Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

an interesting topic and a little bit of the OO or P4 discussion too.

 

Model railways don't perform like the real thing, as momentum, mass, etc. doesn't scale down. My experience with P4 is that most derailments occur when non prototypical sideways forces overcome the flanges ability to hold the wheel on the rail. The simple answer is to provide a deeper flange, which is what OO and EM does. Some forces are harder to manage, coming from such as the sideways force from flexing corridor connections through crossovers, etc. Of course RTR copes with that with gangways that don't actually meet. One S4 Society member advocates the use of EM wheels set to P4 B2B as a solution. Moving stock slowly sometimes allowances the "unwanted" forces to overcome the forward momentum, but it's not a case of driving too slowly. 

 

We all model to differ criteria and Roy Jackson developed an approach with Retford, as you have done with LB, to provide what you wanted.  There is no doubt that modelling to P4 standards for wheels and track is more challenging than OO or EM. Having done OO and P4 I know that my P4 models run better than anything I ever built in OO - although my Hornby Dublo was never much of a problem.

 

I too have seen layouts, off all scales and gauges that ran well and some that didn't. I decided to convert London Road from a terminus to a through station for a number of reasons, one of which was the realization that many of the  well regarded exhibition layouts tend to run uni directional trains i.e. the stock was only pulled, rarely pushed. Most of our problems with the terminus format came from shunting carriages between platforms, when the forces I referred to above took over. One of the layouts that influenced that thinking was Stoke Summit.

 

Why do people accept poor running? I'd suggest that in P4, EM or self built OO they will  look for fixes to avoid repeat problems. Having built it they understand how it works. At  a show a policy of removing troublesome stock should be normal. "Adjustments" to trackwork may not be so easy, especially where transit damage has happened. I don't like any derailments when running London Road and we strive to avoid them . Not always possible with a portable layout and I am sure we could eradicate them if it were permanently erected - trouble is I don't have the space but that's another story.

 

It may be different for some OO modellers. Track standards are not, I believe, such a well understood topic in OO circles. Most have been brought up an a diet of "Universal" track which implies it will work with any OO model. Are RTR  wheels adjustable for B2B? If they were, what standard should you apply? How well is the track laid? Ironically, for rigid chassis then track "flatness" is arguably more important than for compensated or sprung vehicles. How many OO layouts wouldn't benefit from Norman Solomon's track work, both in appearance and performance?

 

Jol

Jol,

 

I think you're dead right to believe that track standards in OO are not (always) understood. I really have no idea what my own conform to, other than the b-t-b is set at 14.5mm. Norman Solomon made the scenic-sidetrack to what is called OO FS (an admitted misnomer). 

 

RTR wheels are adjustable for b-t-b, at least with regard to rolling stock. Without exception, if adjustment is needed, it's to widen the b-t-b. 

 

Every OO layout I've seen would be better (in my opinion) if Norman Solomon had made/laid the track. I've not had to adjust any of the points and crossings he made for LB, which is more can be said for another professional modeller's track I had to alter for a friend. Some of the crossings were too tight and others too wide, on the same system. However, not everyone has the resources, the luck or the opportunity to make a DVD in order to get the very best exponent of the craft to make their track. 

 

Perhaps what should be remembered is that over 80% of LB's trackwork is Peco Code 100, laid and wired by me. It constitutes the out-of-sight end curves and the 34 fiddle yard roads/sidings. It's the later Code 100 pointwork, with much tighter crossings. It's no longer the 'Universal' stuff it was of old, which, in my experience just gave universally poor running. It was too 'scale' for Tri-ang and the crossings were too wide for Romfords. Since I also insist on 'perfect' running in the fiddle yard, every point (apart from four in the sidings) is large radius. Not only that, I've resisted the temptation to try and cram too much in and every main facing point has the widest possible radius of lead into it. Too tight curves, because of trying to fit too much in, and 'dog leg' sections of track are anathema to good running. 

 

Finally, mention has been made of some locos roaming far from home. 

 

 

 

I've just completed the Millholme H16, this morning making and fitting the motion  - please, don't ask!

 

I don't think these big Feltham trip tanks ventured very far from home. 

