Wright writes.....

[Focalplane]

 

Speaking of Keith Pirt, I've found out more information about his cameras. My apologies for mentioning his getting a Leica at an 'early stage' of his photography. It would seem that he didn't acquire one until the turn of the '50s/'60s decade. Prior to that he used a Retina 111C with a 50mm F2 Xenon lens or a Voigtlander VITO B with a 50mm F3.5 lens. His Leica was an M3 with a 50mm F1.4 Summilux lens. All these cameras/lenses were very high-quality.

 

A long time ago I had a Voigtlander Vito with that same lens, what a nice camera it was too.  I took slides mostly and then they all got the dreaded tropical gelatin-eating fungus when I was working in un-airconditioned Singapore.  How times have changed!

[MJI]

The problem with dates is that there are basically two formats in use.  The MM/DD/YY format is sometimes called "military notation" in the UK so, is it possible the photographer was in the military at one time?

 

Having been subject to both formats in my career, with the inevitable misunderstandings that result, I have always used three letters for the month.  That way there can be no confusion.

 

Another possibility is that the date could be the time the film was developed.  A pro lab in Houston always marked transparencies with the processing date.  However, the subject film would have been exposed for around 6 months before it was developed which is surely not likely?

 

So perhaps it was simply a mistake.

 

The photo reminds me of trainspotting days on the Trent Valley Line at Tamworth.  If only had owned a camera back then!

 

Date formats are a minefield, I DETEST middle endian dates.

 

if you want to avoid ambiguous try 2016-12-08 which is the SQL format for dates, or 20161208 which is the DBF format.

 

I had to create a file for a Yank accounts system and in communications with the US programmer we agreed on yyyymmdd as it was possible I would have used dd/mm/yyyy

[CUTLER2579]

Tony Wright

 

Posted Today, 08:37

 

 

"Finally, for anyone interested, Ian Harper of Haymarket Cross fame has turned to O Gauge. He has, therefore, a large collection of OO ER locos/stock for sale. Anyone interested should contact him on 01723 366811 or 07966 230271". 

 

Tony,

Ian mentioned on here that he was selling his "OO" stock and unbelievably to me this comment was posted :

 

- Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:17

 

No prices. Do the adverts properly. I wouldn't touch anything that you are mentioning with a barge pole. No photos and no prices.

 

I have known Ian for a long time now and can hardly believe anyone would say this about him. I hope this does not upset the moderators, but frankly I would leave Ian the keys to my house and go away for a month without any worries.

Regards,Derek.

[chris p bacon]

Tony,

Ian mentioned on here that he was selling his "OO" stock and unbelievably to me this comment was posted :

 

- Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:17

 

No prices. Do the adverts properly. I wouldn't touch anything that you are mentioning with a barge pole. No photos and no prices.

 

I have known Ian for a long time now and can hardly believe anyone would say this about him. I hope this does not upset the moderators, but frankly I would leave Ian the keys to my house and go away for a month without any worries.

Regards,Derek.

 

In fairness if you don't know the chap would you buy without an idea of what is was or how much, could have been phrased a little better though.

 

PS, I don't need your keys, I've got a crowbar and a sledgehammer.......could explain my modelling!

[ecgtheow]

Interesting that Derek has done exactly what is required for international medical statements to be valid  - day in numerals month in letters & year in full in numerals. So today is 08 Dec 2016. It's infallible.

 

William

[Tony Wright]

Tony Wright

 

Posted Today, 08:37

 

 

"Finally, for anyone interested, Ian Harper of Haymarket Cross fame has turned to O Gauge. He has, therefore, a large collection of OO ER locos/stock for sale. Anyone interested should contact him on 01723 366811 or 07966 230271". 

 

Tony,

Ian mentioned on here that he was selling his "OO" stock and unbelievably to me this comment was posted :

 

- Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:17

 

No prices. Do the adverts properly. I wouldn't touch anything that you are mentioning with a barge pole. No photos and no prices.

