Peterborough North

[bigwordsmith]

 I may be going to get into awful trouble here. Many years ago, Allan told me all about that first layout of his, which I remember seeing in Railway Modeller. Your dad was closer to the truth than he thought, as Allan confessed to me that the trains were entirely incidental, as it hadn't occurred to him that they should be able to run.

 

 

Excellent! Well Allan if that was the case you certainly achieved your purpose. Amazing that it has stayed on my mind for so many years!

[allan downes]

 I may be going to get into awful trouble here. Many years ago, Allan told me all about that first layout of his, which I remember seeing in Railway Modeller. Your dad was closer to the truth than he thought, as Allan confessed to me that the trains were entirely incidental, as it hadn't occurred to him that they should be able to run.

 

I can't remember telling you that ,Gilbert, but considering that in the early days I couldn't see the point in struggling with non compliant electrics and even less compliant locos where a camera couldn't possibly reveal to any magazine whether it ran or it didn't therefore the odds are in your favour as it's an extremely strong possibilty that I said it - in fact, I've just sold an O Gauge layout that isn't even wired at all !

 

Allan.

[allan downes]

Excellent! Well Allan if that was the case you certainly achieved your purpose. Amazing that it has stayed on my mind for so many years!

 

I thing the layout that you refer to here was 'Candleford Mill' that Peco bought after it appeared at Central Hall.

 

Anyway, after they go hold of it, they altered the track layout slightly and got it to work properly where it performed faultlessly for 17 years in a purpose built room with my name in neon lit lights above the doorway !!

 

DurIng that time it underwent several refurbishments on site undertaken by me at considerable cost and now  the boards are kept in storage and many of the buildings have been used on other layouts.

 

Allan

[great northern]

The RB in the 4:15pm down is listed as a 24 seat 33 ton vehicle, so my guess would be that it was a D.168 Tourist Buffet Car.

 

The RKB in the 6:45pm down was a 1953 BR conversion from a D.16 Gresley RT. There were 3 such conversions E9063/4/5E and they had 4 seats and weighed 39 tons. The two saloon windows adjacent to the pantry were panelled over to allow for the buffet bar counter. I'm not sure how the 4 seats were arranged in the 2 end window bays.

Many thanks Mark. I wondered if I had got things a bit mixed up(again). So, it is the RKB which is the one which would require scratchbuilding skills, but the 4.15 can be done just by replacing the 'orrible 'ornby RB.

[bigwordsmith]

I thing the layout that you refer to here was 'Candleford Mill' that Peco bought after it appeared at Central Hall.

 

Anyway, after they go hold of it, they altered the track layout slightly and got it to work properly where it performed faultlessly for 17 years in a purpose built room with my name in neon lit lights above the doorway !!

 

DurIng that time it underwent several refurbishments on site undertaken by me at considerable cost and now  the boards are kept in storage and many of the buildings have been used on other layouts.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Allan - it was - O remember the name now you mention it - it really was a work of art!

[great northern]

I can't remember telling you that ,Gilbert, but considering that in the early days I couldn't see the point in struggling with non compliant electrics and even less compliant locos where a camera couldn't possibly reveal to any magazine whether it ran or it didn't therefore the odds are in your favour as it's an extremely strong possibilty that I said it - in fact, I've just sold an O Gauge layout that isn't even wired at all !

 

Allan.

 I can jog your memory a bit more Allan. You went on to tell me about your experiments with Fleischmann tender drives to try to get stone age British OO gauge locos to run properly. That could be why it started life as an extremely impressive diorama.

[great northern]

I have been manipulated, so the day can now get started. First, I shall show you another minor triumph. Once again inspired by our high flying duck, I decided to tackle one of the many "don't fancy that at the moment" jobs which occasionally trouble my conscience. I shudder when I see those huge Springside BR lamps which look more like milk churns, but fiddling with the lovely but tiny alternatives is difficult. Even more difficult, or so I feared, would be getting the even tinier brilliants supplied by Modelu with their lamps into the very small aperture where they need to go. Yesterday, I resolved to have a go, even though I haven't got my new short range specs yet.

Another lick of paint is now needed in a couple of places where prolonged use of tweezers has rubbed some off, but otherwise a great improvement. Now I just need to dust the loco, and then pluck up courage to do the rear of this one, and both ends of the N5.

 

Then we have one more close up of the lovely B12.

and another dose of nothing.

[allan downes]

 I can jog your memory a bit more Allan. You went on to tell me about your experiments with Fleischmann tender drives to try to get stone age British OO gauge locos to run properly. That could be why it started life as an extremely impressive diorama.

 

Oh, the Fleischmann tender drives - of course. Butchery at its best !