 

A report on the kit's construction will appear in BRM. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Photo evidence does show GW locos at Nottingham Victoria, prior to WW2, then later on and post-WW2, loco changing seemed to be more usual at Leicester. Perhaps coinciding with the closure of Leicester shed in the early 60s, Nott.Vic. once again seemed to become the more frequent loco exchange spot, although locos could still be exchanged and turned in Leicester Central station? I think the Hymek diesel on the overnight parcels from Swindon, was still replaced at LC, right up until 1966? NV also had the advantage of turntables at both ends of the station. I wasn't around at the time, all the above is gleaned from books and videos, so I could be wrong, Headstock is probably are man on the spot for this one?    BK

 

I am not an expert on the 1960's period, it remains a distressing time best-forgotten by lovers of the GC.

 

With regard to the pre-war situation, GWR locomotives certainly worked into Nottingham Vic. It would be wise to not to jump to conclusions as to the nature of this traffic without closely studying working timetables and photographs. I would give the example of when ex-GWR locomotives began working the Bournemouth-York as far as Leicester in 1953. The locomotive was diagrammed to return south on the 5.22 pm Leicester-Woodford ordinary passenger train. It would work this service for a couple of weeks and then be used on one of the southbound fish trains from Leicester for a period. While the locomotive was at Leicester awaiting its southbound working, it was not unknown for it to be borrowed for the run up to Nottingham and return on ordinary passenger trains.

 

I have some photographs of Stars at Nottingham prior to WW2, I would have to look at them carefully to identify the trains involved. I have also mentioned in the past of special train workings to the Nottingham area. One such working I recall was  an eleven bogie set of Southern region carriages worked by a Hall through to Nottingham. A B1 was added as pilot locomotive at Leicester and the Hall was despatched at Nottingham. The B1 then worked the set forwards to New Basford carriage sidings.

 

Both are examples of services that are not about interregional Expresses changing locomotives at the Vic, although Leicester shed didn't have a monopoly on these workings. In the immediate post-war period Sheffield B1'S, Woodford V2's and B17's seem to dominate these services, indeed the MasterCutler was worked straight through to Marylebone and return by Sheffield locomotives and men.

 

Leicester Central shed closed in July 1964 and with it the ability to turn engines in Leicster, normal loco changes from WR to NE (actually LMR by then) at Central finished at that date. The WR locos off the inter regional workings carrying on through to Nottingham Victoria.  I was unaware of the Swindon overnight Hymek working, perhaps two parcels trains were combined at Central therefore it could terminate there, otherwise a light engine movement down to Leicester would have been necessary.

 

Tony

 

There weren't any parcels trains running an overnight service between the SW and NE. There were two express passenger trains conveying bogie vans running in each direction between Swindon and Sheffield and York. They would meet one another at Leicester Central station. This allowed the Western region locomotive that had worked into Leicester to return south with the service from york. I can think of only three parcels trains running on the London extension in the post-war period. The longstanding 'Rabbits' from Banbury to Sheffield, the overnight  Marylebone-York, and the Nottingham-Marylebone. The last mentioned was introduced in the 1960's to deal with odds and ends left over from scrapped services, it also returned empty newspaper vans south.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Headstock

[5050]

Ah, the old 00 gauge 'finescale' standards debate.  What are they?  Do they actually exist?  Who really knows?  I've been volunteered tasked with producing the pointwork for the Wakefield club's new 00 layout 'Stanley', based on the station near Wakefield.  I am intending to make it using my 'normal' P4 method ie - ply sleepers, strategic rivets and C&L chairs.  The plan has been drawn up in Templot, from which it should be relatively easy to mark out the positions of the rivets.  However, when I come to making up the crossings and associated checkrails etc. I would like to use standards comparable to the EM ones but 1.7mm narrower.  This would mean the stock having a B-2-B 1.7mm narrower than the EM which - if I recall correctly - is 16.5mm making it 14.8mm.  How does this compare to 'modern' RTR wheel standards, particularly on locos?  Does it equate to Markits driving wheel B-2-B?  Are modern RTR wheel standards comparable to RP25?  So many questions...................

 

To explain, having been in a P4 bubble for the past 35 years or more my understanding of the vagaries of 00 is quite minimal.  Please bare with me in my ignorance...........

 

The 'Stanley' layout's initial planning, boards, research etc. will be displayed at our exhibition this coming weekend.  Any new information on any aspect will be gratefully received!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115613-wakefield-2016-fri-18th-to-sun-20th-november/

 

Regarding GWR locos on the GC, Andy Gibbs late lamented P4 layout 'Whetstone' featured a GWR train hauled by a 'Saint' on its way to and from Leicester.

