Wright writes.....

[Jesse Sim]

"How are you Jesse?"

"I'm good"

*Severe look of anger, twitch in right hand and ready to use a backhand*

"You are WELL Jesse, not, 'good!'"

 

I do believe I learnt more about grammar then trains when I stayed for the week! 

[Lecorbusier]

"How are you Jesse?"

"I'm good"

*Severe look of anger, twitch in right hand and ready to use a backhand*

"You are WELL Jesse, not, 'good!'"

 

I do believe I learnt more about grammar then trains when I stayed for the week! 

Reminds me of the American comedian Reginald D Hunter's grammar joke - it went something like this ....

 

I said to this english lady 'my best friend ... he dead!'

 

she said ... 'pardon me and I hope you don't think I am being rude but it should be ... he died'

 

I replied ... 'ma'am, he died, now he dead!'

[Tony Wright]

wow, some nice photos, are they yours Tony?

 

I didn't realise how much of a curve there was before the station. 

They're not my pictures Jesse; they're those of friends. 

 

We're well, thank you, and I hope your Dad is OK. 

 

With regard to the curve through LB, it's tighter than it is now (as with many locations where stations have been demolished and the lines have been slewed over to allow greater speeds). In a way it illustrates the 'absurdity' regarding the (tight) curves we lay on our model railways. In the picture of the Brush Type 4, because a short telephoto lens would appear to have been used, the perspective is compressed slightly. Yet, it was over that same curve that MALLARD belted round at over two miles a minute in 1938. It might appear slightly 'tight' on the prototype, but on the model it's all but invisible when viewed from the side. 

 

 

 

These shots were taken in an attempt to replicate prototype views where the photographer was standing (not stood!) on the MR embankment, and they show the generous curve quite well.

 

 

 

Moving a little further south, a closer view of the curve is obtained. 

 

All the pictures above were taken several years ago. I must try some more from the same viewpoint. 

 

Finding the pictures above, I came across the prototype shot shown below. Clearly, there are no white lines on Station Road. This picture was taken in 1962. 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

A request, please.

 

Does anyone know where this is? It's a Wellingborough-shedded 8F, but where? 

 

 

Taken in 1948, there are colour light signals, and a large girder bridge in the background. Could it be just south of Rugby?

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

These shots were taken in an attempt to replicate prototype views where the photographer was standing (not stood!)

 

Ah, but he might have been sat!!

 

Mike.

[davefrk]

Ah, but he might have been sat!!

 

Mike.

 

So, was he sat sitting or stood standing, we really should know?

 

Confused of Blantyre.

Dave Franks.

[johnarcher]

Ah, but he might have been sat!!

 

Mike.

Who sat him there?

[Compound2632]

A request, please.

 

Does anyone know where this is? It's a Wellingborough-shedded 8F, but where? 

 

Dsc_8091.jpg

 

Taken in 1948, there are colour light signals, and a large girder bridge in the background. Could it be just south of Rugby?

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

The bridge is rather massively constructed - is it perhaps a canal aqueduct? Three lines and colour light signals is I agree suggestive of the LNWR main line somewhere south of Rugby. (These features suggest it's not the Midland main line.) From the shadows, looks like near midday in summer, looking south. Could this be London-Toton empties or some such? Perhaps a slightly strange working for a Wellingborough engine? In pre-grouping days, LNWR 0-8-0s certainly worked coal trains from at least Leicester to London via Rugby.

 

I expect I'm completely wrong but nothing like putting forward a wrong identification to winkle out a right one!

Edited November 30, 2017 by Compound2632

[Guest]

To misquote Mr Johnson, Grammar Pedantry is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Written English, and language, has evolved. See Etymological Fallacy for an explanation and why grammar and spelling pedants are living in the past. Language is communication and for communication to be successful it needs to be understood. Hence basic grammar is essential, i.e. there, their etc but advanced grammar like a split infinitive, in the main, does not effect the meaning of the information that is being conveyed.

If it is understood it is successful.