 

These tender drive units, complete with wheels and chassis, were 'almost' ideal as 'replacements' for most Triang/Hornby tender locos at the time where the latter's body kind of just dropped over the Fleischmann tender drive and, when seen hurtling around the Woburn layout at a scale 200 mph, these barbaric modifications went unnoticed  to children who didn't care anyway and  just as unnoticed to those that did.

 

Later Hornby, under licence from Fleischmann, build the correct chassis  and wheel arrangement  for their tender drive locomotives with a ringfield motor built in West Germany - Fleischmann's  own ? - but the difference in running qualities was separated by  perfectly round wheels on the Fleischmann tenders, and almost square wheels on the Hornby equivalents !

 

Also, the Hornby tender drives shed their traction tyres on the slightest gradient or just as regular on the flat when under load. The rubber stretched to twice its size and something encouraged by the over enthusiastic oiling of the tender wheel gears  and, I'm not sure whether or not Hornby still fit their main line locos with tender drives.

 

Allan

[thegreenhowards]

Many thanks Mark. I wondered if I had got things a bit mixed up(again). So, it is the RKB which is the one which would require scratchbuilding skills, but the 4.15 can be done just by replacing the 'orrible 'ornby RB.

 

Gilbert, Mark,

 

Your posts got me racking my brains over this one as I was sure I'd read something about it before. I've now found the articles, which were by Clive Carter in Backtrack Jan 95 and Nov 96 on LNER Buffet Cars and Kitchen cars respectively - both a good read.

 

The buffet car article has diagrams for both the standard d.167 buffet car (as per Hornby) and the tourist d.168 buffet car. Both are listed as 33 tons and 24 seats identical to the carriage workings for the earlier Cleethorpes train. So it could have been either diagram, but my guess would be for the teak d.167 version.

 

The Kitchen car article has a section on the RKBs converted from 1924 built d.16 Restaurant Thirds stating 'Much of the interior was given over to the kitchen, but left room for four seats. Panelling covered much of the exterior on the kitchen side, two passenger windows being kept.'. It would make an interesting model, but, while the original d.16 diagram is shown in Harris' "LNER Standard Gresley Coaches", I can find no picture or diagram of the vehicle after conversion. Bodging a 'cut and shut' with no reference material would be rather tricky!

 

So for now, I think you'd be well advised to continue as you are and represent both trains with the same rake.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[great northern]

Gilbert, Mark,

 

Your posts got me racking my brains over this one as I was sure I'd read something about it before. I've now found the articles, which were by Clive Carter in Backtrack Jan 95 and Nov 96 on LNER Buffet Cars and Kitchen cars respectively - both a good read.

 

The buffet car article has diagrams for both the standard d.167 buffet car (as per Hornby) and the tourist d.168 buffet car. Both are listed as 33 tons and 24 seats identical to the carriage workings for the earlier Cleethorpes train. So it could have been either diagram, but my guess would be for the teak d.167 version.

 

The Kitchen car article has a section on the RKBs converted from 1924 built d.16 Restaurant Thirds stating 'Much of the interior was given over to the kitchen, but left room for four seats. Panelling covered much of the exterior on the kitchen side, two passenger windows being kept.'. It would make an interesting model, but, while the original d.16 diagram is shown in Harris' "LNER Standard Gresley Coaches", I can find no picture or diagram of the vehicle after conversion. Bodging a 'cut and shut' with no reference material would be rather tricky!

 

So for now, I think you'd be well advised to continue as you are and represent both trains with the same rake.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Thanks Andy. I've been giving it some more attention too, and have come up with one more thing which may, or may not, br relevant. I'vr gone right through the 1958 summer main line carriage workings, and looked very carefully at the description of every RB which is mentioned. All are shown as having 24 seats, bu the vehicle weight differs. Some are shown as 33 tons, whilst others are shown as 34. If this occurred only once or twice, I would put it down to typos - I've found a few of them during my frequent perusals - but there are  far more than just one or two, so it looks like it was deliberate. I couldn't find the official weight of either diagram in any of my books, and Harris seems to be silent on the subject. I don't have the drawings either.

 

I just wondered if the Tourist cars might be a tad lighter, given their plywood construction?  I know that some of them rotted badly, and the ply was replaced by steel panels, but Harris says others lasted as originally built. Having looked carefully through the appendices to Harris, it would appear that only eight Dia 168 were built, so they would not have been very common sights anyway.

 

Any further comments, facts or ideas would be welcome. I could of course be talking absolute nonsense. It wouldn't be the first time.

[great northern]

A varied selection tonight. First up is the KIrk Dia115 Gresley that 31A Steve completed for me a while back. I put together a set of mainly Kirks to go behind the B12, and they rather caught my eye as they stood at Platform 6. They have their deficiencies, but really do in my opinion look a good representation of the real thing. I wouldn't mix them with my lovely kit built stuff, but as a complete rake, they are more than just OK.

