Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

A couple more.....

 

 

A selection of Sprat & Winkle-fitted vans/wagons for pick-up work in the goods yard. 

 

 

One of the fully-fitted freights, showing a wide variety of vans.

 

Actually, the loco is of more interest to me (naturally). It's one of my formative-years' creations, now approaching 50 years old (please don't laugh). It's a Wills A2 body mounted on a Tri-ang 'Britannia' chassis (I said, please don't laugh) fitted with Romford wheels and Jamieson valve gear. Astonishingly, it retains its X04 motor (and still runs well). For half of its life it towed the original (and hugely incorrect) Wills tender, but I built a DJH one for it eventually. Its painting shows its age - definitely not in the Rathbone/Haynes class. 

 

More tomorrow. 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Tony Wright

[grob1234]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

A couple more.....

 

 

A selection of Sprat & Winkle-fitted vans for pick-up work in the goods yard. 

 

 

One of the fully-fitted freights, showing a wide variety of vans.

 

Actually, the loco is of more interest to me (naturally). It's one of my formative-years' creations, now approaching 50 years old (please don't laugh). It's a Wills A2 body mounted on a Tri-ang 'Britannia' chassis (I said, please don't laugh) fitted with Romford wheels and Jamieson valve gear. Astonishingly, it retains its X04 motor (and still runs well). For half of its life it towed the original (and hugely incorrect) Wills tender, but I built a DJH one for it eventually. Its painting shows its age - definitely not in the Rathbone/Haynes class. 

 

More tomorrow. 

 

 

Wonder how many real world miles that loco has done? Must be a few...

[robmcg]

Great engine craftsmanship Tony with the A2. I ran a Triang B12 chassis under a die-cast Duchess of Atholl with Kitmaster valve gear....  beat that.           'We had it tough'...

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, grob1234 said:

Wonder how many real world miles that loco has done? Must be a few...

It must be Tom.

 

In its life it's run on Pendeford, Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and now Little Bytham. 

 

I must admit to using it on seldom occasions now (despite its still running well). It's not really up to standard.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

49 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Your unsecured container is obviously wrong and it being on a Lowfit - well, we've had this discussion on a wagon forum just this week and although there are pictures of it happening it's towards the far end of uncommon.  It was not permitted and Lowfits were generally branded to that effect.   The container could shift and go out of gauge, which clearly couldn't happen in a Medium or High open.  You could put it onto a Conflat and chain it down or slot it into a High, when they seem to have been left unroped as often as they were tied down.

 

I'd look again at the pipes as well - in a rough shunt, there's nothing to prevent the top layer shooting forwards off the wagon into whatever's in front of it.   I can't recall seeing pipes in a sided wagon where they were stacked higher than the sides.  Andrew (Headstock) has done some lovely pipe loads which I think he's illustrated on this thread from time to time.

 

There were at one time regulations about where a bogie vehicle had to be placed in a goods train, but I can't recall what they were off the top of my head.   Stationmaster Mike quoted them to me once.  To do with the number of axles between it and the end of the train I think and may also have varied depending on whether it was piped up or not.  Hopefully that will encourage someone more knowledgeable to explain it.

 

 

 

Thanks Jonathan,

 

'There were at one time regulations about where a bogie vehicle had to be placed in a goods train, but I can't recall what they were off the top of my head.   Stationmaster Mike quoted them to me once.  To do with the number of axles between it and the end of the train I think and may also have varied depending on whether it was piped up or not.  Hopefully that will encourage someone more knowledgeable to explain it.'

 

I placed the SR bogie van in the train based, in part, on this picture.

 

 

Interestingly, there appear to be tubes (or poles) in the third wagon. In a rough shunt they'd be catapulted skywards! 

 

A prototype for everything........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It must be Tom.

 

In its life it's run on Pendeford, Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and now Little Bytham. 

 

I must admit to using it on seldom occasions now (despite its still running well). It's not really up to standard.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Run it at night in the dark !!

 

Do you run in the dark, have your buildings / signals got lights ? I find night running very satisfying, especially on my American O gauge layout. Adds a new atmospheric dimension (if that's the right phrase).

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Run it at night in the dark !!

 

Do you run in the dark, have your buildings / signals got lights ? I find night running very satisfying, especially on my American O gauge layout. Adds a new atmospheric dimension (if that's the right phrase).

