England's own, and one of the last still in black livery. Within weeks both will go into Doncaster plant, but their fate will be very different. The V2 will emerge after general overhaul, and with a new coat of Brunswick Green. The B17 sadly will be reduced to a pile of scrap. Very appropriately, this V2, one of the first Bachmann batch, both sounds and runs like a bag of nails. It is captured on camera once more as it swings back to pass under Crescent Bridge and rejoin the Up main.

 

I've bitten the bullet recently as regards Gresley coaches. I need more, and expensive commissions are no longer possible, so I decided to acquire one more Hornby example, and see if a bit of weathering might mask some of the more glaring deficiencies. I prefer to use powders, and have experimented this time with Humbrol Decalfix as a method of avoiding then rubbing off when handled. It does do what Humbrol claim, in that it fixes the job as required, but the application of more water allows further amendment, the whole thing being permanent again when it dries. Here is the result. I think a bit more could still come off, but comments are welcome.

[M.I.B]

The Hornby Gresley looks great to me.

[jwealleans]

I don't have the advantage of having seen them at the time, but that looks good to me.  You can't beat a bit of dirt.

 

That BZ looks not long out of shops either - Comet?

[JeffP]

Lovely to see 60700, and the finish on both her and GP is fabulous.

 

SURELY 60113 MUST be next.....?

[micklner]

Cracking B17 sadly it really shows up how old the V2 body is , no comparison !!. Gresley looks ok to me too.

[Timara]

A couple more of 60700, pictured in what would be late afternoon summer sunlight (in reality, mid-morning).

 

 

There is very little to say about how I did this model because Graeme King has covered the construction of the 'Retford' example both in MRJ and in his thread on LNER forum (I forget which page(s) though).  The only deviations from his method were the use of a spare Hornby A3 bogie sprung from a laminated brass coupler bar, which also serves to electrically link one polarity of the tender pickups.  The other pole will be added once I've worked out a way of doing so without being difficult to separate the tender from the loco.

 

There are two more B17s to follow in the future, if only to satisfy Gilbert's liking of the class.  As I've probably said before, they're a lovely model to work on indeed.

 

(Hmmm, by my reckoning, this post is 'Woodcock ', though I doubt it'll appear in model form on here)

[Guest 2750]

That coach looks pretty good to me Gilbert. Sounds similar method I use on mine in that you are putting on and then taking off.

 

I look forward to seeing more.  Oh and I envy your photoshopping skills. I may have a good Canon camera now, but wouldn't know where to start!

Edited September 4, 2013 by 2750

[coachmann]

The weathered Gresley looks fine though a little too mucky for my tastes... haha. Having seen and travelled in them, I would say that many in blood & custard also suffered peeling paint. Under the paint, if i remember correctly, was grey, but of course it could peel away from the wood taking varnish with it.

Edited September 4, 2013 by coachmann

[The Stationmaster]

The weathered Gresley looks fine though a little too mucky for my tastes... haha. Having seen and travelled in them, I would say that many in blood & custard also suffered peeling paint. Under the paint, if i remember correctly, was grey, but of course it could peel away from the wood taking varnish with it.

I agree with Larry - a bit too mucky, or rather a bit too 'stark' in the dirtiness and in any case far too mucky for frontline corridor stock.  But the dirt is very much in the right places for the panelled stock which must have been awful to try to keep clean with all the ledges, edges, and crevices where muck could collect.  Mk1 stock had its shortcomings for hand cleaning but nothing in the league of the Gresley vehicles I'm sure and although they'd gone by my time a number of my older Carriage Cleaners remembered the few that landed on the Western late on with less than enthusiasm.

[micklner]

A couple more of 60700, pictured in what would be late afternoon summer sunlight (in reality, mid-morning).

 

60700_PN_V6788-90a.jpg60700_PN_V6798a.jpg

 

There is very little to say about how I did this model because Graeme King has covered the construction of the 'Retford' example both in MRJ and in his thread on LNER forum (I forget which page(s) though).  The only deviations from his method were the use of a spare Hornby A3 bogie sprung from a laminated brass coupler bar, which also serves to electrically link one polarity of the tender pickups.  The other pole will be added once I've worked out a way of doing so without being difficult to separate the tender from the loco.

 

There are two more B17s to follow in the future, if only to satisfy Gilbert's liking of the class.  As I've probably said before, they're a lovely model to work on indeed.

 

(Hmmm, by my reckoning, this post is 'Woodcock ', though I doubt it'll appear in model form on here)

Tim

      I have built a pre war LNER W1, any pictures of the coupling would be good please. I am considering building another post war LNER version at mo, the coupling maybe useful on that build.

[davidw]

A couple more of 60700, pictured in what would be late afternoon summer sunlight (in reality, mid-morning).

 

60700_PN_V6788-90a.jpg60700_PN_V6798a.jpg

 

There is very little to say about how I did this model because Graeme King has covered the construction of the 'Retford' example both in MRJ and in his thread on LNER forum (I forget which page(s) though).  The only deviations from his method were the use of a spare Hornby A3 bogie sprung from a laminated brass coupler bar, which also serves to electrically link one polarity of the tender pickups.  The other pole will be added once I've worked out a way of doing so without being difficult to separate the tender from the loco.

 

There are two more B17s to follow in the future, if only to satisfy Gilbert's liking of the class.  As I've probably said before, they're a lovely model to work on indeed.

 

(Hmmm, by my reckoning, this post is 'Woodcock ', though I doubt it'll appear in model form on here)

Cracking job on the W1 Tim!

[great northern]

I don't have the advantage of having seen them at the time, but that looks good to me.  You can't beat a bit of dirt.

 

That BZ looks not long out of shops either - Comet?

Marc Models actually Jonathan. As to 60090, I believe it was T cut first, then Klear. I'm happy to bring her up next time I visit the North East, but you will need to remind me.

[great northern]

Lovely to see 60700, and the finish on both her and GP is fabulous.

 

SURELY 60113 MUST be next.....?

Nice to see you back Jeff. I'm afraid I still won't be drawn on the subject of 60113 though.