Combe Martin 34043 detail from 1954-58

[roundhouse]

Ian---thank you--am opting for the Fox plates to replace Wilton.

regards,

Ed

 

 

Post a photo when you have added them as that might change my mind.

[Mallard60022]

IMO Bright Spark's plate position on the off side are spot on for post '57.. (See his blog pics as ref above).

Phil

[Combe Martin]

Is there anyone out there that lives close enough to a preserved line with an un-rebuild Bullied who could pop over and measure the distance between the sand fillers for us. I'd do it myself, but at the moment I'm 2 hours away from the Bluebell line and I'm working 7 days a week too. I don't trust drawings, they're often unreliable.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Combe Martin

[ed 66 plant]

Is there anyone out there that lives close enough to a preserved line with an un-rebuild Bullied who could pop over and measure the distance between the sand fillers for us. I'd do it myself, but at the moment I'm 2 hours away from the Bluebell line and I'm working 7 days a week too. I don't trust drawings, they're often unreliable.

Am visiting the Mid Hants this Saturday so hopefully can check this out.

Ed

[bécasse]

Is there anyone out there that lives close enough to a preserved line with an un-rebuild Bullied who could pop over and measure the distance between the sand fillers for us. I'd do it myself, but at the moment I'm 2 hours away from the Bluebell line and I'm working 7 days a week too. I don't trust drawings, they're often unreliable.

 

And measuring up preserved locos is even more unreliable! 

 

However, if you measure up a preserved loco and take a photo of it from exactly the same angle as the original photo was taken from (and preferably with the zoom adjusted to roughly match the focal length of the original camera lens), you are in a much better position to start making reasoned judgements on the issue. It isn't easy though!

[Mallard60022]

And measuring up preserved locos is even more unreliable! 

 

However, if you measure up a preserved loco and take a photo of it from exactly the same angle as the original photo was taken from (and preferably with the zoom adjusted to roughly match the focal length of the original camera lens), you are in a much better position to start making reasoned judgements on the issue. It isn't easy though!

I would agree generally, however an unrebuilt Bulleid Pacific is unlikely to have had the Sand Box access hatches moved. However, I could of course be wrong having not seen one for ages.

Phil

[Combe Martin]

I would agree generally, however an unrebuilt Bulleid Pacific is unlikely to have had the Sand Box access hatches moved. However, I could of course be wrong having not seen one for ages.

Phil

 

Well there's plenty of them, perhaps we could get several measured, and their associated nameplate too.

[Dunsignalling]

Gentlemen,

                     No progress yet on Combe Martin whilst I await delivery of the forthcoming Bude and rerun of Exeter.

I now understand that the newer current West Country locos differ from the older versions in a number of ways---

Decoder now in the tender---a different electrical connection between loco and tender---the new tenders have different fastening points to unite chassis and top therefore swapping of tender bodies is not straightforward.

I currently have Dorchester with old clasp arrangement between tender/loco and wish to do some mix and match when the new models arrive to achieve my endpoint.------Dorchester renamed Combe Martin with 4500 g  cut down tender

               ----- Bude with high sided 4500 g tender

               ------Exeter with high sided 4500g tender

 

To achieve this I plan to --pair Bude loco with Exeter tender

                                       --pair Exeter loco with Bude tender

                                       --put Combe M. loco body on  Exeter loco chassis

                                      -- put Exeter loco body on Combe M/was Dorchester loco chassis--this pairing would have the old clasp coupling between loco/tender-the tender being a high sided 4500g type.

 

Question--having not seen the new Hornby West C. models is the above the best way to achieve my end point   ?

 

thank you for any responses,

regards,

Ed                                  

The easiest way to achieve Combe Martin in post-1952 condition is to start from a second-hand Wilton, these were produced in some quantity and aren't hard to find. I look for cheaper examples with odd detail bits missing (ladders, steps, injector pipework) which I prefer to replace in metal anyway. I'm currently working on one I picked up for just £40 - not much more than the going price for a decent chassis.