I have a habit of using the Oxford Comma in my dictation for work. An "old school" secretary used to amend my dictation. Oh the fun I had trying to get her to accept it. The nth commandment in her book is "Thou shall not use a comma before an "and"".

I now await incoming!

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[Clive Mortimore]

To misquote Mr Johnson, Grammar Pedantry is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Written English, and language, has evolved. See Etymological Fallacy for an explanation and why grammar and spelling pedants are living in the past. Language is communication and for communication to be successful it needs to be understood. Hence basic grammar is essential, i.e. there, their etc but advanced grammar like a split infinitive, in the main, does not effect the meaning of the information that is being conveyed.

If it is understood it is successful.

I have a habit of using the Oxford Comma in my dictation for work. An "old school" secretary used to amend my dictation. Oh the fun I had trying to get her to accept it. The nth commandment in her book is "Thou shall not use a comma before an "and".

I now await incoming!

Having worked with people with learning difficulties who main method of communication was Makaton and a few spoken words understanding is far more important than grammar.

 

And as I have said before as someone with dyslexia it took many years before I was brave enough to say "Did ewe understand wot I rote? If so, wots yer problem?".

[Compound2632]

"Did ewe understand wot I rote? If so, wots yer problem?".

 

I'm feeling increasingly sheepish. I have tried to make amends by posting on a railway-related question...

[Tony Wright]

Enough of grammar.

 

Having taken the made-up frames of this A2/2 to Warley, I've now done a bit more. It'll be my fifth (at least) WOLF OF BADENOCH (why is this the most popular name in the class?) and I'm building it for a friend. Since it'll also be able to run on Little Bytham, I might persuade him to have it as THANE OF FIFE (with a Thompson boiler). We'll see. 

 

I'm building it from a DJH kit (all-soldered, of course) and the kit most-easily makes into 60505 and 60506 (it won't suit 60503 and 60504, but can be modified to make 60501 and 60502). Naturally, I'm not reading the instructions, even though I wrote them! 

 

I'm reminded about Iain Rice's MRJ letter once again by my building this (at least the 13th A2/2 I've made). My approach, as is known, is to produce 'layout locos' (a Rice phrase, by the way), so mucking about with fancy compensation and springing is not an option. Like another poster, having seen (and in one case had for fixing) a loco built by Iain, I was ambivalent about its (their) running to say the least. The one I had to adjust (built in OO some years ago) runs fine, now that it's rigid. 

 

Like him, I've also built dozens of little locos as well (though only in OO or EM, not P4), and none of them was built anything but rigid. They included 0-4-2Ts, 2-4-0Ts, 0-4-0Ts, 0-6-0Ts, and all worked perfectly on their owners' systems. 

 

As I say, I've 'evolved' a loco-building system which works for me; it's 'my' way, 'a' way, not 'the' way. 

[Lecorbusier]

Having worked with people with learning difficulties who main method of communication was Makaton and a few spoken words understanding is far more important than grammar.

 

And as I have said before as someone with dyslexia it took many years before I was brave enough to say "Did ewe understand wot I rote? If so, wots yer problem?".

I too am dyslexic ... though not severely so and I also suffer from 'laziness' dyslexia! Thank the lord for spell checker.

 

Grammar as a game of banter amongst friends can be fun. Grammar when educational both given and received with consent is great. Critique of grammar in the official printed word I would say is important. Grammar within the spoken word less so and particularly when pejorative or used as a means to undermine or look down upon (I would include informal e-mails, and forums within the gamut of the spoken word). However, clear communication and dialogue of whatever kind will in my view always trump grammar.

[chris p bacon]

To misquote Mr Johnson, Grammar Pedantry is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Written English, and language, has evolved. See Etymological Fallacy for an explanation and why grammar and spelling pedants are living in the past. Language is communication and for communication to be successful it needs to be understood. Hence basic grammar is essential, i.e. there, their etc but advanced grammar like a split infinitive, in the main, does not effect the meaning of the information that is being conveyed.

If it is understood it is successful.

