Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony

 

My comment was more general. The formation of freight trains is bottom of the league when it comes to accuracy on many a model railway.

 

Quite right. Some folk will go to great lengths to model a loco, carriage or wagon accurately and then put them in highly unlikely formations.

 

It is something that I always look out for at shows and it is one of the things that lifts a good model railway to the next level if it is done properly.

 

Tony

[Bernard Lamb]

 

In my HGV days many years ago I worked for a steel tube stockholder and we always ensured that the load was well chained down and hard up against the headboard. If given room and it did start to move forwards, it took some stopping, sometimes with fatal consequences.

 

 

.

Sadly I have a similar to experience that. Coil rather than tube.

It was somewhere near Doncaster. The HGV tried to go round a roundabout and the load tried to go straight on.

We always refused to load steel coil on wagons that did not have a well deck after that.

Bernard

[Porcy Mane]

The bogie bolsters look somewhat overloaded me thinks. 

 

If you had ever seen the BBC's coming out of the pipe works of the South Durham Iron & Steel Co.s works and along the Malleable branch line at Stockton (Production was later moved a few miles to the north east at British West Hartlepool) you will have seen them loaded exactly like that. From Stockton these pipes were distributed all over the UK and exported all over the world from most large British Ports.

 

What was the origin of the V2 on 'Retford'?

 

 It was mostly created on a modellers bench in the deepest recesses of the North East of England.

 

It's a bit of a mash up (Some might say hybrid). Branchline chassis that been fully sprung with the valve gear being a mix of Branchline & Comet. The coupling rods are pro-scale. The mechanics are pretty standard nowadays, drivers being Gibsons simply pushed on with no retainer being used. Motor is a Mashima driving through a Hi-Level gearbox.

 

Don't know if anybody wants to take a guess at the origin of the loco and tender body. It's had a bit of detail added including prototypical V2 splashers. The builder is a bit of a shy and modest bairn but I think he's made a go of it. He also didn't make a bad job of that semaphore.

 

You'll have to excuse the quality of the photograph. It was shot when it was dark with only the overhead fluorescents for illumination.

 

P

 

P

Edited November 5, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[jrg1]

We had them in the GEM range from well before I was there (1968) and they had come from the old S&B or S&D range which was acquired and included other items as well. I recall assembling them and packing them after they had been sprayed. Yes we had a spray gun but not as you knew it, more like the sort to underseal the car chassis.

One of George's best selling items.

Merf.

A great product, along with the lever frames

[gr.king]

The cab appears to be the right height on that V2.....

[Headstock]

It depended on the length of the items being conveyed and for longer stuff the overhang was equalised at the two ends of the wagon and hence two match wagons/runners/check wagons (or whatever other names were used for them) would be required.

Hi Mike,

 

I would agree. However, that would apply to rigid loads only, such as a large girder construction were equal weight distribution was critical.  I think that the intention was that each overhang had its own runner rather than the loads sharing runners as in the video. For example, two large rigid loads would be composed of a runner, bogie bolster, a runner, another runner, bogie bolster and a runner. There were restrictions on the widths of rigid loads that kept them within the upright stanchions, non-rigid loads such as tubes could be loaded out to the stanchions to prevent them from spreading. Looking at the BR book on loadings, non-rigid items, where weight wasn't critical were intended to overhang one end so that no bogie bolster in a train shared a runner with another. If length was an issue rather than weight, individual single bolsters and runners would probably be a better option.

[t-b-g]

A layout that has had a mention or two on this thread has been Gamston Bank. Last night, the layout made one final public appearance.

 

Here are a couple of snaps to illustrate the "viking funeral" that sent it on its way.

 

 

[Daddyman]

Why torch the whole layout just to get rid of a Bachmann V2?! (I'm assuming that's what the green thing is in the second photo.) 

[t-b-g]

Why torch the whole layout just to get rid of a Bachmann V2?! (I'm assuming that's what the green thing is in the second photo.) 

 

A bit extreme but that is how we deal with such things.

[richard i]

A layout that has had a mention or two on this thread has been Gamston Bank. Last night, the layout made one final public appearance.

 

Here are a couple of snaps to illustrate the "viking funeral" that sent it on its way.

Not letting you near my house around the beginning of November next year........just in case.