 

You need to change the ash-pans, as mentioned earlier; which requires the representation of the early type to be removed from the trailing truck. It's murderous stuff to cut so you might prefer to fit a new Comet truck - my intention for my next one that needs it!

 

After that it's just a case of renumbering/renaming plus changing the tender emblem. 

 

John

[ed 66 plant]

Gentlemen,

I duly visited the Mid Hants yesterday and measured both sides of Wadebrige; that is the extreme lenth between the outer edges of the sand filler openings.

Both measurements were 6 feet and 9 inches = 27 mms in 4mm/foot scale.

Therefore the Hornby model equivalent of 26 mms is not too far off (there may well be differences between locos--could not measure Swanage because it was all in bits and pieces).

The Fox plates are therefore too long at 30 mms.

Does anyone know of a correct length source?

Regards,

Ed

[Dunsignalling]

Gentlemen,

I duly visited the Mid Hants yesterday and measured both sides of Wadebrige; that is the extreme lenth between the outer edges of the sand filler openings.

Both measurements were 6 feet and 9 inches = 27 mms in 4mm/foot scale.

Therefore the Hornby model equivalent of 26 mms is not too far off (there may well be differences between locos--could not measure Swanage because it was all in bits and pieces).

The Fox plates are therefore too long at 30 mms.

Does anyone know of a correct length source?

Regards,

Ed

247 Developments - though I've no idea if his are any better for length than the Fox ones. I can't currently access the model of 34043 that has them fitted to measure them.

 

Try giving him a ring.

 

John

[250BOB]

Hi Ed,

Hope your trip went well yesterday to the Mid Hants.......you have set new standards for our visits in future, going armed with a tape measure no less..!!!

It looks like you gained all the information you were looking for.......so when are you fitting the correct ash pan.??

Having all this information on this thread, you know we will be fine tooth combing your final offering of Combe Martin when we next visit your Bournemouth West layout..!!

Bob.

[brightspark]

The easiest way to achieve Combe Martin in post-1952 condition is to start from a second-hand Wilton, these were produced in some quantity and aren't hard to find. I look for cheaper examples with odd detail bits missing (ladders, steps, injector pipework) which I prefer to replace in metal anyway. I'm currently working on one I picked up for just £40 - not much more than the going price for a decent chassis.

 

You need to change the ash-pans, as mentioned earlier; which requires the representation of the early type to be removed from the trailing truck. It's murderous stuff to cut so you might prefer to fit a new Comet truck - my intention for my next one that needs it!

 

After that it's just a case of renumbering/renaming plus changing the tender emblem. 

 

John

This is the route I took.

 

Andy

[Combe Martin]

The easiest way to achieve Combe Martin in post-1952 condition is to start from a second-hand Wilton, these were produced in some quantity and aren't hard to find. I look for cheaper examples with odd detail bits missing (ladders, steps, injector pipework) which I prefer to replace in metal anyway. I'm currently working on one I picked up for just £40 - not much more than the going price for a decent chassis.

 

You need to change the ash-pans, as mentioned earlier; which requires the representation of the early type to be removed from the trailing truck. It's murderous stuff to cut so you might prefer to fit a new Comet truck - my intention for my next one that needs it!

 

After that it's just a case of renumbering/renaming plus changing the tender emblem. 

 

John

 

Don't forget the scrolls are set higher up ! 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Combe Martin

[Dunsignalling]

Don't forget the scrolls are set higher up ! 

True, but if one is capable of the other stuff, that isn't difficult - just apply the etched scrolls where necessary. Remove the printed ones, retouch the paint and hide any discrepancy under a layer of weathering. 34043 seems not to have been highly regarded at 71B and was pretty grubby a lot of the time. 

 

John

[Combe Martin]

True, but if one is capable of the other stuff, that isn't difficult - just apply the etched scrolls where necessary. Remove the printed ones, retouch the paint and hide any discrepancy under a layer of weathering. 34043 seems not to have been highly regarded at 71B and was pretty grubby a lot of the time. 

