bécasse

Waiting to run light engine (probably coupled with one or more others) to Nine Elms shed. It is interesting that not only is there no plate on the back of the tender, there is no painted number either.

The 1889 Regulation of Railways Act was brief because a brief Act was all that could be agreed to in the short time available for its enactment, indeed a rather longer Act was initially proposed but had to be withdrawn when it became clear that it wouldn't pass in the very limited Parliamentary time available. The speed of enactment was quite remarkable. It is universally accepted that the trigger for it was the Armagh (in Ireland) accident on 12 June 1889 which killed 80 and injured nearly 300 others, many children being among the victims. Parliament that year was already short of time to pass all the committed legislation before the summer recess and yet time was found to introduce and pass the Act with such rapidity that it came into force on 30 August, barely eleven weeks after the accident. I believe that the L&SWR's Netley-Fareham line was the first to open, on 1 September 1889, under the auspices of the new Act.

The Requirements only cover facing points (eg for the entry to the passing loop), trailing points can be further away particularly if the rodding run is more or less straight.

Don't worry, John. A few months after you have completed modelling and painting these buildings, a photo (or a series of photos) will emerge showing that you guessed wrong. Been there, done it - and more than once!

Given that some locos did receive a belpaire firebox, the modeller may well have incorporated one in this model in order to be able to fit the motor in, something that could be a significant problem in times past. He may well have not had an accurate drawing either and made the model based on photographs and a few known dimensions. An informed guess suggests that the model dates from around 1960, quite a few modellers were experimenting with the use of plastikard to build locos by then, me included.

LSWRcrossinggate.pdf A pair of drawings, drawn a long time ago but only recently scanned, which may prove useful to others. The lamps were SR standard for level crossing gates. The Sutton Road Crossing gates are of the LSWR rodded pattern which was considered secure without the addition of mesh and hence are reasonably easy to model. I don't know when they were installed, Sutton Road Crossing (in Plymouth on the goods line down to Sutton Harbour) was opened in October 1879 but I strongly suspect that it wasn't gated until much later, possibly after the Great War, even though a "signal" box was provided. When the gates were put in they were (surprisingly) mechanically worked. The drawings show the two overlapping gates on the box side of the crossing, there were gates the other side of the road too but these had gone (and the track lifted) when I measured them up in 1966. There was a photo on page 193 of the August 1961 issue of Railway Modeller, there are others around on the internet which show the derelict site but don't add anything useful.

Here is a drawing of the crossing gates at Sutton Road. There was a photo in the August 1961 Railway Modeller, page 193. SuttonRoadCrossingGate.pdf

No. The requirement was merely to provide two platforms, they didn't both have to accept arrivals. I would foresee two possibilities at the time of conversion to a terminus. Firstly, if the box was tight on levers, almost no alterations would have been made, so the train would arrive, be run round using the loop, and then shunted to the other platform ready for departure. Alternatively, turn back facilities would have been provided from the arrival platform which would have required a new fpl on the crossover (which was facing to a train departing from the arrival platform) and a running signal to cover the move - thus requiring two new levers. My suspicion is that the former is more likely to have been the solution at the time and that any later (and probable) "economies" would have singled the whole branch. Retaining the former would certainly make operation of the model more interesting and your historical background isn't that far-fetched.

By the time that the station became a terminus it was a Board of Trade requirement that two platforms were provided at termini of double-track branches - so both platforms would have had to be retained and signalled even if turn back facilities were provided from the arrival platform.

It is perhaps worth remembering that there is an important historical difference in driving standards between the UK and France. UK drivers tend to drive up to the speed limit rather than keep to the timetable, French drivers, on the other hand, drive strictly to the timetable (which is always based on lower speeds than the line limit) and only accelerate up to the line limit when a train has been delayed en route. IIRC, SNCF drivers' bonuses were related to their ability to keep within plus/minus two minutes of the booked time. In the early days of Eurostar when I was typically making six or seven return trips a month, I quickly discovered that I could work out who was crewing the train just from the way it was driven, and with a French driver one rarely got the "this train is now travelling at 300 km/h" announcement on the LGV because the timetable was based on 270 km/h. Eurostar had to pay regular "fines" to Railtrack following early arrivals at Waterloo but never for trains which had SNCF drivers. One other point about LGVs is that they were always tested before they opened at much higher speeds than would be permitted once they were opened to traffic , sometimes 50% plus higher. I don't know whether this has changed since the fatal accident on the LGV-est extension, but I was told by a senior SNCF manager that one of the reasons that it was done was to highlight any unforeseen design problems - a legacy of the first LGV route through Bourgogne where some of the vertical curves proved to be too tight and speed limits had to be imposed to prevent trains from taking off as they breasted summits.

A 4REP on its own could certainly better that, and did, which is why they were limited to 60 mph when running "light". My long-deceased informant who was on the test train concerned wouldn't tell me the actual speed (as apparently the whole process was meant to be kept secret) but did say that, surprisingly given the third-rail power source, they would have shown Mallard a clean set of heels.

