Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Glad to see it's still running OK Robert.

 

It was a weathered example (with cleaned numbers and totem). All I did was weather it further, particularly on the drivers and motion, where 'shadows' had been left after dirty thinners were squirted at them. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

It runs very well and is the best looking of my 9Fs.

[t-b-g]

37 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I believe someone offered to weather several engines and took that one along with several others, possibly as a result of a misunderstanding.

 

Even if it had run on High Dyke, it would still have needed to be ex-works unless the scenario Tony suggests was the reason it was weathered. 

 

The vintage of the loco might have given a clue as to who had weathered it. If it was in that condition on High Dyke, it would almost certainly have been either Roy, Geoff or John that did it. If it was on High Dyke in a clean state, then it has clearly been weathered more recently and we could narrow it down to a handful of people. So although it would make no difference to the condition the loco should be in, it would help establish how and when it ended up like that.

 

I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that Roy saw a photo of the loco in that condition and decided that he wanted his model like that. Just because those "in the know" say that it shouldn't have happened doesn't mean that it didn't.   

 

There were one or two times when people did work on Retford that Roy was really not happy with but he wouldn't change what had been done as he didn't want to upset the people who had given their time and skill freely. There were other times when he was quite happy to alter what had been done and it didn't always end well. Diplomacy was not one of his strongest skills. If he wasn't happy with the way Tudor Minstrel looked, he would have either taken it off and kept it as a spare, or he would have asked somebody, probably me, to see what I could do with it. He did just that with one or two others, which I did alter in appearance (including making a 9F much cleaner than it had been) but I don't recall him ever complaining about the way the A2 looked.

[robertcwp]

7 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The vintage of the loco might have given a clue as to who had weathered it. If it was in that condition on High Dyke, it would almost certainly have been either Roy, Geoff or John that did it. If it was on High Dyke in a clean state, then it has clearly been weathered more recently and we could narrow it down to a handful of people. So although it would make no difference to the condition the loco should be in, it would help establish how and when it ended up like that.

 

I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that Roy saw a photo of the loco in that condition and decided that he wanted his model like that. Just because those "in the know" say that it shouldn't have happened doesn't mean that it didn't.   

 

There were one or two times when people did work on Retford that Roy was really not happy with but he wouldn't change what had been done as he didn't want to upset the people who had given their time and skill freely. There were other times when he was quite happy to alter what had been done and it didn't always end well. Diplomacy was not one of his strongest skills. If he wasn't happy with the way Tudor Minstrel looked, he would have either taken it off and kept it as a spare, or he would have asked somebody, probably me, to see what I could do with it. He did just that with one or two others, which I did alter in appearance (including making a 9F much cleaner than it had been) but I don't recall him ever complaining about the way the A2 looked.

Come to think of it, if I recall correctly there is a photo somewhere of it on Retford unweathered. Where that photo is, I can't recall.

[sandra]

I think 60528 Tudor Minstrel was built by Roy, it certainly seems to have been built in his “style”. At the time Retford is set, in 1957, it was shedded at Dundee Tay Bridge and so is a very unlikely visitor to Retford unless it was ex-works. 
 

The story I heard was that a certain person, not one of the Retford Mob, did heavily weather a number of Retford locos. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this as many locomotives in 1957 were heavily weathered but if 60528 did appear at Retford in 1957 it would most likely be after a visit to Doncaster works.

 

That said I do have a photo of 60160 Auld Reekie on a northbound express at Retford, she is reasonably clean but not ex-works. This loco was shedded at Haymarket so it does appear that it was possible for Scottish engines to appear at Retford.

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I must admit to never having heard of left-hand and right-hand buffers on LNER stock (every day is a school day).

 

I did once convert a French-outline loco into an early-NER 0-6-0. It had convex and concave buffer heads on opposite sides. How common was this?

Fairly common Tony. particularly on main line coaches, diesel and electric locos and on the tenders of larger steam locos but not usually at the smokebox end. They were to avoid buffer locking with longer stock and designs varied but I've not noticed the oval types favoured by some British companies.