 

I have known Ian for a long time now and can hardly believe anyone would say this about him. I hope this does not upset the moderators, but frankly I would leave Ian the keys to my house and go away for a month without any worries.

Regards,Derek.

 

Thanks Derek,

 

I know it's always a bit ambiguous to offer items for sale on threads such as this. I checked with Andy York some little time ago and he doesn't have a problem with it, especially where (in most cases in my case) it's the offering for sale of items on behalf of widows and bereaved families. Later today, I'll post more pictures of the late John Brown's locos which are being offered for sale. 

 

Like you, I've know Ian for many years and share your views on his integrity. He's well-known on the exhibition circuit, both with his layout and as a demonstrator, so his models have all been widely-seen. Haymarket Cross has also been seen in BRM. I haven't seen any 'advert'; all I did was mention that he was graduating to O Gauge and was selling his OO stock. Comments such as 'wouldn't touch things with a barge pole' are very emotive and (potentially?) damaging to any potential sale, though it's nothing to do with me to be fair. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of possible interest - pictures of Haymarket Cross and some of its stock. 

 

Apologies for some of these pictures being no more than 'snapshots'. 

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

I am of the opinion that what you are doing for widows and bereaved families is a noble effort that also benefits charities. You are in a unique position to do this and have the blessing of the moderators.

 

But I do have strong reservations that individuals should market their belongings in the way that is apparently taking place. I too made the switch from smaller scales to 7mm 18 months ago. If I had wanted to, I could have availed myself of RMWeb's service, for which they would get a commission that helps to support this worthy forum. I hate to put it this way, but this smacks of cronyism, one rule for "us", another for "them".

 

I have never met most of the regulars on this forum mainly because I spend a lot of my time in France and, before I retired, in Africa. I have gained immeasurable insight from this forum for which I am very thankful. I hope in my own small way I have given something back.

 

But please, however noble the individual is, this is going a step too far. If anyone objects to this post, please contact the moderators.

[chris p bacon]

Tony

 

I am of the opinion that what you are doing for widows and bereaved families is a noble effort that also benefits charities. You are in a unique position to do this and have the blessing of the moderators.

 

But I do have strong reservations that individuals should market their belongings in the way that is apparently taking place. I too made the switch from smaller scales to 7mm 18 months ago. If I had wanted to, I could have availed myself of RMWeb's service, for which they would get a commission that helps to support this worthy forum. I hate to put it this way, but this smacks of cronyism, one rule for "us", another for "them".

 

I have never met most of the regulars on this forum mainly because I spend a lot of my time in France and, before I retired, in Africa. I have gained immeasurable insight from this forum for which I am very thankful. I hope in my own small way I have given something back.

 

But please, however noble the individual is, this is going a step too far. If anyone objects to this post, please contact the moderators.

I see where you're coming from with this post as I have seen other attempts by individuals to sell items through their topics either deleted or locked as they should go through Buy & Sell which helps pay for this site. But if Andy/Warners are happy then that's their decision.

I've also sold on behalf of a widow who with frozen accounts needed the money from the sale of items and I sold through the original classifieds here which were free. When it moved to Buy & Sell I also sold through there but as most of the expensive items had gone it meant it was free as they were under £30.

[landscapes]

Haymarket Cross 02.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 03.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 04.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 05.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 06.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 07.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 08.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 09.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 10.jpg

 

Haymarket Cross 11.jpg

 

Just out of possible interest - pictures of Haymarket Cross and some of its stock.

 

Apologies for some of these pictures being no more than 'snapshots'.

 

 

Hi Tony

 

You certainly know how to bring out the best in a model railway layout from a photographic point of view.

 

I have always been a big admirer of Haymarket Cross and was very sorry to see it change to diesel.

 

I have seen many photos of the layout over the years in the model railway journals and from Ian himself but those photos that you have posted are by far some of the best yet, such a shame there will be no more new photos in the future.