 

Brit15

I'm afraid I don't run the railway in the dark (except to detect short circuits on bits of locos - the sparks really show up!) and there are no lights in any of the buildings or in the signals. 

 

The sequence only depicts full daylight hours.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Clem said:

Thanks for the info, Andrew. I have a couple of neo for Iwata cheap Chinese copies, I believe. Easy to take apart for cleaning but the cup is fixed above the nozzle and this can hinder alignment with the eye. Otherwise, they're pretty reasonable for general use but not so good on very fine work. I was thinking of getting the HP SB plus specifically for finer work - (actually, although it comes with an 0.2mm nozzle, there is an option for 0.3 instead).

 

However I think the quality of your finishing probably suggests maybe it's more about the skill factor. Also, I have got a cheap compressor. That may also be replaced, now. I read somewhere that for finer work you have to work at a reduced the pressure.

 

Cheers,

 

Clem

 

Evening Clem,

 

Skill is a factor, yes. Back in the days when airbrushes were still used to retouch photographs, I was taught how to paint with an airbrush rather than just spray paint out of it, then we got Apple Macs............. Skills can be learned, if you want to move beyond something that you just point and shoot, the most important thing to learn is how to wield your airbrush like a conventional paint brush. Fixed paint holders on the brush are just an encumbrance in this respect, like swinging a sword with a brick tied to the end.

 

There is a misconception, that nozzle size equals quality, this is somewhat irrelevant. If you are using enamels, small nozzle sizes will quickly bung up, they are really designed for less viscose media, i.e. inks. Control is the important thing, that comes from the control of the air pressure, the air paint mix in the brush and the paint mix in the cup/ bottle. Trying to control the paint quality, only by use of a small nozzle, is a bit like holding your finger over the end of a hose pipe, rather than using the tap to control the flow of water. All my detail work is done with a 0.5 medium nozzle, as is all my work, such is the flexibility of the 150. A double action airbrush like the 150 is almost pointless without control of the air supply on the compressor. If your existing airbrushes are dual action, it may be better to invest in a better compressor with a proper air regulator.

 

5 hours ago, Darryl Tooley said:

3H - cranked - Darlington

Ian Kirk - straight - Doncaster

 

Neither of these kits was, to my mind, an entirely convincing set of mouldings, and Andrew's way of doing it results in a van that looks right.

 

D

 

Many thanks,

 

it also has the advantage that the Cambrian 6 plank body, goes onto the Parkside vac fitted underframe, creating an LNER 6 plank highfit. One is currently going through the paint shop.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Headstock
better franglais

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Vans seem to be a recent topic of note....

 

Well, I've bitten the bullet and photographed a selection of mine in trains on LB. 

 

With few exceptions, none is my work, so I can plead ignorance if they're wrong. They're mainly obtained from six sources; Rob Kinsey, Rob Davey, John Houlden, the late Pete Lander, the late Dave Shakespeare and acquisitions from second-hand stalls at shows. Most are made from kits, with some RTR adaptations. Wagons are not really my thing. 

 

I'll leave viewers to make their  own observations.

 

The following constitutes one of the mainly-fitted freights......

 

 

This trio of cattle wagons is made-up of weathered Bachmann RTR items. Believe it or not (believe it!), they all have the same number! I must have had hundreds of visitors to see Little Bytham in operation over the last 12 years and none - not one has ever noticed! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If things are wrong, I'd like to know, please. 

 

More to follow.........

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

all lined up like ducks in a row. I'll take out the ex LNER plywood vanfit (line four, second from the left) with the brake gear on back to front. Like a circling shark, I'll be back for more. Some nice tall ex LMS vans though.

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

all lined up like ducks in a row. I'll take out the ex LNER plywood vanfit (line four, second from the left) with the brake gear on back to front. Like a circling shark, I'll be back for more. Some nice tall ex LMS vans though.

 

Line seven, second left - missing brake handle; (but the b*ggers are always becoming detached, aren't they)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Headstock]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Line seven, second left - missing brake handle; (but the b*ggers are always becoming detached, aren't they)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Evening John,

 

looks like another Shark had that one. Pity the poor shunter who will have to run around to the other side of the train and see if there is a brake handle one on the other side.

[Headstock]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Vans seem to be a recent topic of note....

 

Well, I've bitten the bullet and photographed a selection of mine in trains on LB. 