Then there is another of my still life collection.

A rather run down fence, a somersault signal and a bit of a bridge, what more could you ask? Well, all right, a train, some might say, so here is one of those too. A posh train too, as the Up Queen of Scots rolls by.

[great northern]

Good morning. Pouring down here. Nice at PN though, where the familiar view from Playform 3 catches the Queen of Scots running in.

Shopping calls. More later.

[thegreenhowards]

Thanks Andy. I've been giving it some more attention too, and have come up with one more thing which may, or may not, br relevant. I'vr gone right through the 1958 summer main line carriage workings, and looked very carefully at the description of every RB which is mentioned. All are shown as having 24 seats, bu the vehicle weight differs. Some are shown as 33 tons, whilst others are shown as 34. If this occurred only once or twice, I would put it down to typos - I've found a few of them during my frequent perusals - but there are  far more than just one or two, so it looks like it was deliberate. I couldn't find the official weight of either diagram in any of my books, and Harris seems to be silent on the subject. I don't have the drawings either.

 

I just wondered if the Tourist cars might be a tad lighter, given their plywood construction?  I know that some of them rotted badly, and the ply was replaced by steel panels, but Harris says others lasted as originally built. Having looked carefully through the appendices to Harris, it would appear that only eight Dia 168 were built, so they would not have been very common sights anyway.

 

Any further comments, facts or ideas would be welcome. I could of course be talking absolute nonsense. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

Gilbert,

 

I see what you mean! The only source of weights that I have is the diagrams in the Clive Carter article in Backtrack (Jan 95) that I mentioned. This shows both diagram 167 and 168 as 33T exactly, however this is handwritten, and it's a bit unlikely that they both weighed exactly the same, so it could easily be a mistake. Your theory sounds plausible. I think the best way to crack this would be to find some pictures of the real thing in the late '50s. The different roof profile and lack of panelling of the tourist stock should be possible to make out. I seem to remember some BRILLs based around the exit from Kings Cross with Tony Wright captions which had some good pictures of the Cleethorpes trains. I will do some digging when I have a few spare hours.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[great northern]

Gilbert,

 

I see what you mean! The only source of weights that I have is the diagrams in the Clive Carter article in Backtrack (Jan 95) that I mentioned. This shows both diagram 167 and 168 as 33T exactly, however this is handwritten, and it's a bit unlikely that they both weighed exactly the same, so it could easily be a mistake. Your theory sounds plausible. I think the best way to crack this would be to find some pictures of the real thing in the late '50s. The different roof profile and lack of panelling of the tourist stock should be possible to make out. I seem to remember some BRILLs based around the exit from Kings Cross with Tony Wright captions which had some good pictures of the Cleethorpes trains. I will do some digging when I have a few spare hours.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 Hi Andy,

Very belatedly, I remembered that when I chucked out hundreds of mazines a few years back, I actually kept some I thought might be useful in the future, and indexed them properly. Thus, I was able to find the Backtrack article within a couple of minutes, and the BRILLs too. Those turned out to be disappointing, very Pacific orientated, and the couple of Cleethorpes I found didn't show much of the train.

 

That means I'm not much further forward, except that I now know that the 4.05 down Leeds/York had one of the 1939 Buffet Restaurants, and I can't see how that can be modelled either. Looks like a Dia 167, as you say. The only Dia 168 kit I can find is Cooper Craft, and we know the situation with that.

[great northern]

The rain continues, steadily and apparently inexorably, so indoor pursuits are much more attractive. More photoshopping has occurred, so we can have some photos. This first one is for our regular visitor Juke, who may have been a bit disappointed that that view of the DE area did not include this.

Then we see Dominion of Canada running on the other side of Crescent Bridge.

and another coach close up to finish, a Kirk Gresley composite this time.

I've decided I can live with the recessed windows on these better than I can stand the inaccuracies of the Hornby things.

[juke]

That's a real treat Gilbert, thank you!

 

No idea why but I always brighten up when the engineers' coach appears. My other favourite is the pair of carriage trucks? that appear quite regularly in a bay. They are all so workmanlike or something.

 

I actually bought a Mousa coach kit to make something similar for myself. It's only been in the cupboard a year or so, awaiting me finally completing track laying, which is finally almost over, just eighty or so feet to go!

 

Syd

[allan downes]

Nice photos, Gilbert, and on such a miserable day too . Ideal for golf though....

 

Allan.

[mark54]

Gilbert, Mark,

 

Your posts got me racking my brains over this one as I was sure I'd read something about it before. I've now found the articles, which were by Clive Carter in Backtrack Jan 95 and Nov 96 on LNER Buffet Cars and Kitchen cars respectively - both a good read.