Edited November 15, 2016 by 5050

[APOLLO]

5973 Rolleston hall at Nottingham Victoria 1937

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69664-a-nod-to-brent/page-503&do=findComment&comment=1993164

 

Un named / numbered examples also got there in the 60's

 

Brit15

[The Stationmaster]

Pre-nationalisation the change over point on the GC for NE-GW inter-company trains was Leicester. When was it changed to Nottingham?

 

I think it depended on the timetable from year-to-year.

[Tony Wright]

 

I suppose O Gauge Finescale has more uniformity than the various OO Gauge standards adopted down the years. I've just photographed this latest Dapol O8 for BRM. A report will be featured in the next issue. 

 

Though I haven't checked the price for this, I'll bet it's a lot more for an equivalent kit. The inexorable march of RTR just gets (literally) bigger! 

 

Edited because I got the price comparison completely the wrong way round. My initial apologies. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Tony Wright

[drmditch]

I do agree with the above sentiments regarding satisfactory running. All model railways have to be a compromise (mine more than most), but the one thing that they do which must have a resemblance to the prototype is run along the track - preferably with the wheels on the rails!

 

My tracklaying is far from perfect, however the vehicles and the track normally behave themselves, even (for the most part) when visitors are there to see them. Any problems are usually those triggered by the signallers/controllers/drivers - all of whom are represented by me!

 

Usual problem solving techniques apply:-

1. - Investigate every occurrence
2. - Make it happen again
3. - Isolate the factors (vehicle/location/direction of travel/neighbouring vehicles etc)
4. - Test the location with other vehicles
5. - Test suspect vehicle in other locations.
6. - If a problem is found, correct it.
7. - Re-test the vehicle and suspect location.

 

The most common problems I have encountered are to do with:-

1. - Wheelset back-to-back
2. - Couplings misplaced as regards height or vehicle buffers (I use Bachmann/Hornby small tension locks - I did say my railway was a compromise!) - buffer locking needs to be avoided!
3. - Springing, balance and free-movement on locomotive carrying wheels (both r-t-r and my own builds)
4. - Bogie balance and travel on r-t-r vehicles.
5. - inadequate weight in vehicles.

 

Other occasional problems I've found are:-

1. - inadequate coneicity on some r-t-r/kit wheelsets
2. - track movement caused by baseboard/ballast expansion
3. - debris on track!
4. - couplings low to height fouling crossings on pointwork.
5. - representation of sandpipes occasionally fouling track ( that was a tricky one to find!)
6. - brakeshoes rubbing! (rare for me 'cos I allow very large clearances!)

 

And nearly the worst:-

 

- locomotive shedding a wheel/tyre/part of the motion! - I suppose that at least that's prototypical - although losing a grubscrew isn't!

 

The absolute worst problems of course are those one can't re-create, or at least  happen less than 10% of the time!

 

However, the search for the apparently random was a large part of my working life! At least on my railway although all the responsibility is mine I also control all of the resources!

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by drmditch

[Fat Controller]

Dapol O Gauge 08 03.jpg

 

I suppose O Gauge Finescale has more uniformity than the various OO Gauge standards adopted down the years. I've just photographed this latest Dapol O8 for BRM. A report will be featured in the next issue. 

 

Though I haven't checked the price for this, I'll bet it's a lot more than an equivalent kit. The inexorable march of RTR just gets (literally) bigger! 

The standard version seems to come in at about £200; the kits I've seen seem to come in at rather more, when you've added in the wheel-sets, motor etc.

[Tony Wright]

I do agree with the above sentiments regarding satisfactory running. All model railways have to be a compromise (mine more than most), but the one thing that they do which must have a resemblance to the prototype is run along the track - preferably with the wheels on the rails!

 

My tracklaying is far from perfect, however the vehicles and the track normally behave themselves, even (for the most part) when visitors are there to see them. Any problems are usually those triggered by the signallers/controllers/drivers - all of whom are represented by me!

 

Usual problem solving techniques apply:-

1. - Investigate every occurrence
2. - Make it happen again
3. - Isolate the factors (vehicle/location/direction of travel/neighbouring vehicles etc)
4. - Test the location with other vehicles
5. - Test suspect vehicle in other locations.
6. - If a problem is found, correct it.
7. - Re-test the vehicle and suspect location.