 

With few exceptions, none is my work, so I can plead ignorance if they're wrong. They're mainly obtained from six sources; Rob Kinsey, Rob Davey, John Houlden, the late Pete Lander, the late Dave Shakespeare and acquisitions from second-hand stalls at shows. Most are made from kits, with some RTR adaptations. Wagons are not really my thing. 

 

I'll leave viewers to make their  own observations.

 

The following constitutes one of the mainly-fitted freights......

 

 

 

This trio of cattle wagons is made-up of weathered Bachmann RTR items. Believe it or not (believe it!), they all have the same number! I must have had hundreds of visitors to see Little Bytham in operation over the last 12 years and none - not one has ever noticed! 

 

 

 

 

If things are wrong, I'd like to know, please. 

 

More to follow.........

 

 

 

Evening Tony,

 

back for another bite. Following up on Jonathan's perceptive strike at your pipe wagon and it's dangerous load. Pipe wagons were specifically designed so that chains, that could potentially damage a load, were not required. The load would be secured in place between the sides and ends, by chocks, bracing or a cradle. The pipes would not be stacked pyramid fashion as on a bogie or double bolster, a third of the diameter of a pipe was allowed to project above the sides. If it was a single pipe of extreme size, then additional securing arrangements were required. A similar load can be seen correctly carried in a tube wagon in one of the Apollo images.

 

Back for the over size Bachmann cattle wagons in the morning?

Edited June 7, 2020 by Headstock
add info

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony

 

In addition to what the others have said about the freight train.

 

I have already mentioned the bauxite livery Insulmeat in the third photo, later in the train there is one in white livery. There is a Mogo in the sixth photo, as stated before not seen commonly on general service trains until the 1960s. In the fifth photo, behind the dangerous pipe wagon is an Airfix/Dapol LMS van with Airfix's fictional brake gear that could not be applied as it wouldn't work.  The unfitted LMS Van in the last photo, I am not sure about the brake gear, it doesn't look right.

[Woodcock29]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Don't take take this as gospel, Al, but I don't think the fixing points are exactly the same. 

 

It seems to me that all that was required for the DJH gearboxes was a new 'faceplate' fixing for the replacement motors, which is a fold-up etch with the fixing holes for the screws in it. The four fixing points to hold this to the gearbox remain the same. 

 

Trevor Bailey (his dad was a cricket enthusiast!) is the guy to ask at DJH. 

 

I've now used six of these new combos and (if anything) they're even better than the originals.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I bought 3 recently given your views Tony so I need to build another loco now or replace a motor in an existing one to try one out.

Andrew

[Iain.d]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

... Actually, the loco is of more interest to me (naturally). It's one of my formative-years' creations, now approaching 50 years old (please don't laugh). It's a Wills A2 body mounted on a Tri-ang 'Britannia' chassis (I said, please don't laugh) fitted with Romford wheels and Jamieson valve gear. Astonishingly, it retains its X04 motor (and still runs well). For half of its life it towed the original (and hugely incorrect) Wills tender, but I built a DJH one for it eventually. Its painting shows its age - definitely not in the Rathbone/Haynes class....

 

 

I would be surprised and disappointed if anyone laughed at the loco. The fact that it is nearly 50 years old, still works and looks the part  is probably a reflection of the quality of the build. I wonder how many visitors to Little Bytham watching it trundle by, know and appreciate its origins.

 

This thread consistently returns to the idea of modellers making and doing things for themselves, and to me this is a great example of that. It some ways it might even be a more credible creation than just building a ‘modern’ designed, etched, cast kit that simply falls together that we then get someone else to paint (tongue in cheek of course!)

 

After all, its your own work.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[jwealleans]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I placed the SR bogie van in the train based, in part, on this picture.

 

Cracking shot, Tony, that's been put aside for future study.  Where is it, please?

 

Your van may be marshalled correctly - it just stuck in my mind that Mike said there were specific rules about bogie vehicles in goods workings.

 

Looking closely at the pipes - I'm not sure what they are, they don't seem open at the ends - then I'd say they are flexible.  From the angle at which they stick up over the end of the wagon, if they were rigid they'd be short enough to lay flat.  That would make it harder for them to slide up and over the end.   There's also a match/barrier wagon in front of them which would catch any escapees unless they really were travelling at very high speed. 

 

I'm curious about the open directly above the B1 chimney.   Is that an H type container just visible inside it?