 

This was the attitude of our English teacher.

 

During O levels we studied Chaucer and Shakespeare, he taught us that the English language has never stood still and that what we were being taught would have been incomprehensible only a few hundred years before.

Personally I like the regional variations we have in the UK, having visitors from the USA a couple of years ago they were astounded that we travelled just a short distance, and yet the language changed so much. On several occasions we had to translate for them.

[St Enodoc]

To misquote Mr Johnson, Grammar Pedantry is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Written English, and language, has evolved. See Etymological Fallacy for an explanation and why grammar and spelling pedants are living in the past. Language is communication and for communication to be successful it needs to be understood. Hence basic grammar is essential, i.e. there, their etc but advanced grammar like a split infinitive, in the main, does not effect the meaning of the information that is being conveyed.

If it is understood it is successful.

I have a habit of using the Oxford Comma in my dictation for work. An "old school" secretary used to amend my dictation. Oh the fun I had trying to get her to accept it. The nth commandment in her book is "Thou shall not use a comma before an "and"".

I now await incoming!

Someone once told me that I should avoid semicolons; personally, I disagree.

 

And it's usually wrong to start a sentence with "and" or "but".

 

But not always.

[Compound2632]

Enough of grammar.

 

The man said: "Enough of grammar". His photos speak the proverbial thousand words...

[Tony Wright]

The man said: "Enough of grammar". His photos speak the proverbial thousand words...

Thanks Stephen,

 

However, if folk wish to carry on about 'correct' English usage, I don't mind. It's just that I'll not comment further. 

 

I wish someone knew where that 8F was, though. 

[LNER4479]

I wish someone knew where that 8F was, though. 

You postulate Rugby Tony - in which case, is that not the GCR 'birdcage' bridge just visible in the haze in the background? That would make the left hand track diverging away the WCML up fast about to go under the flyover carrying in the line from Peterborough. The 8F would thus be on the Northampton lines, from whence it could get to the Midland mainline.

[Compound2632]

You postulate Rugby Tony - in which case, is that not the GCR 'birdcage' bridge just visible in the haze in the background? That would make the left hand track diverging away the WCML up fast about to go under the flyover carrying in the line from Peterborough. The 8F would thus be on the Northampton lines, from whence it could get to the Midland mainline.

 

Yes - Clifton Road junction, the massive bridge carrying Clifton Road - see right-hand side of this map. But, to disagree, I think the train (now southbound and loaded) may have come off the Midland Counties line and be headed for London, taking the Northampton route to avoid getting in the way of express passenger traffic. Not quite sure I understand the shadows - train is heading a tad east of south east here. The 8F could have worked from Wellingborough to Toton, be re-manned for a turn to London via Rugby, working back the following day. Perhaps handled by six different crews (changing over at Toton and Rugby)?

Edited November 30, 2017 by Compound2632

[LNER4479]

Yes - Clifton Road junction, the massive bridge carrying Clifton Road - see right-hand side of this map. But, to disagree, I think the train (now southbound and loaded) may have come off the Midland Counties line and be headed for London, taking the Northampton route to avoid getting in the way of express passenger traffic. Not quite sure I understand the shadows - train is heading a tad east of south east here. The 8F could have worked from Wellingborough to Toton, be re-manned for a turn to London via Rugby, working back the following day. Perhaps handled by six different crews (changing over at Toton and Rugby)?

Equally plausible - I was just responding to the earlier information that it was a Wellingborough engine.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Enough of grammar.

 

Having taken the made-up frames of this A2/2 to Warley, I've now done a bit more. It'll be my fifth (at least) WOLF OF BADENOCH (why is this the most popular name in the class?) and I'm building it for a friend. Since it'll also be able to run on Little Bytham, I might persuade him to have it as THANE OF FIFE (with a Thompson boiler). We'll see. 

 

I'm building it from a DJH kit (all-soldered, of course) and the kit most-easily makes into 60505 and 60506 (it won't suit 60503 and 60504, but can be modified to make 60501 and 60502). Naturally, I'm not reading the instructions, even though I wrote them! 