 

The buffet car article has diagrams for both the standard d.167 buffet car (as per Hornby) and the tourist d.168 buffet car. Both are listed as 33 tons and 24 seats identical to the carriage workings for the earlier Cleethorpes train. So it could have been either diagram, but my guess would be for the teak d.167 version.

 

The Kitchen car article has a section on the RKBs converted from 1924 built d.16 Restaurant Thirds stating 'Much of the interior was given over to the kitchen, but left room for four seats. Panelling covered much of the exterior on the kitchen side, two passenger windows being kept.'. It would make an interesting model, but, while the original d.16 diagram is shown in Harris' "LNER Standard Gresley Coaches", I can find no picture or diagram of the vehicle after conversion. Bodging a 'cut and shut' with no reference material would be rather tricky!

 

So for now, I think you'd be well advised to continue as you are and represent both trains with the same rake.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Thanks Andy. I've been giving it some more attention too, and have come up with one more thing which may, or may not, br relevant. I'vr gone right through the 1958 summer main line carriage workings, and looked very carefully at the description of every RB which is mentioned. All are shown as having 24 seats, bu the vehicle weight differs. Some are shown as 33 tons, whilst others are shown as 34. If this occurred only once or twice, I would put it down to typos - I've found a few of them during my frequent perusals - but there are  far more than just one or two, so it looks like it was deliberate. I couldn't find the official weight of either diagram in any of my books, and Harris seems to be silent on the subject. I don't have the drawings either.

 

I just wondered if the Tourist cars might be a tad lighter, given their plywood construction?  I know that some of them rotted badly, and the ply was replaced by steel panels, but Harris says others lasted as originally built. Having looked carefully through the appendices to Harris, it would appear that only eight Dia 168 were built, so they would not have been very common sights anyway.

 

Any further comments, facts or ideas would be welcome. I could of course be talking absolute nonsense. It wouldn't be the first time.

A standard D.167 would be unlikely. Only the prototype was 33 tons (the diagram shows it with GN-style 3 part sliding lights) and it was allocated to the NE area. The later main batch weighed 35 to 37 tons. These were uncommon on the GN until the early 1960s when rebuilt ones appeared. The 10 original GN area Tourist D.168 cars 9144-53 all weighed 33 tons. Mousa Models do etched sides.

[great northern]

And so to the evening pictures, and it is still pouring down outside. A remarkably horrible day. Another still life to start with.

A good impression of depth on this one, I think. Then we have 60010 again. Good job Top shed had a spare Yorkshire Pullman headboard.

It is definitely the correct train this time, by the way.

[DLT]

I really like your "still life" type photos, grotty sidings, backs of buildings etc.  They complement the star photos of all the mainline trains.

Can't get enough of this layout!

All the best, Dave.

[manna]

G'Day Gents

 

Dose that 'Poor' little Sentinel 'Ever' get a run out of the siding, you should give that a run on the 'Yorkshire Pullman' 

 

manna

[great northern]

A standard D.167 would be unlikely. Only the prototype was 33 tons (the diagram shows it with GN-style 3 part sliding lights) and it was allocated to the NE area. The later main batch weighed 35 to 37 tons. These were uncommon on the GN until the early 1960s when rebuilt ones appeared. The 10 original GN area Tourist D.168 cars 9144-53 all weighed 33 tons. Mousa Models do etched sides.

Thanks again Mark, that is extremely helpful. May I ask where you find all of this brilliant information?  Thanks also for getting to me to look again at Mousa Models site, and realise that I wouldn't find tourist stock in the teak sides section!

[Grafarman]

Been moving house (London to North Wales) so missed the last few days' photos, but looking back I do like the look of the Kirk coaches - the carmine panelling has a really nice 'texture' to it.  Sorry I don't know about the prototype to comment on their accuracy, but to me they look 'right' on PN...

Love the still life pictures too...

 

 

David

[great northern]

G'Day Gents

 

Dose that 'Poor' little Sentinel 'Ever' get a run out of the siding, you should give that a run on the 'Yorkshire Pullman' 

 

manna

It sits there looking pretty, mainly because it doesn't have the ability to shift much more than its own weight. I doubt it ever had to tackle any really challenging loads in reality,actually, just moving a few wagons would have been about it.

[great northern]

It is still pouring with rain here! I suppose it will stop eventually. Another still life to start the day.

It does feature a person, but that's OK, as he is doing nothing. Then we have the last of my Kirk Gresleys, this time an end door second.

and for comparison purposes, a conversion job using MJT sides.

Near flush glazing, and perhaps a little more tumblehome, but really how much difference does it make?  Both have the look of the real thing, so far as I'm concerned. Even my best kit built examples don't quite capture the real thing for me. There was a subtlety of shape to them which perhaps can't be exactly replicated in model form.

 

Then a loco shot to finish. 60010 again, from the opposite side.