 

[Headstock]

55 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

 

Cracking shot, Tony, that's been put aside for future study.  Where is it, please?

 

Your van may be marshalled correctly - it just stuck in my mind that Mike said there were specific rules about bogie vehicles in goods workings.

 

Looking closely at the pipes - I'm not sure what they are, they don't seem open at the ends - then I'd say they are flexible.  From the angle at which they stick up over the end of the wagon, if they were rigid they'd be short enough to lay flat.  That would make it harder for them to slide up and over the end.   There's also a match/barrier wagon in front of them which would catch any escapees unless they really were travelling at very high speed. 

 

I'm curious about the open directly above the B1 chimney.   Is that an H type container just visible inside it?

 

 

Good morning Jonathan,

 

they look like pit props to me. If so, they are loaded correctly. The other ends of the top lair will be wedged against the far end of the wagon. Alternatively, they could be wedged by smaller props laid crossways or by packing pieces. In addition, the weight would make it physically impossible for them to launch as suggested.

 

The open wagon looks to have a sheeted load inside rather than a container.

[Hollar]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jonathan,

 

'There were at one time regulations about where a bogie vehicle had to be placed in a goods train, but I can't recall what they were off the top of my head.   Stationmaster Mike quoted them to me once.  To do with the number of axles between it and the end of the train I think and may also have varied depending on whether it was piped up or not.  Hopefully that will encourage someone more knowledgeable to explain it.'

 

I placed the SR bogie van in the train based, in part, on this picture.

 

 

Interestingly, there appear to be tubes (or poles) in the third wagon. In a rough shunt they'd be catapulted skywards! 

 

A prototype for everything........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I think the picture is deceptive and that the wagon is loaded with pit props or something similar - resting on the floor and leaning on the end. 

 

I've recently loaded some bolsters with pipe loads (having stumbled on some comparatively cheap brass tube at a builder's merchants.  An enjoyable little job, including thinning the ends down to the absolute minimum, and a Marabu Anthracite aerosol gives a very convincing finish.  My problem is that you can't really scale down the chain if you want to model the shackle / hook tensioning arrangement. I chose to settle for a too-heavy chain but it rankles a bit.

 

I liked the overall effect of the goods trains,.  Although Bachmann cattle wagons are lovely mouldings, but they are much too long. (I realised this after working up three of them, of course.) The faithful old Airfix kit needs some work (beautifully set out by Geoff Kent in The 4mm Wagon) but is still the BR cattle wagon of choice. 

 

There is something about a cattle wagon, though, that entices even the most austere modellers to extend their time envelope.  I had great fun with the Shire Scenes conversion for the GWR iron cattle wagon - arguably the most bizarre goods wagon ever to run in the UK.  It used up a lot of talcum powder but really should just be as entirely orange as Tango Man.

 

Tone

 

PS:  The pipe wagons were modelled from photos, showing the method of securing, and the rather ad hoc stacking of the pipes.  The DO NOT LOAD WITH CONTAINERS rubric on lowfits was only put there because people were always doing it.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Hollar
subsequent messages

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

Cracking shot, Tony, that's been put aside for future study.  Where is it, please?

 

Your van may be marshalled correctly - it just stuck in my mind that Mike said there were specific rules about bogie vehicles in goods workings.

 

Looking closely at the pipes - I'm not sure what they are, they don't seem open at the ends - then I'd say they are flexible.  From the angle at which they stick up over the end of the wagon, if they were rigid they'd be short enough to lay flat.  That would make it harder for them to slide up and over the end.   There's also a match/barrier wagon in front of them which would catch any escapees unless they really were travelling at very high speed. 

 

I'm curious about the open directly above the B1 chimney.   Is that an H type container just visible inside it?

 

Good morning Jonathan,

 

It's at Doncaster, taken from St. James' bridge, with Gilbert Scott's fine parish church on the skyline.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

Well, shows how much the place has changed.  Even knowing where it is I'm finding it hard to locate myself.

 

i think Andrew and Tone are probably right about the pitprops.  That did cross my mind but the unnevenness of the load swayed me away.  They've slipped down at one side  - maybe it's only a part load, maybe it's just been rough shunted and shifted.   Either way, if you put that on a model someone would pick you up on it.