These are just three random examples I happened to shoot at the 2016 Baie de la Somme Fète a Vapeur and, as you can see, those on 231K8's tender are definitely handed and the same shape as the coach. I've seen other patterns but have no idea why different shapes were used . Some could have used the same casting inverted for both sides but others were definitely handed. On steam locos I tend to associate them with express passenger locos.

Unfortunately people tended not to photograph steam locos from the back so I had to search to find  this one.  The front buffers of steam locos were generally either round (and often  fairly large) or symmetrically oblong. I've not noticed any steam loco front buffers that were handed but I've not really looked that hard- I will now!

I couldn't say why different shapes were used. It looks like the whim of the makers but, being French, there was probably some logical reason (accompanied by pages of equations) to justify each shape.  

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Tony Teague]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I get my 'Micro' Nikon lens down to F.45!

 

That must be more or less 'pinhole' size - which would have infinite depth of field.

I don't think there is anything like that available for Canon.

Tony

[MJI]

10 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Fairly common Tony. particularly on main line coaches, diesel and electric locos and on the tenders of larger steam locos but not usually at the smokebox end. They were to avoid buffer locking with longer stock and designs varied but I've not noticed the oval types favoured by some British companies.

These are just three random examples I happened to shoot at the 2016 Baie de la Somme Fète a Vapeur and, as you can see, those on 231K8's tender are definitely handed and the same shape as the coach. I've seen other patterns but have no idea why different shapes were used . Some could have used the same casting inverted for both sides but others were definitely handed. On steam locos I tend to associate them with express passenger locos.

Unfortunately people tended not to photograph steam locos from the back so I had to search to find  this one.  The front buffers of steam locos were generally either round (and often  fairly large) or symmetrically oblong. I've not noticed any steam loco front buffers that were handed but I've not really looked that hard- I will now!

I couldn't say why different shapes were used. It looks like the whim of the makers but, being French, there was probably some logical reason (accompanied by pages of equations) to justify each shape.  

 

 

 

 

That carriage has not got proper couplings nor buffers.

 

Why didn't they adopt buckeyes?

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by MJI

[t-b-g]

10 hours ago, sandra said:

I think 60528 Tudor Minstrel was built by Roy, it certainly seems to have been built in his “style”. At the time Retford is set, in 1957, it was shedded at Dundee Tay Bridge and so is a very unlikely visitor to Retford unless it was ex-works. 
 

The story I heard was that a certain person, not one of the Retford Mob, did heavily weather a number of Retford locos. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this as many locomotives in 1957 were heavily weathered but if 60528 did appear at Retford in 1957 it would most likely be after a visit to Doncaster works.

 

That said I do have a photo of 60160 Auld Reekie on a northbound express at Retford, she is reasonably clean but not ex-works. This loco was shedded at Haymarket so it does appear that it was possible for Scottish engines to appear at Retford.

 

The question that crosses my mind is why would Roy build a loco that would not run through Retford for the layout? There must be a story behind it that he probably told somebody.

 

I do recall him telling me once that he built a couple of locos for somebody else, as he did build professionally for people at one time. When he rang the bloke to say they were finished, he got no answer and so he waited for the customer to get in touch but he never did. So he didn't know what to do with them. Many years later, he still had them and as he had been paid "up front" he didn't want to sell them on in case the chap turned up. I wonder if Tudor Minstrel is one of those?

 

A search on the internet reveals a photo of a filthy A2 captioned as being on an up Glasgow to Kings Cross train going through Doncaster so a mucky A2 on the right part of the ECML is not an impossibility.  That was 60533 Happy Knight. I am sure a BR period enthusiast will know where it was shedded at the time (1953) when the photo was taken. I may have the information somewhere but I haven't a clue about BR period stuff from memory. So perhaps Roy had a photo of a similar appearance in 1957.

 

It just wasn't like him to waste time building a loco that was not suitable for the layout and then run it on there, without a good reason.

 

 

[gr.king]

9 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The question that crosses my mind is why would Roy build a loco that would not run through Retford for the layout? There must be a story behind it that he probably told somebody.