 

Thank you for posting them

 

Regards

 

David

Edited December 8, 2016 by landscapes

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I am of the opinion that what you are doing for widows and bereaved families is a noble effort that also benefits charities. You are in a unique position to do this and have the blessing of the moderators.

 

But I do have strong reservations that individuals should market their belongings in the way that is apparently taking place. I too made the switch from smaller scales to 7mm 18 months ago. If I had wanted to, I could have availed myself of RMWeb's service, for which they would get a commission that helps to support this worthy forum. I hate to put it this way, but this smacks of cronyism, one rule for "us", another for "them".

 

I have never met most of the regulars on this forum mainly because I spend a lot of my time in France and, before I retired, in Africa. I have gained immeasurable insight from this forum for which I am very thankful. I hope in my own small way I have given something back.

 

But please, however noble the individual is, this is going a step too far. If anyone objects to this post, please contact the moderators.

Paul,

 

I respect your position entirely. It might well be that there is cronyism, and I understand that point of view. However, and this is probably not well-known, Ian Harper supports a hospice in Scarborough through his various model railway activities. I've supported it, too, through my loco-doctoring activities. I only mention the above because I don't think it's simply mates helping mates at the expense of others. I have no wish to blow any 'collective trumpet' about 'aren't we being good', just, perhaps, making the situation clearer. 

 

Perhaps, if I (we) leave it to the moderators; they'll remove anything which they think is out of place. 

 

Anyway, I can't imagine anyone objecting to the next models being sold on behalf of a bereaved family. As mentioned earlier, they were part of the collection of the late John Brown. So far, I've raised £500.00 (with a percentage of that going to Cancer Research). I hope to raise more, so if anyone is interested in the following models perhaps they'll PM me, please. 

 

 

A K's C1, but with Romford wheels and a Mashima motor. 

 

 

A Nu-Cast N2 on a Comet chassis.

 

 

An N15 - kit unknown to me. Does someone know what this is, please? 

 

 

A DJH Q7.

 

All the above run very well. I've attended to adjusting pick-ups, cleaning and oiling them.

 

Many thanks in anticipation. 

[Tony Wright]

 

One item definitely not for sale is the goods shed on LB. 

 

This was Ian Wilson's test-build of his first Prototype Models kit from 40 years ago, to which I've finally got round to adding the guttering and downpipes (from Ratio parts). On close inspection such as this it's showing what it is - a model made of printed cardboard. However, in the same way that I have layout locos and layout rolling stock, I think this is a 'layout building'. Part of a much larger picture - something not to be too unkind to by too much close-up photography? 

 

When I consider some of the professionally-built architectural models I've taken pictures of (have a look at Peter Leyland's work in the next two or three issues of Railway Modeller), it puts into perspective how incredibly good work of that standard is. However, I don't have the fiscal clout to model in that manner, so, among us, we create what we can; how we can.   

[Rail-Online]

Tony,

 

The N15 is a NB Models whitemetal kit - long out of production!

 

Cheers Tony

Edited December 8, 2016 by Rail-Online

[Barry O]

Tony

 

I have been looking at your pictures of Carlisle in the January Railway Modeller. Very good pictures and I believe there are more to come.

 

The shots show how big the layout is and how difficult it must have been to take photographs.

 

Baz

[Daddyman]

Thanks Daddyman.

 

Do I know you; have we spoken with each other? 

 

Your comments are very pertinent, so, my thanks again. I don't think there's much more I can add about the D30 picture; not without consulting the leaned documents, because the class is outside my 'normal' modelling activities. 

 

302.5 - 60009 Doncaster Shed 14.11.63 small.jpg

 

I could comment about the above, though. That it appears to be one of the trio of A4 tenders with their back ends cut down in 1948 to clear the water cranes on the LMS and SR during the locomotive exchanges. These tenders ran behind (at various times) MALLARD, SEAGULL, LORD FARINGDON, WOODCOCK, UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA and FLYING SCOTSMAN (the last-mentioned in preservation). Any useful information in that? 