[davidw]

Gamston bank was a layout I saw once on the exhibition circuit. I'd have loved to have seen more of it and if Id only had room.

[Mallard60022]

Oh how sad that Gamston had to go like that. If only.........I'm sure someone could have had a go with it but that is too late now.

Please, if anyone on this thread gets so sad about their layout that they want this to happen (unless it is of course the wish of a departed coleague) could they just say? Some of the scenic stuff from GB might have been adapted for my heap of stuff in the loft.

I'm feeling quite sad now. as I saw GB lots of times and enjoyed it a lot.

Also, I had not twigged that the V" with the 'light freight' was running on Retford; boy, that has changed since I saw it last.

Phil

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

I would agree. However, that would apply to rigid loads only, such as a large girder construction were equal weight distribution was critical.  I think that the intention was that each overhang had its own runner rather than the loads sharing runners as in the video. For example, two large rigid loads would be composed of a runner, bogie bolster, a runner, another runner, bogie bolster and a runner. There were restrictions on the widths of rigid loads that kept them within the upright stanchions, non-rigid loads such as tubes could be loaded out to the stanchions to prevent them from spreading. Looking at the BR book on loadings, non-rigid items, where weight wasn't critical were intended to overhang one end so that no bogie bolster in a train shared a runner with another. If length was an issue rather than weight, individual single bolsters and runners would probably be a better option.

 

It depends on the length and distance of overhang just as much as anything else.  The reason for that is to ensure that the load remains in gauge on normal curvature by limiting the amount of overhang, especially of course with wider loadsand it was perfectly acceptable (and indeed the correct) loading practice for longer items certainly up to 1960.

[Poggy1165]

Some very fine layouts have ended up in skips over the years. I was myself offered one, but did not have anything like the available room to accept.

 

It's pretty much inevitable, however sad. Even the very best layouts deteriorate unless they have a devoted custodian to look after them, and we are none of us immortal. 

 

To go back briefly to the GWR thing, I think it was down to:

 

1. the Influence of CJF.

2. the GW having so many attractive single track 'holiday' lines. 

3. the nature of the kits available in the 1960s

4. availability of prototypical information.

5. sheer 'critical mass'.

 

Even today it would be a good deal more straightforward to model Ashburton (in whatever scale) than West Leigh and Bedford. The fact that I find the latter much more interesting still does not over-ride reality.

[t-b-g]

Gamston Bank was purely an exhibition layout and was stored in a trailer between shows. Its last outing was at Hull this time last year (a little plug for this year - next weekend!) and it had deteriorated quite badly in the rather cold and damp storage facilities.

 

John got very disheartened by the amount of work it would need to sort it out, especially for a layout that only came out from time to time and decided it was time for it to go to make way for another layout that could live in much better conditions, set up at home.

 

Anybody taking it on would have had a nightmare and might have been better starting from new.

 

Having exhibited layouts for 35 years and now having a rather special one set up and available for playing trains any time, I am with him 100%.

 

 

 

Edited for spelling.

Edited November 6, 2016 by t-b-g

[92220]

Hi Tony

 

I've not had a huge amount of time in the past couple of weeks since my visit, but I wanted to show you a little bit of progress on the Jinties and Standard 5 that you helped me with.

 

The first Jinty is now ready for all the final bits to do as I've got the chassis running fairly smoothly:

 

 

It's a Comet chassis under a Bachmann body, and looking dangerously like my first successful chassis.

 

The Standard 5 is a little less smooth. It should be fine with minor fettling and cleaning. I started this over two years ago and used the Gibson wheels that came with it (as a £45 eBay purchase, it was definitely too good to pass). The tarnishing of the steel rims seems to happen quite rapidly, and makes the electrical conductivity an issue. I chose to recycle the valve gear from the Bachmann loco that I converted to a Caprotti version. I possibly ought not to have done either.

 

 

The second Jinty has been a little more frustrating as the Comet box would not properly engage worm and gear wheel. The chassis is square and free, so hopefully once I sort the gearbox it should be ok.

 

Most importantly of all, my grateful thanks for all of your advice, encouragement and inspiration. I'm really enjoying moving away from rtr chassis and hopefully I can enjoy the advantages of well engineered, smooth and powerful replacments, with the crucial ingredient of having built them.