 

I'm reminded about Iain Rice's MRJ letter once again by my building this (at least the 13th A2/2 I've made). My approach, as is known, is to produce 'layout locos' (a Rice phrase, by the way), so mucking about with fancy compensation and springing is not an option. Like another poster, having seen (and in one case had for fixing) a loco built by Iain, I was ambivalent about its (their) running to say the least. The one I had to adjust (built in OO some years ago) runs fine, now that it's rigid. 

 

Like him, I've also built dozens of little locos as well (though only in OO or EM, not P4), and none of them was built anything but rigid. They included 0-4-2Ts, 2-4-0Ts, 0-4-0Ts, 0-6-0Ts, and all worked perfectly on their owners' systems. 

 

As I say, I've 'evolved' a loco-building system which works for me; it's 'my' way, 'a' way, not 'the' way. 

As Iain also said, "horses for courses". For me, building locos with some sort of ability for the wheels to move to deal with track irregularities is essential. So I always use compensation, sometimes mixed with springing, usually for bogies and radial or pony trucks. And, like you, I regard my locos and rolling stock as layout models. Perhaps an irony in this is that I have several relatively lightweight locos, which pick up on only two axles and will run all day long under exhibition conditions without  problems. Of course they aren't hauling fourteen coaches at scale speed of 70 mph, but are doing what I require of them. That means starting and stopping reliably, running smoothly at slower "station limits" speeds and while hauling no more than six carriages, some of those are fairly heavy. This LNWR Precursor Tank has pickup on the two coupled axles only, partly because it wasn't going to be easy to add any on the bogie and pony truck, but it turned out they weren't necessary. The carriage behind it is one of a number I have built from Brian Badger or Stevenson carriage kits. Copper  clad paxolin floor, cast ends, bogie sides, battery boxes, etc. and rather heavy so a rake of these need a reasonably amount of tractive effort.

 

]

 

Of course, there are those that claim they can build "dead" level track and baseboards that don't move with changes in temperature and moisture. So building a model that sits flat on a piece of glass will always run well. To quote a phrase used by younger people "Yeah, right!" (I am sure Jesse will correct me on that if I have got it wrong). I take that view because that was how I used to build models when I built 00 models, often poor runners. It wasn't until I changed over to compensated P4 chassis, that I found I could, repeatedly and consistently, build locos that ran as well as I wanted.

 

Your way works for you. However, I suggest that a straightforward approach to building rigid chassis doesn't work for everyone. Why else do so many people have problems with getting even simple loco chassis to run? Why else is your loco clinic so well patronised? I suggest it is because they don't appreciate that basic, simple, engineering premises apply, such as the correlation between axle/coupling rod alignment. Building compensated chassis using hornblocks and alignment jigs takes care of that. Yes it is more "fiddly" and time consuming than assembling a rigid chassis. However, even a rigid chassis for a simple loco needs some care and attention. I would also add that it's the number of coupled axles that requires the need for care, not the overall size and "glamour" of the loco.

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Phil,

 

She's my age Phil, and it's Ian Wilson's wife!

 

We've just had a pleasant meal with the two of them in Corby Glen, where they live. 

Blimey. What a small world it is.

Phil

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Stephen,

 

However, if folk wish to carry on about 'correct' English usage, I don't mind. It's just that I'll not comment further. 

 

I wish someone knew where that 8F was, though. 

Could have been a recently reallocated loco? The numberplate's number shape is interesting.

Phil

[cctransuk]

Could have been a recently reallocated loco? The numberplate's number shape is interesting.

Phil

 

Undoubtedly a very early BR plate, cast using the LMS patterns.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Lecorbusier]

 This LNWR Precursor Tank 

 

Precursor Tank on LR.jpg

 

 

 

That's a lovely piece of modelling Jol.

 

Completely off at a tangent ... what are the rodding stools you have used which I see peeping out round the front end?

 

Tim

Edited November 30, 2017 by Lecorbusier