 

The cropping of pictures is not unique to Booklaw to be fair. I've had it occur in articles I've written on both prototype and model subjects. 

 

As for a war on the English language, I have been assured that what is written will be entirely down to me. So, if I have indulged in hostilities against our native tongue, the responsibility will be entirely mine - as will be the blame. 

 

Finally, may I make one comment on detail in photographs, please? I first heard it from one of the greatest of modellers (and authors), the late David Jenkinson. I'd just written and illustrated a piece for him, which included comments on detail. His words were (or as near as I can remember) 'Tony, obtain a picture (or preferably pictures) of your chosen prototype which is (are) well-lit and clear. Place the model you're building at the same angle as the prototype picture(s) at the same relative distance. Now, closely examine the prototype picture(s). Any detail you can see clearly, put it on. Anything you can't see, even though you know it to be there - injectors, internal pipework, brake cylinders? - don't bother with'. He also told me that if the only way you can see all the detail on the underframe of a model carriage is if that carriage has derailed, tumbled down an embankment and landed upside down in a ditch, then don't build a model where this happens!

 

I wish I had just a fraction of his wisdom. 

I was worried I'd addressed you as "Hi Tony" when I read your second line! We've spoken a few times at shows over the years but nothing recent. 

 

Your comments on the A4 tender are useful, yes, but perhaps they'd be better served by a rear 3/4 view. After all, a modeller wouldn't actually be able to set about the modifications from that photo. 

 

If you need any help on captions for locos based north of, say, the Coquet, I'd be pleased to help. 

 

I was brought up to have a deep prejudice against David Jenkinson, which I've never know the origin of - and never questioned. I suspect it was on account of his LMS perversion. What annoys me most about his comments is the idea that detail is a "bother", but I'm afraid I also find them platitudinous: firstly because every modeller puts on as much detail as he or she can; secondly because much detail underneath a model is visible from the side (brake pull rods for example); and finally because what is visible may not be model-able - these lubricator runs on a D20 have defied me for months: 

 

In the end I did something on my scratchbuilt model with 0.2 copper wire and 0.5 capillary tube, but it's clear it looks nothing like the real thing: 

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Daddyman

[Mallard60022]

Tony Wright

 

Posted Today, 08:37

 

 

"Finally, for anyone interested, Ian Harper of Haymarket Cross fame has turned to O Gauge. He has, therefore, a large collection of OO ER locos/stock for sale. Anyone interested should contact him on 01723 366811 or 07966 230271". 

 

Tony,

Ian mentioned on here that he was selling his "OO" stock and unbelievably to me this comment was posted :

 

- Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:17

 

No prices. Do the adverts properly. I wouldn't touch anything that you are mentioning with a barge pole. No photos and no prices.

 

I have known Ian for a long time now and can hardly believe anyone would say this about him. I hope this does not upset the moderators, but frankly I would leave Ian the keys to my house and go away for a month without any worries.

Regards,Derek.

 

Sorry, if you just mention you are selling your stock and don't say anything else I can't see that's a problem. The 'proper adverts' and 'photo's and prices' would be on the Buy and Sell site or given trough PM or wherever. Is that not OK? To me it seems that someone thoughtful is mentioning to a large audience that stuff is going to be available so people on here get first dibs. They are not 'selling' on a thread are they?

If I have grasped the wrong end of the stick I shall delete this post.

Phil

Edited December 9, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

I was worried I'd addressed you as "Hi Tony" when I read your second line! We've spoken a few times at shows over the years but nothing recent. 

 

Your comments on the A4 tender are useful, yes, but perhaps they'd be better served by a rear 3/4 view. After all, a modeller wouldn't actually be able to set about the modifications from that photo. 