 

The most common problems I have encountered are to do with:-

1. - Wheelset back-to-back
2. - Couplings misplaced as regards height or vehicle buffers (I use Bachmann/Hornby small tension locks - I did say my railway was a compromise!) - buffer locking needs to be avoided!
3. - Springing, balance and free-movement on locomotive carrying wheels (both r-t-r and my own builds)
4. - Bogie balance and travel on r-t-r vehicles.
5. - inadequate weight in vehicles.

 

Other occasional problems I've found are:-

1. - inadequate coneicity on some r-t-r/kit wheelsets
2. - track movement caused by baseboard/ballast expansion
3. - debris on track!
4. - couplings low to height fouling crossings on pointwork.
5. - representation of sandpipes occasionally fouling track ( that was a tricky one to find!)
6. - brakeshoes rubbing! (rare for me 'cos I allow very large clearances!)

 

And nearly the worst:-

 

- locomotive shedding a wheel/tyre/part of the motion! - I suppose that at least that's prototypical - although losing a grubscrew isn't!

 

The absolute worst problems of course are those one can't re-create, or at least  happen less than 10% of the time!

 

However, the search for the apparently random was a large part of my working life! At least on my railway although all the responsibility is mine I also control all of the resources!

What a splendid list for trouble-shooting. 

 

A copy of it should be pinned on all modellers' railway room walls. 

 

And, I love the fact you do all your own modelling/trouble shooting. Good for you!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[coachmann]

Re. the Dapol 08, when I look at the size, mass, weight and detail, I feel i have got more for my money than a wee 4mm version at £93.00. Place it on 0 gauge track and it looks right, not narrow gauge. Add DCC sound and a bloomin' big speaker and you've got something that pretty well sounds like a real one. 

 

Anyone living in the real world knew which way the last UK election would go, regardless of TV bullying and polls. Same with Brixit and the US elections. In the same way I know we are on the brink of a big movement to 0 gauge. Shunting planks springing up all over RMweb? I would place bets on it!

Edited November 15, 2016 by coachmann

[t-b-g]

Re. the Dapol 08, when I look at the size, mass, weight and detail, I feel i have got more for my money than a wee 4mm version at £93.00. Place it on 0 gauge track and it looks right, not narrow gauge. Add DCC sound and a bloomin' big speaker and you've got something that pretty well sounds like a real one. 

 

Anyone living in the real world knew which way the last UK election would go, regardless of TV bullying and polls. Same with Brixit and the US elections. In the same way I know we are on the brink of a big movement to 0 gauge. Shunting planks springing up all over RMweb? I would place bets on it!

 

I ended up building one or two O gauge items for other people and really enjoyed the change after 35 years working in 4mm EM gauge. I have built pretty much every layout that I have in my head (apart from one or two that were way too ambitious and I will never have room for).

 

So in order to give me a fresh challenge, I am plotting a 7mm layout. However, my hobby is all about making things rather than buying them so there won't be any RTR in sight. It won't be a shunting plank either. I am going for a small double track terminus station, which can fit in a 16' length (plus a fiddle yard) allowing for 4-6-0 loco types and 5 bogie carriages.

 

The problem with a good supply of reasonable quality RTR is that people then start designing layouts around what is available and they all end up looking somewhat similar in terms of motive power. So you are very likely right in your prediction of shunting planks a plenty but hopefully I will avoid falling into that group!

[APOLLO]

As well as OO I also model American O scale (!:48). Best thing about this scale for running qualities is knuckle couplings (mostly Kadee), all bogie stock (except for a couple of 4 wheel "Bobber" cabooses (Cabeese ?) and locomotives that would pull the house down !!

 

Brit15.

Edited November 15, 2016 by APOLLO

[Focalplane]

There are plenty of kits in 7mm scale to compete with RTR and they are a pleasure to construct. At least the ones I have tackled have been. One I plan to take on in a year or two is Modern Outline Kits Ivatt 4MT mogul. Plenty of detail in the box and mostly nickel silver as well. The instructions are detailed (they have to be!) so this pig should fly! Seen just about anywhere it is also a geographical fit, particularly on favourites like the M&GN.

 

I haven't touched my MOK 14XX for a month but hope to be back on France to complete it before Christmas. Next I have a David Andrews Compound to complete, followed by one of his ten wheelers, an original Patriot. Life is good!

 

On the scenic side I really enjoyed the challenge of Metalsmith's R&R 60' turntable. As difficult as a loco kit but in some ways more of a challenge to get aligned.