 

I do recall him telling me once that he built a couple of locos for somebody else, as he did build professionally for people at one time. When he rang the bloke to say they were finished, he got no answer and so he waited for the customer to get in touch but he never did. So he didn't know what to do with them. Many years later, he still had them and as he had been paid "up front" he didn't want to sell them on in case the chap turned up. I wonder if Tudor Minstrel is one of those?

He told me the same tale.

[robertcwp]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The question that crosses my mind is why would Roy build a loco that would not run through Retford for the layout? There must be a story behind it that he probably told somebody.

 

I do recall him telling me once that he built a couple of locos for somebody else, as he did build professionally for people at one time. When he rang the bloke to say they were finished, he got no answer and so he waited for the customer to get in touch but he never did. So he didn't know what to do with them. Many years later, he still had them and as he had been paid "up front" he didn't want to sell them on in case the chap turned up. I wonder if Tudor Minstrel is one of those?

 

A search on the internet reveals a photo of a filthy A2 captioned as being on an up Glasgow to Kings Cross train going through Doncaster so a mucky A2 on the right part of the ECML is not an impossibility.  That was 60533 Happy Knight. I am sure a BR period enthusiast will know where it was shedded at the time (1953) when the photo was taken. I may have the information somewhere but I haven't a clue about BR period stuff from memory. So perhaps Roy had a photo of a similar appearance in 1957.

 

It just wasn't like him to waste time building a loco that was not suitable for the layout and then run it on there, without a good reason.

 

 

That might explain why Roy came to build that particular engine. (EDIT: in the light of subsequent information, it appears not.) However, I'm pretty sure I have seen a photo of it on a running in turn, possibly at Retford, but cannot locate the image, which I suspect is in a Backtrack or Steam Days magazine so finding it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Looking at Yeadon, 60528 was outshopped from Doncaster following a general overhaul in February 1957 so would probably not have been at the southern end of the ECML in the summer of 1957. From 1949 until withdrawal, it was based in Scotland, moving between Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen Ferryhill. 

 

Happy Knight was allocated to sheds in England and was at New England in 1953. Other sheds it was allocated to were Copley Hill, Grantham, King's Cross and Doncaster. Yeadon mentions Annesley for one week in July 1950, which seems odd. Possibly a paper allocation that was cancelled?

 

Happy Knight is represented on Retford. From memory, it might be Bachmann.

Edited January 15, 2023 by robertcwp
Update for new information.

[Major Clanger]

9 minutes ago, gr.king said:

He told me the same tale.

And me. One of the locos was a Standard Class 5; I can't remember what the other one was, but I don't think it was an A2. The commissioner was someone in the Bradford area.

[robertcwp]

11 hours ago, sandra said:

I think 60528 Tudor Minstrel was built by Roy, it certainly seems to have been built in his “style”. At the time Retford is set, in 1957, it was shedded at Dundee Tay Bridge and so is a very unlikely visitor to Retford unless it was ex-works. 
 

The story I heard was that a certain person, not one of the Retford Mob, did heavily weather a number of Retford locos. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this as many locomotives in 1957 were heavily weathered but if 60528 did appear at Retford in 1957 it would most likely be after a visit to Doncaster works.

 

That said I do have a photo of 60160 Auld Reekie on a northbound express at Retford, she is reasonably clean but not ex-works. This loco was shedded at Haymarket so it does appear that it was possible for Scottish engines to appear at Retford.

The photo of 60160 by Keith Pirt appears in several places. It appears to be from early 1962 and was taken during an extended period of running in following the engine's final general overhaul (outshopped 30/12/61). 

 

I should clarify that in my initial post about the oddity of the weathered 60528 on Retford, I used the term "Retford crew" very deliberately to refer to the broader group of people who assisted Roy in one way or another, such as with ad hoc projects or by helping to run the layout when Roy had visitors, rather than the narrower term "Retford Mob" which to me would mean the small group of regulars who helped Roy over many years and without whom the layout would not be what it is today.

[Tony Wright]

I don't think anyone is saying that a dirty Scottish-based big locomotive would never be seen running through Retford.