 

With best wishes,

 

Iain

[Headstock]

If you had ever seen the BBC's coming out of the pipe works of the South Durham Iron & Steel Co.s works and along the Malleable branch line at Stockton (Production was later moved a few miles to the north east at British West Hartlepool) you will have seen them loaded exactly like that. From Stockton these pipes were distributed all over the UK and exported all over the world from most large British Ports.

 

 

 

Good afternoon,

 

do you have any photographs? if so I would love to see them.

 

 

 It was mostly created on a modellers bench in the deepest recesses of the North East of England.

60833QueensB-Sm.jpg

 

It's a bit of a mash up (Some might say hybrid). Branchline chassis that been fully sprung with the valve gear being a mix of Branchline & Comet. The coupling rods are pro-scale. The mechanics are pretty standard nowadays, drivers being Gibsons simply pushed on with no retainer being used. Motor is a Mashima driving through a Hi-Level gearbox.

 

Don't know if anybody wants to take a guess at the origin of the loco and tender body. It's had a bit of detail added including prototypical V2 splashers. The builder is a bit of a shy and modest bairn but I think he's made a go of it. He also didn't make a bad job of that semaphore.

 

You'll have to excuse the quality of the photograph. It was shot when it was dark with only the overhead fluorescents for illumination.

 

P

 

P

 

That's a smashing looking V2, with working valve gear by the looks of it, my compliments to your friend.  It's almost impossible to tell the origins of it because it looks like a V2 rather than a rough approximation. Personally, I like hybrids, they are even more personal than a kit built item, and often more accurate.

[Headstock]

It depends on the length and distance of overhang just as much as anything else.  The reason for that is to ensure that the load remains in gauge on normal curvature by limiting the amount of overhang, especially of course with wider loadsand it was perfectly acceptable (and indeed the correct) loading practice for longer items certainly up to 1960.

 

Afternoon,

 

I can't help feeling that the loads would fit rather comfortably on to an LNER Quint D or their BR brethren, rather than the tiddly little GWR bogie bolsters in the video.

[The Stationmaster]

Afternoon,

 

I can't help feeling that the loads would fit rather comfortably on to an LNER Quint D or their BR brethren, rather than the tiddly little GWR bogie bolsters in the video.

 

Very true but it often turned out that the wagons you wanted (or even needed) weren't the ones that you could get and not even one of those BR HQ Wagon Inspectors was any help in those circumstances but the Divisional Loading Inspectors were clever fellahs.

[Mallard60022]

Gamston Bank was purely an exhibition layout and was stored in a trailer between shows. Its last outing was at Hull this time last year (a little plug for this year - next weekend!) and it had deteriorated quite badly in the rather cold and damp storage facilities.

 

John got very disheartened by the amount of work it would need to sort it out, especially for a layout that only came out from time to time and decided it was time for it to go to make way for another layout that could live in much better conditions, set up at home.

 

Anybody taking it one would have had a nightmare and might have been better starting from new.

 

Having exhibited layouts for 35 years and now having a rather special one set up and available for playing trains any time, I am with him 100%.

Ah, take your point. I had forgotten he had to store it like that. 

I have decided my never to go anywhere layout in the loft is sacrificial, if that is the term. There will be some bits that could be salvaged, such as 'pro' built buildings and structures and trickery such as control devices, point motors and similar. I will be leaving instructions to rip it up and for the boards and structure to be dismantled then put in the skip, when I pop my clogs. Otherwise, as I get immobile, I shall probably know when it is time to finish with it & move on the stock, however I do hope to have friends that will deal with these situations; I will have prepared them (hopefully). No way is SWMBO having to deal with it mostly on her own; seen that with a late friend's stuff and it was horrible.  

Actually I have recently decided to thin down my collection(s), especially locomotives. I really do not need as many as I have and also I have some that are of no use to a BR SR 1960s layout. Better to move them on to good homes now/soon rather than have loads going to auction. 

Enough of this. I do hope Tony and Mo have had a good weekend and that Tony has a load of great pics to show us next week?

Phil

Edited November 6, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Clive Mortimore]

Some very fine layouts have ended up in skips over the years. I was myself offered one, but did not have anything like the available room to accept.

 

It's pretty much inevitable, however sad. Even the very best layouts deteriorate unless they have a devoted custodian to look after them, and we are none of us immortal. 

