Magwatch: Hornby Magazine #50: August 2011

[Phil Parker]

Well the track circuit story in this case is rather suspect to say the least (it would seem to have been nicked from the manufacturer's blurb) and the bit about livery and markings and cleanliness isn't so much anomalous as inadequate and incorrect). And the model itself lacks lamp irons and, of course, numbering and other markings - but then that's not entirely surprising as the only photo I can immediately find on the 'net of one in BR period livery is of an incorrectly coloured and lettered one on the Gloucs & Warks puffer railway.

 

Not nicked from the manufacturers blurb but from an old book on diesel shunters. This isn't my first shunters truck, I have had one running on Melbridge Dock for over a decade which is when I picked up this nugget of information. The livery details are also interesting as finding correct information is especially difficult for these wagons. Not much contemporary stuff on the web although there are shots of preserved examples. Those pics I have found off-line are in black and white and pretty poor quality. As far as I could tell the colours are black, or olive, but mostly just dirt. If you know better and have a decent photograph, get it in to the magazine who will be delighted to recieve it.

 

The lamp irons are another problem. On some trucks there is a single one on the toolbox but others are difficult to spot in the aforementioned poor quality photos. Having said this, my brief is to cover techniques rather than producing the perfect model. Some of the readers don't know how to build a plastic kit and ask things like "Which glue do I use ?". Simply producing a model that runs will be a step foreward for many people. The perfect shunters truck article will be left to MRJ for the future I'm afraid, and not writen by me.

 

Phil

[Torn-on-the-platform]

Bought the magazine today. Some nice tips in Phil Parker's articles, both are relevant to near/mid-term projects for me. It is a shame about the numbering on the pannier though! His shunter's truck is a good looking model, better than any other I have seen of this prototype. I'm looking forward to giving this a go!

 

The review of the 14xx somewhat proves my earlier point about their reviews of re-released models.

 

Great news about the TMC horse box!

[chrisf]

My understanding of the use of shunters' trucks in connnection with track circuits is that some Conflats were put to work with 03s and 04s for this purpose. Not that I know anything but I doubt that many GW yards were track circuited! Now prove me wrong ...

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

Alas no pics from me - I just didn't have a camera at work in the days when they were around and by the time I was taking a camera to work almost ever day our yard had long got shot of them. The BR livery was indeed black and the lettering was definitely yellow in hue although it might officially have been 'straw' colour - that colour being used for the yard/depot name on the toolbox (I never saw one without a depot name - even if it wasn't always the right one - but that doesn't mean they didn't exist of course), the number was in that colour as was the 'OD' branding (to distinguish the fact that they were Operating Department property although painted in departmental colours and numbered in the 'DW' series; the 'OD was painted on the solebar, left of centre, but in larger lettering than the number). There is a picture showing the position of the 'OD' on page 60 of Dave Larkin's 'Pre-Nationalisation Freight wagons on British Railways'.

 

As far as I know runners were not used anywhere on the Western Region for track circuit purposes - certainly A Pilot at Paddington (a 350/Class 08) ran around quite happily without one and I can't recall any instances of it being too short to work any track circuits and the same applied to the station pilot at Swansea, also a 350, and various yard pilots I'm aware of going onto track circuited lines - also without problems. Incidentally they had definitely gone from all the places I worked or came across on the Region in the 1970s - partly no doubt because of age but also because 350s had suitable steps for a Shunter to ride on thus obviating the need for a runner. It would be interesting to know where they did survive in view of Phil's comment about them lasting into the '80s?

As can be seen on pics of several preserved examples they had two lamp irons at each end - obvious when one starts to think about it (I only just did) because even tho' the lamp irons were fairly close together the trucks were required to carry the standard pilot loco lights at night (transferred from the loco). The lamp irons on the end of the tool box were for spare lamps - look carefully at Phil's model and you will see that they are the wrong way round for GW loco lamps. Incidentally when spare coupling shackles were carried they were just dumped on the floor of the runner - the toolbox - certainly by my time - didn't seem to have much use although I suspect it was used even then to hide 'illegal' re-railing aids such as sprags, fishplates and odd bits of timber and possibly to secrete a few spare brakesticks to avoid Guards pinching them for brakevan fires.

[The Stationmaster]

My understanding of the use of shunters' trucks in connnection with track circuits is that some Conflats were put to work with 03s and 04s for this purpose. Not that I know anything but I doubt that many GW yards were track circuited! Now prove me wrong ...