 

If it did occur, it would have been a very, very rare happening. Though I saw few Scottish-based RA9 types (not counting the 'Lizzie' A4s), all of them were ex-works (COLORADO breezing south through Retford on a lighter diagram was a vivid sight, especially as she shone so). 

 

I know my own evidence is very anecdotal, but I've spent the best part of this morning poring over the photographs I have access to in the hope of finding 'evidence' of a dirty Scottish-based Pacific south of Doncaster. I can find nothing!

 

Far more-likely is this............

 

 

At New England in 1952.

 

 

At Grantham in 1960; this is how my Scottish-based A2 looks like, though mine has a Peppercorn boiler, whereas TRIMBUSH (here) has a Thompson one.

 

Dirty (English-based) A2s seemed to be never anything else but filthy, especially 60526 (York) and 60533 (New England). 60538 and 60539 could be a bit cleaner, but whenever I saw them, they were shabby. 

 

Though not actually working, might the following shots tell us anything?

 

 

60094 at Doncaster Works. It's clearly not withdrawn (it's yet to get its double chimney), so it's in for shopping. 

 

When I saw COLORADO, it was the opposite of this! 

 

 

On the works' reception sidings at Doncaster.

 

There is still coal in the tenders of the two A3s above, so could they have been seen running south prior to entering The Plant? I'd say, highly-unlikely. 

 

Now, here's the more-interesting bit to me.......

 

 

60097 on Doncaster Shed after her last overhaul.

 

After shopping, locos would be run-in from 36A, usually to Barkston (near Grantham), York or Leeds. Running-in, looking like this.

 

 

 

Or this. 

 

Clearly, SIR VISTO has been steamed, and its tender is full. 

 

I have seen a shot (can't find it now) of 60068 heading the Down Scotch Goods through Hadley Wood, in exactly this condition.

 

 

PAPYRUS, also on 36A, at round about the period Retford is set.

 

I'd say there's clear evidence for seeing Scottish-based RA9 types at Retford, but only if they're clean. 

 

If you want the opposite...........

 

 

Then look no further than a Tyneside-based one! 

 

Potters Bar, on the Down Scotch Goods. 

 

Would anyone model a bent handrail like that? 

 

Haymarket's A4s were always spotless when I saw them..........

 

 

60009 at Stoke in 1961 on the 'Saturday Elizabethan' (not non-stop, so the headboard reversed, but still the same stock).

 

 

And 60012 at Retford in 1958 on the 'Sunday Elizabethan' (also not non-stop, so the headboard reversed, but different stock because the dedicated sets were serviced on Sundays). 

 

I doubt if anything can be proven from all this. What I would say, is always try to model the most-typical, not concentrating on the rarest or one-off events. And, a dirty Scottish-based A2 south of Doncaster is very, very rare indeed! 

 

Please respect copyright restrictions on these images.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[sandra]

Perhaps we’ll never know the full story behind 60528 but I can say that the locomotive, like all Roy’s locos, is a brilliant runner and a powerful engine which is presently on an up Newcastle/Kings Cross train.

She can easily manage the heaviest trains on the line and I’m glad to have her. However I am in a bit of a quandary as to what to do with her, I could rebuild her to represent one of the English A2s or repaint her into ex-works condition. I think for now I’ll leave her as she is and let her be a nice surprise for the trainspotters at Retford who never expected to see a Dundee allocated A2 so far south.

[robertcwp]

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Haymarket's A4s were always spotless when I saw them..........

 

 

60009 at Stoke in 1961 on the 'Saturday Elizabethan' (not non-stop, so the headboard reversed, but still the same stock).

 

The Saturday working of the Elizabethan set confuses many photo caption writers, especially when the engine is pictured displaying the headboard, as seems to have happened occasionally. The last year of the Saturday non-stop was 1953. The Saturday train was not usually the same formation as the Monday to Friday working. As illustrated here, there was usually a BSK at the London end in place of the BG and the formation was strengthened further back. The lounge buffet was also taken out - for example there is a 1957 published photo of a different Saturday train crossing Welwyn Viaduct with a maroon Thompson buffet in the formation. The buffet itself ceased to be in the Elizabethan after 1957.

