Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Also, IIRC, the number of side ribs varied on the steel bodied ones, the final batch had more of them.....

 

John

Those with LNER brake rigging had 4 ribs on the side, although there are photos of them with 7 ribs, possibly later repairs using spares from other wagons?. The ones with RCH brake rigging had 4 ribs on the earlier ones and 7 ribs on the later ones. As far as I can see all of the late ones with BR Clasp brakes had 7 ribs

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, MJI said:

When were the white boxes for running numbers and later on TOPS code introduced, one in particular looks like it has the 3 line box?

Boxing of numbers was announced IIRC 1963. Started to appear on new wagons and repairs c1964.

Some never seemed to get it and a lot only had it partially applied to the XP or when the tare weight was moved from the right hand side to the left. You could still find a whole jumble of them as long as unbraked and vac braked stock lasted.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

 

Looking back on my posts on this page, may I please apologise for the sloppy English in places? 

 

I can only cite getting weary (which is a poor excuse!). 

 

I think I've corrected most (I hope all) of the errors now, but, please, as always, if anyone spots any of my mangling of our wonderful mother tongue, please put me right.........

  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning all,

 

Looking back on my posts on this page, may I please apologise for the sloppy English in places? 

 

I can only cite getting weary (which is a poor excuse!). 

 

I think I've corrected most (I hope all) of the errors now, but, please, as always, if anyone spots any of my mangling of our wonderful mother tongue, please put me right.........

 

If we did that (and my understanding of the English language excludes me from such activities) would we need to ask for the topic to be renamed Wright rights Wright writes?

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 2
  • Funny 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Now to find a tractor. Any 'ol tractor will do, they all look the same don't they?

 

 

Yep, probably. A bit like GWR locos all looking the same. 

;-)

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

 

If we did that (and my understanding of the English language excludes me from such activities) would we need to ask for the topic to be renamed Wright rights Wright writes?

I will echo what Bucoops has said. I used to tell my students that I would not knock marks off for bad spelling, because I could not be sure that it was bad spelling! I did get some interesting mis(?)spellings, including 'If you want to work on the Rook' (he meant roof). I suggested that he should be a vet instead of a civil engineer! (For that, I have just had to correct spelling of 'suggested'! I think my favourite one was not a mis-spelling, but unfortunate choice of wording. 'If you plan to put the new road through the old battlefield, you will have to consult historic bodies'.

 

Having said all that, may I in turn wish Tony and all the (better put in others before Tony takes it the wrong way) knowledgeable and helpful contributors to this thread (i.e. everyone except me) a very Happy New Year, and productive modelling in the next 12 months.

 

Lloyd

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Yep, probably. A bit like GWR locos all looking the same. 

;-)

 

As one to whom GWR is their favourite railway, I do appreciate this comment. In the same spirit that all railway modellers look the same?

 

Lloyd

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

It's true.  Don't let anyone know but we can't tell them apart.

 

FARM-massey.jpg.a038b9ae1fa43c4b345d3a16009b756c.jpg

Those aren't tractors. Tractors are green. I know this 'cos I already have one loaded up thus:

20220101_122608.jpg.5513555bb6f5dff6318c27871c2a91db.jpg

Is this another RTR aberration? Apparently, the LMS D.1986 (that the wagon I've just built is a rough approximation of) was the only LMS designed Low. There were some earlier wagons of similar style for container traffic (ex-LNWR) but the closest match I can find for this is the earliest batch of BR Lows, dia. 1/001, drop sides and drop ends (as per the model). Oh dear.

 

Anyway, I've resolved to use this and my new wagon (plus a couple of others) to more closely replicate the latter end of that c.1952 Class D Express Goods we run on Shap.

 

20220101_122434.jpg.4dc7ae25fb512b0cdc7fbed9b727ea40.jpg

Here - slightly naughtily - is a close up of the wagons concerned (nos 14-19 in the train). Being a Class D, they're far enough back in the train to be unfitted. I THINK they're tractors, certainly look like some form of farm machinery. 

 

Any thoughts / comments gratefully received. 

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...