Chris

 

You aren't (however I am aware of occasional 'bits' of track circuiting in some WR yards from the '60s onwards and there were probably places outside yards before that where pilot locos worked over track circuited sections of railway - but see my previous post - you're still not wrong)

[Phil Parker]

My understanding of the use of shunters' trucks in connnection with track circuits is that some Conflats were put to work with 03s and 04s for this purpose. Not that I know anything but I doubt that many GW yards were track circuited! Now prove me wrong ...

 

This might well explain the confusion. In the books I read, shunters truck seems to be used as a generic term for anything that was attached to a loco for the purpose including conflats and the "official" GWR variant. It looks like there is some serious research to be done by someone to produce a definitive story - not an exciting read but quite a useful one for a few people.

 

As for the Pannier bufferbeam number - well that was just to see if anyone is paying attention out there Honest - Not something I can't understand how I missed completely. It will have to be fixed it in a future issue.

 

Mind you, no one mentioned it when the saw the loco at Hartlepool this weekend. Maybe they were just being polite !

 

Phil

[Pennine MC]

. The livery details are also interesting as finding correct information is especially difficult for these wagons. Not much contemporary stuff on the web although there are shots of preserved examples. Those pics I have found off-line are in black and white and pretty poor quality. As far as I could tell the colours are black, or olive, but mostly just dirt. If you know better and have a decent photograph, get it in to the magazine who will be delighted to recieve it.

 

 

Genuine question - bearing in mind recent debates on the nature of what constitutes 'research' these days, is the general feeling that it's acceptable for an article in a modelling mag to be written solely by reference to the 'Net? Having said that, a question on here would have elicited the 'official' livery for such a vehicle, from Mike and probably others.

 

One bit of info Phil, in your reply in this month's mag to Chris Payne you say that 'very few' PO opens were taken over by BR, which I feel is slightly misleading. Peter Fidczuk, writing in BRILL for May '04, says that 544,694 ex-POs were vested in BR on 1.1.48; virtually all of these would have been mineral wagons and the vast majority of that coal wagons. To put this in context, this is more than the number of traditional wagons that BR went on to build for itself. Admittedly many were (as you say) in poor condition, with about 150,000 being scrapped in the first three years, but there were still around 80,000 running in 1960, which is a lot of wagons by any standards.

[Phil Parker]

As explained already, the article relied on very little on-line research, most of it came from stuff on my bookshelves. As I explained, there is very little on these wagons on the web.

 

Asking on forums isn't always much help either. Sometimes you get lucky with a definitive answer. Mostly, you get a squabble and conflicting views. At least with books I have half a chance that the author has done some original research. On-line I might get a academic but I might just as easily get a bored kid from Leicester who thinks his opinion is just as valid despite being based on guesswork. It's really difficult in the time-scales available to sift the wheat from the chaff. The bored kid will be faster to reply and more aggressive with his views though. He's also more likely to be cruising all the forum sections all the time whereas the expert probably has a job and so drops in occasionally to a few.

 

Now you could argue that every piece should go through an extensive process of fact-checking with many different sources and people. It would give some superb results but with the people available (how big do you think the average model mag staff is ?) would mean you'd be lucky to get 4 magazines a year. In the case of the shunters truck, that research would still be boiled down to 4 pages with most of the space given to photos showing how to build the kit - which is what the majority of people actually want. The alternative is to produce a scholarly tome of which there are several available already. That's not to say anyone should ignore blatant errors but at the end of the day, this is an article on assembling a kit with a bit of info for those who wondered what the hell it was, NOT the definitive history some seem to be looking for. Maybe I should skip the info bit and just do the sticking together ? No-one deliberately makes mistakes in print and I'm sorry if there is a material error or omission.

 

To pick up the point about the wagons, 80,000 might be a lot but if you look at a 1960's photo then the overwhelming majority of open wagons you see will be 16T steel minerals. The places where ex-PO wagons made up the majority were tiny if they existed at all. What I was trying to say is that no matter how pretty you think the ex-PO wagons were, you can't fill your layout with them and it still look realistic. There will be exceptions to the rule of course.

 

On the other hand, the good thing about the model railway magazine world is it is a democracy. There is nothing to stop anyone reading this submitting articles and being published. It's what I did years ago, and since I'm freelance still what I do in practical terms. The editor then takes a look and decides if he wants to publish it. All the mags accept material in this way. By the sound of it, there are lots of people who can quote chapter and verse on a variety of subjects without fear of contradiction and really should be sharing this with the rest of us.