Half-a-century ago when we were creating an accurate P4 model of Bembridge in the Isle of Wight, we undertook the practical experiment of standing an equivalent distance at the real place as spectators would be at a show and looking at the telephone and fence wires (which were at least partly still in place), and this enabled us to confirm that they are effectively invisible. Poles and posts were placed precisely where they existed on the prototype. photo: the late Ian Lyle - one of "the five"

Pull and push set 734, converted from ex-LSWR so-called "emigrant" coaches during WWII, formed BTK-CK and gangwayed within the set, and seen here in the early BR lined crimson livery for secondary stock - you can see why the lining was sooned dropped from the livery as it rarely suited panelled vehicles. Sets 734 and 735 were allocated to Exeter as spares, primarily to replace rostered pull and push sets as required but sometimes used on hauled services as well. Yeovil Junction - Yeovil Town would have been a typical place to see them and they were also often used on Brookwood - Bisley specials for rifle events at the latter.

You have a lot of gear interfaces there in addition to driving the second axle via coupling rods. I wouldn't try any remedial work until I had the unit thoroughly run in. Toothpaste, as suggested, works quite well as a "gentleman's" grinding paste and is easy to wash off afterwards. I would be inclined to ensure that the axle bearings and coupling rod pins are well lubricated as well, my choice would be to use lock graphite puffed in.

As it is fitted should it have instanter, rather than 3-link, couplings?

Chatham, before the loops were taken out (as part of the electrification works) in 1958, and the train is the winter version (untitled) of the Kentish Belle with two Pullman cars in the formation, 11.35am from Victoria, 12.30-12.33pm at Chatham continuing to Ramsgate via Margate. The use of a Schools is unusual as it would normally have a Bulleid light pacific.

It certainly isn't in the immediate area of Brockenhurst, the main line and Castleman's corkscrew were both double track and only the Lymington branch, going off at Lymington Junction, was single. Steam-era photos show that, although there were similarities, it definitely wasn't there, and the only other two locations on the branch (L. Town and L. Pier) with signal boxes had distinctive signals with short arms on rail-built posts, instantly ruling them out too.

There are only a limited number of ex-LSWR single line contenders in the Hampshire and Dorset area: Tongham remnant Bentley - Bordon Alton - Meon Valley - Knowle (plus the single line at Fareham) Stokes Bay remnant Botley - Bishops Waltham Alton - Winchester Junction Fullerton Junction remnant Porton/Salisbury - Bulford (Totton - Fawley) Brockenhurst - Lymington Pier Alderbury Junction - West Moors Hamworthy Junction - Hamworthy Wareham - Swanage (Somerset & Dorset) Chard Junction - Chard Town Axminster - Lyme Regis

The odd thing is though is that the photo doesn't look right for any location on any of those lines. The signal box visible seems to be either a type 3B or a type 4 fitted with a circular metal ventilator and stovepipe, neither of which were unknown on such boxes but weren't common either, and it's location relative to the commencement of the single line is also unusual, at least for any of the lines where that central single disc head code applied, as by 1890 the LSWR had become canny and realised that if you located a box conveniently on one platform at crossing stations the signalman could help with general station duties between trains. There is also something slightly odd about the loco too because it is recorded as being renumbered in August 1949 but the tender in the photo seems to still be lettered SOUTHERN which would not have been the case for a tender repainted in late 1949. The probable explanation is that the tender is a temporary exchange. 30695 was certainly a Bournemouth loco throughout the likely timescale of the photo. Finally, given the size and make up of the train, it is unlikely to be on an insignificant dead-end branch line. Now I wait to be proved wrong on all those points - after all, the photo has to be of somewhere!

All Southern Railway catch points had point levers (and a CATCH POINTS sign) alongside them, although there may have been a handful that could be signal box worked where the catch point (or rather a sprung point providing the same protection as a catch point) lay within station limits and circumstances could arise where it might need to be worked.

Guided trolleybus system - as in Caen (where they call them trams but guided single-wire trolleybuses is more accurate)?

running and shunt signal levers - red point levers - black facing point lock lever - blue spare levers - white

Make sure it is a Southern layout. The Southern Region was well aware of how annoying to nearby residents a sound-based system would be, so it installed light "stalks" on top of its S&T equipment cupboards which flashed to indicate that the lineman should ring the box. It could easily be reproduced in model form, probably even in N, using a very short length of fibre optic and a flashing bulb hidden in a model of an equipment box - and it wouldn't annoy nearby stand holders.

Can't you narrow the doorway by soldering some brass strip (etch waste?) in at right angles and then filing to shape? Given your obvious skills you could probably even correct the panelling in the process. Then you would stand a reasonable chance of reproducing the double door as you intended.

The chronology is wrong, Didcot - Newbury closed before the Didcot - Swindon stopping trains were withdrawn.