 

John

 

Mmmmm, I found that applying the etched scrolls a bit difficult (they're very thin, how do you do it without getting glue where you don't want it ?), and as for Bournemouth sheds opinion on it, I've seen what seems to be contradictory comments about it's performance too from the same source, one that it was a 'poor steamer' but also that it was a 'strong engine' !!

[brightspark]

True, but if one is capable of the other stuff, that isn't difficult - just apply the etched scrolls where necessary. Remove the printed ones, retouch the paint and hide any discrepancy under a layer of weathering. 34043 seems not to have been highly regarded at 71B and was pretty grubby a lot of the time. 

 

John

 

I read somewhere that she was a poor performer and was not put on the best duties. I wonder if this is why she spent a lot of time on the S&D. I also have a picture of here on an inter-regional (whit Sun 1960, found on the net)

Does anyone recall where I read this and how true it was?

 

Andy

[Dunsignalling]

Mmmmm, I found that applying the etched scrolls a bit difficult (they're very thin, how do you do it without getting glue where you don't want it ?), and as for Bournemouth sheds opinion on it, I've seen what seems to be contradictory comments about it's performance too from the same source, one that it was a 'poor steamer' but also that it was a 'strong engine' !!

Don't use glue, use varnish, then you can remove any excess using a cotton bud dampened (not wet) with thinners.

 

The fact that 34043 was one of the earliest WCs to be withdrawn (in June 1963) suggests that, once the requirement for Light Pacifics to work through trains over the S&D disappeared, Bournemouth had a few more than they needed. You don't "weed-out" your better engines.

 

John

[Combe Martin]

Combe Martin failed (I think in Sept 62) not long after the Pines was diverted away from the S&D, I can't remember why, it may even have been when on the diverted train via Basingstoke & Didcot, and they didn't bother to repair it.

[Combe Martin]

I read somewhere that she was a poor performer and was not put on the best duties. 

 

Andy

 

Not exactly, there's loads of photos of it on the Pines over the S&D. This was quite a hard duty. 

[brightspark]

Found it!
On the Nine Elms forum by my old mate Jim Lester.

http://svsfilm.com/nineelms/top.htm

and in the comments below as to why this loco and a few others were less loved.

Andy

[Phil Bullock]

IIRC from Peter Smith's book Unrebuilt WCs reversers were interesting contrivances

 

One engine was a very strong performer in one direction but pathetic in the opposite direction - until someone checked where centre was on the valve gear and then looked at the reverser with the gear set in that position - at least 10% cut off registering in the weak direction. Hence it could be driven with the reverser apparently set for the opposite direction...

 

This would of course be much more apparent on the S&D with more tender first working than on the main line

 

Phil

Edited June 10, 2016 by Phil Bullock

[250BOB]

Hi Guys

earlier in this thread there was some discussion by Ed Plant about the size of Combe Martins nameplates.

 

Ed has asked me to post the photo of the two different sized nameplates he has. No doubt he will pick up the conversation from here.

regards

Bob

[ed 66 plant]

Thanks Bob--I enlisted Bob,s help to show the marked difference in nameplate length.I will now use the correct shorter length red backed

plates ex CGW.This does away with the need to get the Hornby red backed scrolls off.I appreciate that the scrolls should be positioned

higher up but I did not want a body paint touch up issue.

regards,

Ed

[1969FordGT40uk]

Perhaps these Ivo Peters photos will help.

 

The view in Bath Green Park is from 51. The view at Evercreech dates from July 53.

 

Is it me or have the scrolls been raised in the later view?

 

Hope this helps.

 

Rob

Sorry to open up an older topic here, but I was wondering if one of the Bulleid experts could inform me if the Hornby R3445 Camelford would be a suitable donor locomotive to rename & renumber to 34043 Combe Martin prior to getting her tender raves cut-down and small early emblem? Thank you.

 

Graham

[ed 66 plant]

Hi---34043 got her 4500 gall. cut down tender June 1952  and second emblem March 1957.. 34032 Camelford had the second emblem applied March 1959  and ran  with a 4500 gall.high sided tender to the same date--thereafter cut down.

I understand that Wilton as previously issued by Hornby is a good starting point for modification to 34043.

Hope this is of help ,

regards,

Ed