 

This morning I was finishing off an excellent tome called Mixed Traffic by R. Barnard Way which I had been recommended to read.  One of the pictures caught my eye and put me in mind of a discussion we had on here a couple of weeks ago about loading bogie bolsters and match wagons.  Taken at Dunford Bridge, it shows an O4 leading a long string of mainly mineral empties, but just behind the loco are a set of 3 wagons, single, twin, single bolsters, carrying two large square posts.  they might even be signal posts.  What struck me, given the discussion we had about Loading Instructions, was that the load is placed so that it only just projects over the end of the twin at one end, but is almost at the far end of the match wagon at the other; it's at an angle such that it almost sticks out over the side of the far match wagon; neither match wagon has had the bolster removed, but the far one had had it swivelled so that it sits parallel to the load.  The picture isn't clear enough to speak with certainty about where it's attached, but it's another which people would pick you up on on a model.

[APOLLO]

Vans again. Just north of Golborne on the fast four track bit. Nice van selection.

 

 

And a clean shiny loco for a change - again southbound, this 9F is at Springs Branch No 2 Box

 

 

Downhill at Whitley, superpower !!!!!! - Easy job for the fireman. Who runs such a model train ?

 

 

Brit15

Edited June 7, 2020 by APOLLO
added photo

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Iain.d said:

I would be surprised and disappointed if anyone laughed at the loco. The fact that it is nearly 50 years old, still works and looks the part  is probably a reflection of the quality of the build. I wonder how many visitors to Little Bytham watching it trundle by, know and appreciate its origins.

 

This thread consistently returns to the idea of modellers making and doing things for themselves, and to me this is a great example of that. It some ways it might even be a more credible creation than just building a ‘modern’ designed, etched, cast kit that simply falls together that we then get someone else to paint (tongue in cheek of course!)

 

After all, its your own work.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

You're very kind Iain,

 

In a funny sort of way, 60532 represents a modelling 'journey' on my part (they say admission is good for the soul!).  

 

It was built in the days before I'd built a chassis, and was a typical product of the '60s, and definitely of its time. In a way, Bob Wills' concept was brilliant. He took a reliable, good running RTR chassis (usually Tri-ang, but Hornby Dublo two-rail was exploited as well) and designed a cast metal body kit to fit on it. It gave the modeller an opportunity to increase his/her loco stud in a relatively quick and easy way. The concept was seductive, and I succumbed! The fact that, in many cases, the body kits were designed to fit over an RTR chassis (resulting in incorrect splasher positions, for instance) didn't seem to matter - a Triang 'Jinty' chassis was ideal for a 2251, a 'Q', a 4F and a J39, wasn't it? 

 

At the time, the only RTR A2 available was from Trix, and even my unenlightened eyes at the time could tell it wasn't right. I bought one (and boy, it would pull anything), but a corridor tender on a Peppercorn A2? Thus, in the early-'70s I bought a Wills A2 kit, ordered, along with the Tri-ang Britannia chassis, from Trickett's, in Garden Lane, Chester - a long gone emporium which had a section for model railways. Mr Trickett had actually built an A2 from the same sources (except he'd used a Princess chassis, which was the same block, but had different valve gear) which he had on display. It was too tempting. 

 

Thus, it was built, complete with Tri-ang wheels. The whole body was glued together with old-fashioned Araldite. It was painted in full apple green livery (transfer-lined) and numbered 532. Was I proud of it? Then, as ignorance was eroded, I realised that 532 (in single-chimney form, which is what mine was), was only ever British Railways' property. And, when in BR green, it received a double chimney and multiple valve regulator. My model was thus, a hopeless and wildly inaccurate fudge. I know the prototype, at one time, carried full LNER livery in preservation, but that was of no consolation. It must also be remembered that the RCTS' Pt. 2A works and the likes of Yeadon were still not even on the horizon. 

 

What else to squirm over? Spoked plastic wheels were provided for the tender, so I used them. And, what a tender! It was obviously designed from the contemporary Roche drawing, so was corridor tender width (thankfully, without the gangway at the end), had beading and curved-in front ends to the sides, as on an A3. The front end was way too tall as well. However, it fitted together. As for the loco, again designed from the Roche drawing, not a trace of a rivet (like the tender), no ventilators on the cab roof, a banjo dome and generator tucked in at the rear of the offside deflector, not to mention a stepped front footplate to accommodate the front of the Britannia chassis.  