 

To go back briefly to the GWR thing, I think it was down to:

 

1. the Influence of CJF.

2. the GW having so many attractive single track 'holiday' lines. 

3. the nature of the kits available in the 1960s

4. availability of prototypical information.

5. sheer 'critical mass'.

 

Even today it would be a good deal more straightforward to model Ashburton (in whatever scale) than West Leigh and Bedford. The fact that I find the latter much more interesting still does not over-ride reality.

Hi Poggy

 

Have you ever worked out how long Ford End Road Bridge is from the roundabout on Midland Road to it hits the level again outside Allen's? It is a tad under 15 feet in 1/76th scale that is one very wide baseboard. Having grown up in Bedford any model would have to include Ford End Road Bridge with a United Counties KSW on the 105 service. :derisive:

Edited November 6, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[chris p bacon]

Hi Poggy

 

Have you ever worked out how long Ford End Road Bridge is from the roundabout on Midland Road to it hits the level again outside Allen's? It is a tad under 15 feet in 1/76th scale that is one very wide baseboard. Having grown up in Bedford any model would have to include Ford End Road Bridge with a United Counties KSW on the 105 service. :derisive:

Just how would you model the 'Aroma' from that part of Bedford nowadays.

 

And Allens Engineering, just who didn't have an apprenticeship there, Father did in 1936, still have his indenture papers.

[gr.king]

Gamston Bank ...... had deteriorated quite badly in the rather cold and damp storage facilities.

 

 

 

I imagine it was free of any dampness by the middle of last evening!

[Tony Wright]

A layout that has had a mention or two on this thread has been Gamston Bank. Last night, the layout made one final public appearance.

 

Here are a couple of snaps to illustrate the "viking funeral" that sent it on its way.

Thanks for posting Tony.

 

A sad end to a layout I was very fond of. 

 

Perhaps, as a tribute(?), some pictures of Gamston Bank before it caught fire. 

 

 

 

I think this V2, which is a real hybrid - DJH/Comet/Crownline - is now on Retford, re-gauged of course. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm happy to report that at least three locos and several carriages and wagons are now running on Little Bytham. 

[Tony Wright]

Ah, take your point. I had forgotten he had to store it like that. 

I have decided my never to go anywhere layout in the loft is sacrificial, if that is the term. There will be some bits that could be salvaged, such as 'pro' built buildings and structures and trickery such as control devices, point motors and similar. I will be leaving instructions to rip it up and for the boards and structure to be dismantled then put in the skip, when I pop my clogs. Otherwise, as I get immobile, I shall probably know when it is time to finish with it & move on the stock, however I do hope to have friends that will deal with these situations; I will have prepared them (hopefully). No way is SWMBO having to deal with it mostly on her own; seen that with a late friend's stuff and it was horrible.  

Actually I have recently decided to thin down my collection(s), especially locomotives. I really do not need as many as I have and also I have some that are of no use to a BR SR 1960s layout. Better to move them on to good homes now/soon rather than have loads going to auction. 

Enough of this. I do hope Tony and Mo have had a good weekend and that Tony has a load of great pics to show us next week?

Phil

We had a splendid weekend, Phil. 

 

Thanks for asking. 

 

Wolverhampton MRC put on a really good show and, though it wasn't terrifically-well attended, I believe a modest profit was made. My thanks to all who participated, especially those I spoke to. Without exception, everyone I talked models with said the most important thing to them was the personal making/modifying of things. Not for them just the opening of boxes or getting others to do things for them - no, making it themselves! Good for them.

 

 

 

Phil Crathorne, an old friend, deliberately chose this Welsh prototype of Dolgelley (1921 spelling) in O Gauge because he's had to make so much of it, many articles from scratch. Like many, he's tired of the inexorable rise in RTR (happening in O Gauge, too) and just wishes to do something different. Like this; superb in my view, and I'll post some further pictures once I've processed them. 

 

Another maker of things is my old mate Norman Turner; he who built my baseboards, for which I paid him in locomotives. In case we ever are in danger of taking ourselves too seriously, how about these three scratch-built/modified wagons? 

 

 

The pigs actually fly about inside this van, activated by rotating cams. Note the vacuum brake pipe. 

 

 

Propriety meant I couldn't reveal too much of the young lady entertaining the railwaymen. 

 

 

None of these will ever be available RTR!