 

If you need any help on captions for locos based north of, say, the Coquet, I'd be pleased to help. 

 

I was brought up to have a deep prejudice against David Jenkinson, which I've never know the origin of - and never questioned. I suspect it was on account of his LMS perversion. What annoys me most about his comments is the idea that detail is a "bother", but I'm afraid I also find them platitudinous: firstly because every modeller puts on as much detail as he or she can; secondly because much detail underneath a model is visible from the side (brake pull rods for example); and finally because what is visible may not be model-able - these lubricator runs on a D20 have defied me for months: 

small.jpg

 

In the end I did something on my scratchbuilt model with 0.2 copper wire and 0.5 capillary tube, but it's clear it looks nothing like the real thing: 

 

20161204_120524small.jpg

Thanks once again Daddyman (please forgive me if I find addressing you in this way bizarre). 

 

Don't worry about the initial address. I think I've grown up now to accept that dinosaurs became extinct! 

 

With regard to the A4 tender, I have pictures showing it more clearly from the rear but, as you'll appreciate, I'm saving those for publication. 

 

My compliments on your scratch-built D20. I assume it's 4mm? It looks like you might also like cats - if you do it's mutual. 

 

When looking at building standards as high as yours, it confirms more and more to me my limitations. This is not false modesty, just realism. Anything I've scratch-built in the past has never been to that standard. May I ask, please, how many locos have you built? Several, I'll warrant. 

 

You mention items like brake pull rods. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a Crownline B17 I've not long completed. I've added things like the lubricator pipe runs down the boiler (5Amp fusewire) and some wiggly bits and pieces. I hope the brake pull rods are visible but their actuating cylinder isn't there; because in every B17 picture I've consulted it isn't visible (is it up between the frames at the rear?)

 

As I've said many times, this is a layout loco. The construction is not up to your standard.

 

 

Here's one I built earlier, for Gilbert Barnatt. Ian Rathbone painted it. I think as a layout loco it's detailed enough (though I hate those giant lamps). 

 

 

Slightly off at a tangent, it does make me wonder if there is a future for any B17 kit. This is Hornby's equivalent. That said, as is well known, my preference is still to make my own. 

 

 

Having said I prefer to make my own, for the purposes of a book, I've detailed a Bachmann A2. Those pipe runs are clearly visible in any prototype picture, so had to be included. The poor bogie wheels were also replaced.

 

 

When completed, and weathered to perfection by Tom Foster, I think there's enough visible detail here, especially for its role as a layout loco (though it won't pull as much as my kit-built A2s). 

 

 

I think there's enough detail visible on this J69 I built for Ian Wilson as his last year's Christmas present. When I weathered it it looked a bit 'scabby'. And, in cruel close-up like this, that's probably true. 

 

 

However, cruel close-ups of the real thing will also reveal a rather 'scabby' finish. Would any modeller attempt to replicate all the peeling and cracks visible here? 

 

 

Or the rippling on the same loco's tender? 

 

 

Finally (picture-wise), you're dead right when it comes to modellers putting on as much detail as they wish. This is a 9F built in O Gauge by Tony Geary (the layout it's on is to feature soon in BRM). Peerless modelling in my view. 

 

I might well take you up on your offer. What a lovely river the Coquet is. I spent a day's photography in the area some 40 years ago, including taking pictures near Shillbottle (does it have two 'l's?) What a wonderful name for a settlement!

 

I'll send you a PM. Many thanks again. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

 

My apologies. Whist composing my last post, the page became unresponsive and I had to 'kill' it. In doing so, the two pictures included here were lost. Since I'm incapable of re-inserting them in their place in the last post, they're included here.  