 

As time went on, any 'pride' in what I'd done turned to contempt. So, I embarked upon a complete re-wheel with Romfords (apart from the tender, of which, more later) and a complete rub-down (to have put the lot in paint stripper would have resulted in a kit again). I fitted a double chimney and made-up the multiple valve regulator stuff from bits and pieces. I also built-up the Jamieson valve gear. It was then repainted into BR green, as 60532 (based on a picture of the loco I'd taken during its appearance at Chester, on a railtour, in 1966). The banjo dome was retained, along with the wrong tender. In this form, it actually appeared in a picture in Model Rail, when I wrote a piece about Fordley Park. 

 

Finally, the banjo dome was replaced by a streamlined one (and patch-repainted) and I built a DJH tender for it (SE Finecast's A2 now has a proper tender). I know DJH do not supply spares as such, but I'd worked with the late John Hughes of DJH, assisting with new kit development, and was in a privileged position. Actually, this last point leads me on to an amusing story.......

 

I was exhibiting (demonstrating) at one Nottingham show a few years back, when a complete stranger came up to me and asked 'I believe you get spares from DJH and also complete kits at trade. Is this true? If so, I'd like (I can't remember what his list was), and I'll pay you as soon as they're delivered'. He must have been surprised at my aghast look of astonishment (or are all aghast looks astonishing?), and even more surprised when I responded by saying 'My relationship with DJH is none of your business'. 'But, that's not fair!' Why should you enjoy special privileges?'. Again, I said 'It's none of your business', but qualified it by asking him a few questions.... 'Do you test-build for DJH? Do you assist in the design/development of new kits for the firm? Do you build the prototypes of any new kits (in 4mm) and write the instructions? Do you photograph 90% of the pictures for the firm's catalogue, and provide pictures for advertisements in the model press?'. He had no answer, but suggested he might complain to the exhibition manager (Ian Trivett, sadly now deceased) that I was being rude to him. Rude to him? I hadn't even started!

 

What is it about some model railway show punters? There must be many stories to tell out there.......................

 

Anyway, to conclude; BLUE PETER is as she is. A 'sentimental' record of a different time. I'll keep it, but, as stated, it's nowhere near the current Bytham standard for locos.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Tony,

 

back for another bite. Following up on Jonathan's perceptive strike at your pipe wagon and it's dangerous load. Pipe wagons were specifically designed so that chains, that could potentially damage a load, were not required. The load would be secured in place between the sides and ends, by chocks, bracing or a cradle. The pipes would not be stacked pyramid fashion as on a bogie or double bolster, a third of the diameter of a pipe was allowed to project above the sides. If it was a single pipe of extreme size, then additional securing arrangements were required. A similar load can be seen correctly carried in a tube wagon in one of the Apollo images.

 

Back for the over size Bachmann cattle wagons in the morning?

Thanks Andrew,

 

Things will be sorted, and I did request constructive criticism.................... 

 

'Following up on Jonathan's perceptive strike at your pipe wagon and it's dangerous load.'

 

Please take the above as constructive criticism......... 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Well, 'ducks in a row' and all that.

 

Many, many thanks for all the constructive criticisms of my wagons/vans. It's clear that much in the way of re-marshalling is going to have to take place.

 

Anyway, more ducks in a row..........

 

 

This is generally run as the Scotch Goods, 266 Down, and it's comprised of some 40+ vans of all shapes and sizes. The V2 (Jamieson/Rathbone) is not always the motive power, often a Top Shed A4 being employed. 

 

Vans in sidings complete the shot.

 

And now, a selection from the train........

 

 

The BR CCT is built (believe it or not) from an ancient MOPOK kit (my work), and it shows. 

 

The green SR van is modified Hornby. To be fair, I think more of this train is made-up from modified RTR stock. 

 

 

More modified RTR, though I built the 'Palvan'.

 

 

And, finally, more redolent of the time, in B&W.

 

Start shooting! 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

I bought 3 recently given your views Tony so I need to build another loco now or replace a motor in an existing one to try one out.

Andrew

Good morning Andrew,

 

The only thing to be careful of is the grubscrew. It's really short.

 

If you insert it before you put the gearbox in the frames, it will escape (I know!). The trick is to put the 'box in place in the frames and finally insert the grubscrew - held in place on the end of a fine screwdriver with a blob of Evo-Stik.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.