 

This image, which I acquired recently, is a bit of a mystery to me, as it shows the headboard but there is a Gresley brake at the front of the formation:

60030_up-Elizabethan_Highdyke_1954 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

It might be the Saturday train.

[robertcwp]

41 minutes ago, sandra said:

Perhaps we’ll never know the full story behind 60528 but I can say that the locomotive, like all Roy’s locos, is a brilliant runner and a powerful engine which is presently on an up Newcastle/Kings Cross train.

She can easily manage the heaviest trains on the line and I’m glad to have her. However I am in a bit of a quandary as to what to do with her, I could rebuild her to represent one of the English A2s or repaint her into ex-works condition. I think for now I’ll leave her as she is and let her be a nice surprise for the trainspotters at Retford who never expected to see a Dundee allocated A2 so far south.

I vote for leaving 60528 as it is. 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, MJI said:

 

That carriage has not got proper couplings nor buffers.

 

Why didn't they adopt buckeyes?

 

 

That doesn't make sense. The coach has standard screw link couplings and a complete set of buffers. The buffers are wider than most British ones because coaches had grown longer- I think that one is a USI 25m (82ft) long so buffer locking (probably in sidings rather on than the main) line was more of an issue. It's a couchette being used by the heritage railway as an accomodation coach for volunteers and parked at the end of a siding at St. Valery-Canal where they have their main workshop. Looking through the French Railways Society photo archive there were a variety of buffer shapes used for coaches including the one illustrated in my photo, a more symmetrical lozenge shape and, what is effectively a large circular buffer with the the top and bottom cut off- also left/right symmetrical .

 

 

Why no buckeyes? The whole queston of automatic or semi-automatic couplings is a complex one. There have been attempts by the UIC to agree a standard automatic coupler even since it was set up after the first World War and, after a load of tests, they generally rejected the American Janney/AAR coupler (which is only semi-automatic) and focussed instead on a version of the Willison coupler (invented by John Willison in Derby in 1916 but never AFAIK used in Britain). Either would have speeded up wagon shunting but, for passenger operations, the Willison has the advantage that it doesn't need the couplers to be pushed together with as much force as the AAR type coupler that the drophead buckeye is based on. Coupling with screw links doesn't of course require any force but only that the buffers are brought together. That was probably a consideration where trains were shuffled a lot enroute (I once travelled on train from Calais where almost every coach - mostly couchettes-was going to a different destination). In Britain, there was far less making and breaking of trains enroute (Cornish Riviera and the ACE excepted)  and buckeyes were well suited to coaches that mostly ran in sets and had certain advantages in accidents tending to keep coaches together and upright. Even in Britain, though buckeyes were used between coaches, it was relatively unusual for locos to be fitted with them.

 

In the event, international agreement has never been reached so the UIC standard for interchangeability is still side buffers and screw link couplers. Many passenger units of course now use Scharfenberg couplers - these though proved unsuitable for heavy goods trains.     

Edited January 15, 2023 by Pacific231G

[robertcwp]

What we refer to in the UK as the buckeye coupling is very American. Perhaps there was less American influence in continental Europe?

 

If I recall correctly, buckeye refers to the Buckeye State, ie Ohio, which is were Master Car Builders were based or had operations and early UK versions of the buckeye coupling were the MCB type.

[t-b-g]

I have had a chat with John Houlden about Tudor Minstrel and can shed some light on the matter. He can't remember all the details but he recalls that it was built in OO by a friend who had died. Roy always referred to him as "chippy" and I am not sure I ever knew his real name. He had helped Roy with the initial construction of the baseboards and had done some work in the railway room. He passed away suddenly in the shed.

 

Roy wanted something to remember him by on the layout so he either converted it to EM or more likely built a new mechanism.

 

Roy knew it was wrong for Retfrod in 1957 in that condition but kept it for sentimental reasons. John is not sure if it came to Roy already weathered or if the weathering was done after it became his perhaps because the livery and lining wasn't the best but he can't recall seeing it running in a clean condition.