[Daddyman]

You're too kind, Tony - really. (I almost said literally...) I probably learnt most things from your DVD. I may possibly be more obsessively neurotically bloody-minded than you, and refuse to give up, I don't know. A good few things on the D20 I've done and undone and redone. Each splasher beading has been done probably 7-10 times, taking about 30 hours in total. My philosophy is divide the 30 minutes something will take to put right (OK, 30 hours) by the 40 years I've got left on planet earth looking at the model. That usually swings it... 

 

The D20 will be my first scratchbuilt loco, started last year at the tender age of 44 and 3/4. Before that I'd started and abandoned a few whitemetal kits - couldn't get on with the material, and didn't like the thick edges. Then maybe four years ago I built a Bradwell J27 for the NERA Express magazine (friends in high places - my father is president of the society). I actually told him to get an Alexander J27 so we could have it finished over Xmas and into the Express, but he got his wires crossed! Ha ha ha haaaaarrgggghhhh! So my first etched kit ended up being one that's perceived as being very hard. However, it was nothing of the kind (nothing like the kind of thing your generation had to wrestle with) because it was so well designed, and because before I started it I read lots of RMWeb threads on the best soldering irons and how to solder, etc., and, I as said, watched your DVD. That nice Mr Rathbone was not impressed by the width of the boiler bands, though. Nor was that nice Mr Bradwell. You can take the straightness of the bands to the bank though! 

 

Then one day someone in the NERA muttered that "he" should be scratchbuilding "by his age", so I started the D20. My preference would be for ex-NBR types, but my dad is 80 and I want to give him as many of the models he's always wanted as I can (fortunately the next one is a Y9) - fat chance of the RTR people paying any attention to anything north of York/Carlisle. But if I model Sunilaws on the Berwick Kelso and St Boswells, as I think I may, I can build things my dad wants and things I want. The D20 will be 62383, which I have a picture of at St B, having worked in from Tweedmouth.  

 

This is Aerolite, my second ever scratchbuilt loco, currently away with Ian: 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Daddyman

[Headstock]

Perhaps better to say 'lower'? 

 

It prevents ambiguity. 

Tony,

 

my comments were supposed to be linked to your previous post (techno glitch) as you referred to the Gresley carriage as being 'taller'. Incidentally, when you refer to the train as an extra, do you mean a special train working or a relief? The presence of the reporting number on the lamp bracket would indicate a special train working. The somewhat scratch nature of the formation is probably in line with this. The MK1 BG may be providing extra baggage space or it may have been the only thing available. The second carriage is almost certainly a Pantry Car operating as an open second and you have already mentioned the presence of a Thompson PV carriage. It would be tempting to regard this as cascading of older stock, however, exactly the same kind of thing can be seen in formations from the 1940's, even brand new PV stock was used especially when extra third class seating was required. In a formation such as this, the first class accommodation was probably limited or the train could even be all second class. Not a typical East coast express formation but representative of what may have been seen in a special train working. I have some information on reporting numbers as regards route and destinations but the one in the photo defeats me, someone will have an answer to that, perhaps they may post.

[Mallard60022]

Tony,

 

my comments were supposed to be linked to your previous post (techno glitch) as you referred to the Gresley carriage as being 'taller'. Incidentally, when you refer to the train as an extra, do you mean a special train working or a relief? The presence of the reporting number on the lamp bracket would indicate a special train working. The somewhat scratch nature of the formation is probably in line with this. The MK1 BG may be providing extra baggage space or it may have been the only thing available. The second carriage is almost certainly a Pantry Car operating as an open second and you have already mentioned the presence of a Thompson PV carriage. It would be tempting to regard this as cascading of older stock, however, exactly the same kind of thing can be seen in formations from the 1940's, even brand new PV stock was used especially when extra third class seating was required. In a formation such as this, the first class accommodation was probably limited or the train could even be all second class. Not a typical East coast express formation but representative of what may have been seen in a special train working. I have some information on reporting numbers as regards route and destinations but the one in the photo defeats me, someone will have an answer to that, perhaps they may post.

The baggage car suggests a military 'special'.