 

Phil

 

 

[spamcan61]

 

Asking on forums isn't always much help either. Sometimes you get lucky with a definitive answer. Mostly, you get a squabble and conflicting views. At least with books I have half a chance that the author has done some original research. On-line I might get a academic but I might just as easily get a bored kid from Leicester who thinks his opinion is just as valid despite being based on guesswork. It's really difficult in the time-scales available to sift the wheat from the chaff. The bored kid will be faster to reply and more aggressive with his views though. He's also more likely to be cruising all the forum sections all the time whereas the expert probably has a job and so drops in occasionally to a few.

 

Phil

 

Agreed, in order to tell the difference between a real expert and someone who sounds like an expert but knows diddly you have to know as much as the expert, in which case you wouldn't need to ask a question in the first place.

 

Or you have to hope there is a real expert lurking who can point out the numpty.

 

 

 

It would give some superb results but with the people available (how big do you think the average model mag staff is ?)

 

Phil

 

I'm guessing a full time editorial staff of one, a few freelance contributors and part time help from in house resources e.g. graphic artist.

[Mod5]

This seems to be veering OT at the moment. Interesting stuff nonetheless but possibly better in a thread on it's own rather than one about this months Hornby mag. It is worthy of discussion but in here it will either be lost ie not searchable in future or just detract from the main OP.

[Pennine MC]

As explained already, the article relied on very little on-line research, most of it came from stuff on my bookshelves. As I explained, there is very little on these wagons on the web.

 

Apologies, I've misunderstood that point.

 

Asking on forums isn't always much help either. Sometimes you get lucky with a definitive answer. Mostly, you get a squabble and conflicting views. At least with books I have half a chance that the author has done some original research. On-line I might get a academic but I might just as easily get a bored kid from Leicester who thinks his opinion is just as valid despite being based on guesswork. It's really difficult in the time-scales available to sift the wheat from the chaff. The bored kid will be faster to reply and more aggressive with his views though. He's also more likely to be cruising all the forum sections all the time whereas the expert probably has a job and so drops in occasionally to a few.

 

You're actually preaching to the converted here Phil, but it's a valid and interesting viewpoint nonetheless

 

On the other hand, the good thing about the model railway magazine world is it is a democracy. There is nothing to stop anyone reading this submitting articles and being published. It's what I did years ago, and since I'm freelance still what I do in practical terms. The editor then takes a look and decides if he wants to publish it. All the mags accept material in this way. By the sound of it, there are lots of people who can quote chapter and verse on a variety of subjects without fear of contradiction and really should be sharing this with the rest of us.

 

I sense a bit of a prickly defensiveness here, which is understandable but isnt what I'd intended and isnt going to be conducive to what could be an interesting debate. Purely for the record and not in any sense of bragging, I have contributed articles to the modelling press - nine or ten I think, over a period of about ten years. Importantly, I'd make the point that they were aimed very differently to the typical HM feature, and as a non-staff contributor I wasnt subject to commercial timescales, but I did make every effort - way before I had a PC - to ensure that the info was as correct as I could make it and that where I'd made assumptions, they clearly were stated as such.

 

To pick up the point about the wagons, 80,000 might be a lot but if you look at a 1960's photo then the overwhelming majority of open wagons you see will be 16T steel minerals. The places where ex-PO wagons made up the majority were tiny if they existed at all. What I was trying to say is that no matter how pretty you think the ex-PO wagons were, you can't fill your layout with them and it still look realistic. There will be exceptions to the rule of course.

 

All very true, as far as it goes. The reason I quoted 1960 figures, however, was very deliberate: for one thing it reflects a convenient midpoint in the 'transition' era that so many model and for another, the proportion of wood to steel minerals at this point was around 20:80. Two years or so later it was down to around 15:85 and by 1964, they'd just about all have gone from normal traffic usage.

 

The question in HM wasnt specific, it just said 'BR locos', which could have easily meant mid-50s and a casual reader could well have assume that was what was meant. This is where forums do score, the interaction means that the OP can be pinned down and the responses tailored accordingly. Out of interest, was Mr Payne's original e-mail not any more detailed as to period?

 

Or you have to hope there is a real expert lurking who can point out the numpty.

 

No comment

[The Stationmaster]

Of course the problem with looking at books is that they might be no more accurate than looking at the net - just because things are published doesn't mean they are correct or adequate or understood; cross-checking is always a sensible approach before submitting stuff for publication. I must admit to having once made an nasty error of fact (wrong place name) in something I once submitted and the editor missed it too and he had the first 'phone call within minutes of the mag appearing on the bookstands. It might well have happened to all of us who submit stuff but most people I know who write for publication, especially in magazines, appreciate that editorial teams have limited time and resources and don't expect them to correct our work (although Chris Leigh did once add a bit on the end of one of my articles).