 

So my vote would be for leaving it alone too.

[Pacific231G]

30 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

What we refer to in the UK as the buckeye coupling is very American. Perhaps there was less American influence in continental Europe?

 

If I recall correctly, buckeye refers to the Buckeye State, ie Ohio, which is were Master Car Builders were based or had operations and early UK versions of the buckeye coupling were the MCB type.

Almost correct. The Master Car Builders Association was a trade association that established common standards for railroad cars enabling them to be interchanged between RRs. That function is now carried out by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Ohio is indeed the Buckeye State but the common name for the coupler in Britain comes from the Buckeye Steel Castings Company in Columbus Ohio which specialised in the castings required for the Janney/MCB/AAR coupler and these had the name stamped into them. They weren't the only foundry making these castings but seem at one time to have been the largest.

 

In N. America the coupler- invented by Eli Janney- came into universal use following Federal safety legislation requiring employees to not have to go between the cars to couple or uncouple them as the previous link and pin couplers had. For reasons to do with the design of cars with bogies rather than fixed axles, American RR couplers had long been based on a central coupler that incorporated both drawing and buffing functions but link and pins were hazardous and it was said that a switchman with all his fingers couldn't have been doing the job for long.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Pacific231G

[robertcwp]

24 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Almost correct. The Master Car Builders Association was a trade association that established common standards for railroad cars enabling them to be interchanged between RRs. That function is now carried out by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Ohio is indeed the Buckeye State but the common name for the coupler in Britain comes from the Buckeye Steel Castings Company in Columbus Ohio which specialised in the castings required for the Janney/MCB/AAR coupler and these had the name stamped into them. They weren't the only foundry making these castings but seem at one time to have been the largest.

 

In N. America the coupler- invented by Eli Janney- came into universal use following Federal safety legislation requiring employees to not have to go between the cars to couple or uncouple them as the previous link and pin couplers had. For reasons to do with the design of cars with bogies rather than fixed axles, American RR couplers had long been based on a central coupler that incorporated both drawing and buffing functions but link and pins were hazardous and it was said that a switchman with all his fingers couldn't have been doing the job for long.

Thanks, I knew there was an Ohio connection.

[robertcwp]

32 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have had a chat with John Houlden about Tudor Minstrel and can shed some light on the matter. He can't remember all the details but he recalls that it was built in OO by a friend who had died. Roy always referred to him as "chippy" and I am not sure I ever knew his real name. He had helped Roy with the initial construction of the baseboards and had done some work in the railway room. He passed away suddenly in the shed.

 

Roy wanted something to remember him by on the layout so he either converted it to EM or more likely built a new mechanism.

 

Roy knew it was wrong for Retfrod in 1957 in that condition but kept it for sentimental reasons. John is not sure if it came to Roy already weathered or if the weathering was done after it became his perhaps because the livery and lining wasn't the best but he can't recall seeing it running in a clean condition.

 

So my vote would be for leaving it alone too.

Thanks for finding out how 60528 came to be on Retford. Something of a memorial engine.

[60027Merlin]

16 hours ago, sandra said:

I think 60528 Tudor Minstrel was built by Roy, it certainly seems to have been built in his “style”. At the time Retford is set, in 1957, it was shedded at Dundee Tay Bridge and so is a very unlikely visitor to Retford unless it was ex-works. 
 

The story I heard was that a certain person, not one of the Retford Mob, did heavily weather a number of Retford locos. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this as many locomotives in 1957 were heavily weathered but if 60528 did appear at Retford in 1957 it would most likely be after a visit to Doncaster works.

 

That said I do have a photo of 60160 Auld Reekie on a northbound express at Retford, she is reasonably clean but not ex-works. This loco was shedded at Haymarket so it does appear that it was possible for Scottish engines to appear at Retford.

 

Sandra,

 

Regarding Auld Reekie. From the Yeadon book it was down at Doncaster for repair in July and early August 1957, November 58 to early January 1959, February 59 to early April 1960 and November 60 to December. Perhaps your photo may be taken during a running in turn.