Phil

[Michael Edge]

To comment on the "wrinkly" appearance of many steam loco tenders here's an interesting observation from much more recent times. When the Channel Tunnel shuttle locos were being  built at Qualter Hall in Barnsley the specification was for dead flat sides. To achieve this the steel plates had to be stretched by hydraulic rams before welding the structure up. They are usually too dirty to tell now but as I remember they were very flat when they left the works - by the most tortuous wriggle imaginable as anyone who knows the location of Qualt's will understand.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

my comments were supposed to be linked to your previous post (techno glitch) as you referred to the Gresley carriage as being 'taller'. Incidentally, when you refer to the train as an extra, do you mean a special train working or a relief? The presence of the reporting number on the lamp bracket would indicate a special train working. The somewhat scratch nature of the formation is probably in line with this. The MK1 BG may be providing extra baggage space or it may have been the only thing available. The second carriage is almost certainly a Pantry Car operating as an open second and you have already mentioned the presence of a Thompson PV carriage. It would be tempting to regard this as cascading of older stock, however, exactly the same kind of thing can be seen in formations from the 1940's, even brand new PV stock was used especially when extra third class seating was required. In a formation such as this, the first class accommodation was probably limited or the train could even be all second class. Not a typical East coast express formation but representative of what may have been seen in a special train working. I have some information on reporting numbers as regards route and destinations but the one in the photo defeats me, someone will have an answer to that, perhaps they may post.

Thanks Andrew,

 

My reference to 'extra' meant either a special or a relief, though I have no idea what it is exactly. 

 

In my youth I used to see dozens and dozens of 'extras' during summer weekends at Chester. Many of these carried an 'X' as the second item in their four character codes - either crudely chalked on the smokebox door or pasted to a wooden board attached to (usually) the top lamp bracket. In order to make identification easier for signalmen, the ordinary service trains often carried boards as well, but in this case the second item would be 'M' or 'W' (signifying passage on the Midland or Western Regions?)

 

Clearly, the train hauled by 60059 is not a summer extra, though it does carry a 'special' board. I hope someone can identify it. 

 

This type of train illustrates to me the value of modelling rakes from actual photographs. According to BR's official train make-up books for 1962, most of the ECML expresses were formed of Mk.1 stock. Yet, loads of pictures exist showing incredibly mixed rakes, even behind Deltics. It's true that many of KRP's were taken on Saturdays, often summer Saturdays. That being the case, many extra (very mixed) trains might be run, utilising Gresley, Thompson and Mk.1 cars, or even WR or SR carriages as well (I have a picture of a Deltic at York where the first carriage is a Hawksworth Brake Composite). 

 

It is, indeed, a fascinating subject. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tony Wright

[johndon]

such a shame there will be no more new photos in the future.

 

 

 

The layout has been purchased by another RMWeb member and he's going to be 'modernising' it to become a diesel shed.  Some new photos in this thread already:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64736-my-detailingrepainting-projects/page-86

 

John

[96701]

Tony Wright

 

Posted Today, 08:37

 

 

"Finally, for anyone interested, Ian Harper of Haymarket Cross fame has turned to O Gauge. He has, therefore, a large collection of OO ER locos/stock for sale. Anyone interested should contact him on 01723 366811 or 07966 230271". 

 

Tony,

Ian mentioned on here that he was selling his "OO" stock and unbelievably to me this comment was posted :

 

- Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:17

 

No prices. Do the adverts properly. I wouldn't touch anything that you are mentioning with a barge pole. No photos and no prices.

 

I have known Ian for a long time now and can hardly believe anyone would say this about him. I hope this does not upset the moderators, but frankly I would leave Ian the keys to my house and go away for a month without any worries.

Regards,Derek.

 

I made the comment because he put it in Buy and Sell which is where products that are priced and photographed on Buy and Sell are linked to. I also got a pm from Ian afterwards which didn't help. Why are you raising this subject again?