 

But why 7mm for me! I can see most of the damned detail and handle it as well!

[drmditch]

Thank you Tony for approving my list!

 

Of course, there can always be other factors - like a large ginger cat waiting avidly for a train to emerge from a tunnel!

 

He only did it once though, and now he is long gone I do miss him. He liked looking at the trains!

[Tony Wright]

I am now the proud 'owner' of a couple of locos built by master loco-builder Roy Jackson from DJH kits. I place owner in speech marks because they're mine on indefinite loan. 

 

 

 

 

They were built originally for a chap many years ago who seems to have disappeared. Being OO, as they stand they're of no use to Roy. So, I've got them - by way of some unbalanced horse-trading in a way, because I've built EM loco chassis for Retford. 

 

Not only is the building and base-painting of the highest calibre, but the lining/lettering/numbering on the BR 5 is by Geoff Kent. Not only that, the weathering is by Tim Shackleton. Can anyone ask for more with regard to any loco's pedigree? 

 

Naturally, I couldn't leave them as they were. I've fitted lamps (though I've yet to fit the other lamp brackets), fitted correct, nine-spoke bogie wheels, glazed the cab of the 9F, fitted crews and added coal. Strictly speaking neither is quite right for LB. However, there's a putative scheme in which I'm getting (ever so slightly) involved for which they'll be perfect. 

 

Though there are now RTR equivalents from Bachmann, I know which I prefer. Both run superbly, as expected. 

 

Thank you Roy. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Tony Wright

[dasatcopthorne]

Ah, the old 00 gauge 'finescale' standards debate.  What are they?  Do they actually exist?  Who really knows?  I've been volunteered tasked with producing the pointwork for the Wakefield club's new 00 layout 'Stanley', based on the station near Wakefield.  I am intending to make it using my 'normal' P4 method ie - ply sleepers, strategic rivets and C&L chairs.  The plan has been drawn up in Templot, from which it should be relatively easy to mark out the positions of the rivets.  However, when I come to making up the crossings and associated checkrails etc. I would like to use standards comparable to the EM ones but 1.7mm narrower.  This would mean the stock having a B-2-B 1.7mm narrower than the EM which - if I recall correctly - is 16.5mm making it 14.8mm.  How does this compare to 'modern' RTR wheel standards, particularly on locos?  Does it equate to Markits driving wheel B-2-B?  Are modern RTR wheel standards comparable to RP25?  So many questions...................

 

To explain, having been in a P4 bubble for the past 35 years or more my understanding of the vagaries of 00 is quite minimal.  Please bare with me in my ignorance...........

 

The 'Stanley' layout's initial planning, boards, research etc. will be displayed at our exhibition this coming weekend.  Any new information on any aspect will be gratefully received!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115613-wakefield-2016-fri-18th-to-sun-20th-november/

 

Regarding GWR locos on the GC, Andy Gibbs late lamented P4 layout 'Whetstone' featured a GWR train hauled by a 'Saint' on its way to and from Leicester.

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahaha. Just spotted this.

 

You need to come over to 00-SF. or more succinctly 00 16.2

 

All P&C is built to 16.2 by whatever method you choose. Use 1mm flangeways and leave you Bach to backs alone or use 14.5mm. No need to mess about with RTR locos.

 

Dave

[richard i]

I ended up building one or two O gauge items for other people and really enjoyed the change after 35 years working in 4mm EM gauge. I have built pretty much every layout that I have in my head (apart from one or two that were way too ambitious and I will never have room for).

 

So in order to give me a fresh challenge, I am plotting a 7mm layout. However, my hobby is all about making things rather than buying them so there won't be any RTR in sight. It won't be a shunting plank either. I am going for a small double track terminus station, which can fit in a 16' length (plus a fiddle yard) allowing for 4-6-0 loco types and 5 bogie carriages.

 

The problem with a good supply of reasonable quality RTR is that people then start designing layouts around what is available and they all end up looking somewhat similar in terms of motive power. So you are very likely right in your prediction of shunting planks a plenty but hopefully I will avoid falling into that group!

16ft for all that and a fiddle yard in O gauge?!

I have something similar in 4mm and barely fit it in to 16ft, what are you using as baseboards, the TARDIS?

Richard

[46256]

The responses to my enquiry about the K1 in unfamiliar pastures are much appreciated. I worry when posting on this site amongst my peers how it will be received.