 

When it comes to sources there are probably nowadays more means of access to information than ever before but the 'valuing' or provenance of information is, in my view, in reality no different from the process with books. No doubt those of us who were there can be good sources but while I was - in this example - reasonably sure that the 'OD' on GW runners was left of centre on the solebar I bothered to check and quote a photographic source which confirmed my memory - and said so in my earlier post. As I dealt with the thing everyday I happen to be quite happy with the situation of 350s/Class 08s on track circuited running lines on the Western Region. Same thing really - if you are unsure of the provenance of information then check it - don't just going using it willy-nilly because once that's published, be it in a magazine, or book, or on the 'net, or on a 'net forum then someone will take it as gospel.

 

Incidentally in reference to pennine's comments about PO wagons I have just looked through photos dated variously between 1954 and 1956 in a book taken at random from my shelves and the vast majority of them show trains with only one or two, and sometimes no, steel 16ton mineral wagons - all the rest of the 30-40 odd wagons in the train are ex P.O - 8 years into BR's existence. As I said - it might all depend on the book

[Pennine MC]

 

Incidentally in reference to pennine's comments about PO wagons I have just looked through photos ... [snip].... As I said - it might all depend on the book

 

It does Mike - my post above gives details. I cant edit my own post now but I should have said my figures come from research by Peter Fidczuk, and AFAIC are the best you'll get.

[jwealleans]

I see Ian's beaten me to it on that mineral wagon point - I meant to speak to Phil at Hartlepool personally about it but every time I went past he was surrounded by punters and then I was having such fun shunting, it slipped my mind. There was a sharp intake of breath from my fellow operator who is the wagon steward for Pendon when he read it as well.

 

There you are, though, Phil, what about a 'distress your PO wagon into a post-1948 condition' article? Black patches and P numbers, the owners' name painted on if the original markings became illegible, some repainted grey, planks from one wagon used to repair another....

 

Genuine question for anyone reading... how many of the pre-1923 RCH type made it to 1948 and (not much) beyond? I've built a few of the various Cambrian types for c 1920, but I guess there were a few still kicking about after the war?

 

I hope this doesn't read as a 'let's all kick Phil' post either - I enjoy your articles each month and get some good ideas from them. And so you can place me, I did find a Lima horsebox eventually and beat Hornby to it by over a year.

[Pennine MC]

There you are, though, Phil, what about a 'distress your PO wagon into a post-1948 condition' article? Black patches and P numbers, the owners' name painted on if the original markings became illegible, some repainted grey, planks from one wagon used to repair another....

 

To be fair, HM has already had one by Dave Spencer, and very good it was too

 

Genuine question for anyone reading... how many of the pre-1923 RCH type made it to 1948 and (not much) beyond? I've built a few of the various Cambrian types for c 1920, but I guess there were a few still kicking about after the war?

 

I'll send you an email J, I'm not rreally sure whether we're on topic or off it ATM.

[jwealleans]

Thanks, Paul, I didn't know that. I don't have all the very low numbers.

[The Stationmaster]

I'll send you an email J, I'm not rreally sure whether we're on topic or off it ATM.

 

Perhaps a new thread Ian?

[Darth Vader]

On the cover there is a reference to a Class 37 Limited Edition.

Can someone who has the magazine enlighten me, is it a green or blue one, or will it be privatisation livery model?

I don't have a subscription, so I have to wait for 6-8 weeks for it to get to Australia.

[RedgateModels]

It's a green one, small yellow warning panel, split box headcode D6711, weathered finish

[Darth Vader]

It's a green one, small yellow warning panel, split box headcode D6711, weathered finish

Thank you for the info - another hit in the wallet

[orcadian]

It's a green one, small yellow warning panel, split box headcode D6711, weathered finish

 

 

Redgate types faster than me!

Extra details: lightly weathered according to the pictures, £89.95 including p&p within the UK, extra £4 for overseas delivery.

 

Overseas order number by phone is listed as 01795 592 844, but probably needs the appropriate dialing code for the UK at the front.

 

Those who order can ask for priority news of future models.

 

Address for orders by post is: Ian Allan Publishing, Building 800, Guillat Avenue, Kent Science Park, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8GU

 

 

 

Hope this helps!

[SquireBev]

Having been absent from the hobby for a few years, and having not bought any relevant magazines for just as long, I was a bit stumped this month as to what to buy to get me back into it.

Hornby Magazine won hands down in the end, though. The article on Tetley Mills is what did it for me, as it's a layout I've long-admired.

 

Not sure I'll stick with it though, I might revert to Model Rail as my regular.