 

Regarding the Haymarket engines running in normal service, it was highly unlikely (never say never though!) that they worked south of Newcastle as it was policy at Haymarket that their engines had to be returned back to them as per their diagram. To put it diplomatically, the 64B management “let that be known” in no uncertain manner to the other sheds in the running diagrams that this had to be the case. The late Harry Knox told me during his visits to the layout that if the 64B crews did not return to Haymarket with their engine they would be for the high jump!

 

It would also have been a dangerous situation if Haymarket sent one of the Aberdeen or Dundee A2s south as the locos would not have got back home on schedule incurring the wrath of these sheds as it would then have led to a ”tit for tat” situation, not recommended!

 

Eric

 

[robertcwp]

9 minutes ago, 60027Merlin said:

 

Sandra,

 

Regarding Auld Reekie. From the Yeadon book it was down at Doncaster for repair in July and early August 1957, November 58 to early January 1959, February 59 to early April 1960 and November 60 to December. Perhaps your photo may be taken during a running in turn.

 

Regarding the Haymarket engines running in normal service, it was highly unlikely (never say never though!) that they worked south of Newcastle as it was policy at Haymarket that their engines had to be returned back to them as per their diagram. To put it diplomatically, the 64B management “let that be known” in no uncertain manner to the other sheds in the running diagrams that this had to be the case. The late Harry Knox told me during his visits to the layout that if the 64B crews did not return to Haymarket with their engine they would be for the high jump!

 

It would also have been a dangerous situation if Haymarket sent one of the Aberdeen or Dundee A2s south as the locos would not have got back home on schedule incurring the wrath of these sheds as it would then have led to a ”tit for tat” situation, not recommended!

 

Eric

 

60160 has overhead warning flashes on the firebox in the photo and there is snow on the ground, so early 1962 seems like when the photo was taken, which would fit with the information in Yeadon about its final overhaul at Doncaster.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The Saturday working of the Elizabethan set confuses many photo caption writers, especially when the engine is pictured displaying the headboard, as seems to have happened occasionally. The last year of the Saturday non-stop was 1953. The Saturday train was not usually the same formation as the Monday to Friday working. As illustrated here, there was usually a BSK at the London end in place of the BG and the formation was strengthened further back. The lounge buffet was also taken out - for example there is a 1957 published photo of a different Saturday train crossing Welwyn Viaduct with a maroon Thompson buffet in the formation. The buffet itself ceased to be in the Elizabethan after 1957.

 

This image, which I acquired recently, is a bit of a mystery to me, as it shows the headboard but there is a Gresley brake at the front of the formation:

60030_up-Elizabethan_Highdyke_1954 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

It might be the Saturday train.

Thanks Robert,

 

I know the 'Lizzie' rake was strengthened on Saturdays (at the north end), but a BG (of some description) was often at the south end.

 

As here...........

 

 

60030 on the southbound set ascending Gamston Bank. Headboard (correctly) reversed. 

 

Though this shot isn't pin-sharp, it looks like the two extra carriages are in carmine/cream.

 

 

 

Here we have the set as described by you, with a BR Mk.1 SK as the leading vehicle, on Saturday 28th of September 1960. 

 

'Magnificent MERLIN' has the Up service, with the headboard (correctly) reversed, approaching York Station. One of the pair of strengtheners is in carmine/cream. 

 

In this shot below, the headboard is incorrectly-displayed......

 

 

By FALCON, heading north out of York on the same day. 

 

The pair of strengtheners are between the Aberdeen Mk. 1 pair and the main train (mainly made up of the PV Thompsons, but with a Gresley RF). Interestingly, one of the strentheners is what looks like an end-door Gresley TK (by this time SK). 

 

I only run the weekday 'Lizzie' on Little Bytham (southbound), as it used to run on Stoke Summit. 

 

What an interesting period of our railways' history this was. Inconceivable today - extra carriages added at weekends because of demand! 

 

Please (all) respect copyright restrictions on these images. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.