The posts concerning other unusual workings were as ever a bonus on this thread. I had hoped for a response along the lines of " this loco was used on a railtour along.....hence it being were , it wasn't expected to be. I suspect the first response to my query...by 65 there was considerable relaxation of the " norm" is most likely the explanation.

 

I had the privelage of speaking with a number of train crew in the eighties and early nineties....one thing I came to appreciate ...if they could thwart officialdom they would...including taking a class 52 western all the way to York...

 

My sincere thanks to them and the contributors to this thread....our hobby dull....never

[robertcwp]

Great Western locomotives did not often work off their own region due to the need for a greater loading gauge but there were regular workings of Halls and possibly other 2 cylinder engines to the Bournemouth area. I believe that Castles were banned from the line although a Castle did get to Eastleigh on at least one occasion. 

 

The Great Central was built to a larger loading gauge and thus GW engines could work on it. During the locomotive exchanges after nationalization I think Witherslack Hall was used on the Great Central. I know that in the 1920's there were trials of GW Castles on both the East Coast and the West Coast main lines. I wonder if the locomotives concerned, which I think were 4079 and 5000, were modified before the trials to conform to the different loading gauges?

 

 

Witherslack Hall at Leicester Central during the Interchange Trials:

 

6990_LeicesterC_interchange_1948 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

B1 at Swindon (I think) and at Bristol TM:

 

61145_Swindon_c1953 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

61169_BristolTM by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[46256]

Wonderful photos...I love in particular the stance of the young spotter at temple meads...it's either severe constipation or incredulity at seeing an Eastern engine in that location!

[Mallard60022]

Wonderful photos...I love in particular the stance of the young spotter at temple meads...it's either severe constipation or incredulity at seeing an Eastern engine in that location!

Yes, brilliant photo's. The stance, well almost and maybe both you suggest, however it is the writing the number in the notebook on the leg stance adopted by some who hadn't twigged that one could make a little board and clip one's book to that even if it were a posh, hard-back notebook.  Sadly I still have my little board and all my little notebooks, including some Ian Allen Loco Log Books; remember them? 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Yes, brilliant photo's. The stance, well almost and maybe both you suggest, however it is the writing the number in the notebook on the leg stance adopted by some who hadn't twigged that one could make a little board and clip one's book to that even if it were a posh, hard-back notebook.  Sadly I still have my little board and all my little notebooks, including some Ian Allen Loco Log Books; remember them? 

Phil

Phil,

 

I don't have any Ian Allan Loco Log Books but I have all my (mouldering) IA abcs; the oldest just past 60 years! 

 

They are like time capsules in a way, the underlinings of an urchin skoolboy, some ruled with the greatest of delight (on copping MALLARD for instance).

 

It was amusing visiting Eric Kidd in Edinburgh some six years ago, where I looked at some of his yufeful abcs after taking pictures (and falling out of his loft!). Where mine had masses of unsupported numbers/names, his were a mass of ink - those last A1s and all the single-chimney A2s for instance. But, all those earlier A1s were undisturbed in his. Copley Hill might just have been on Mars! He did, however, have those elusive Canal-based quartet of A3s underlined.

 

Speaking of those four A3s 'way out west' as it were, I once wrote a piece for BRILL commenting how a mate had once written on a poster at Hadley Wood 'Died waiting for SIR VISTO and CORONACH', such was the rarity of Carlisle Canal's A3 down sarf. Somebody wrote in response what all the fuss was about. The postmark on his letter was from Hawick! How parochial our railways used to be, and how wonderfully-varied.   

[Headstock]

Witherslack Hall at Leicester Central during the Interchange Trials:

 

6990_LeicesterC_interchange_1948 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

B1 at Swindon (I think) and at Bristol TM:

 

61145_Swindon_c1953 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

61169_BristolTM by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

A Palethorpes sausage van, yum yum.

[cctransuk]

A Palethorpes sausage van, yum yum.

 

'Fraid not - Harris of Calne, Wiltshire.

 

Sorry,

John Isherwood.

 

(Had it been Palethorpes you'd have been in no doubt whatsoever - they were heavily into graphics).

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by cctransuk

[Headstock]

'Fraid not - Harris of Calne, Wiltshire.

 

Sorry,

John Isherwood.

 

(Had it been Palethorpes you'd have been in no doubt whatsoever - they were heavily into graphics).

 

IMG_1481 small.JPG

 

Oops, burnt mi bangers. You are of course correct Sir.