bécasse

I think that if I were setting out to create window frame etches for a very regular rectangular building like that in 2FS, I would aim to create a single window frame etch for each side, even if it meant that I had to have two (presumably identical) etches run off, and then just add (plasticard?) overlays to the etch for the concrete and brickwork.

The MS&LR (which became the GCR) used 30 foot track panels, not 45 foot. It shouldn't be impossible to move sleepers around on the flexi track by cutting the webs between them. It's also possible to widen the sleepers by glueing a piece of 40 thou black plasticard at each end. The most obvious discrepancy is likely to be the chairs which are probably quite different to those used by the MS&LR/GCR - but it will probably only be spotted by someone who is interested in the history of permanent way.

I think that the Jinties working through the Widened Lines only served the ex-LMS elevated coal sidings alongside the ex-LCDR viaduct in the Camberwell area, although they may well have worked on to the Loughborough/Herne Hill siding complex if only to take water and run-round their trains (although there was some exchange traffic in the sidings so may be the Jinties worked that as well). I never saw a Jinty at Hither Green, J50s a plenty of course, but exchange traffic from Willesden and Cricklewood came via the West London or Dudding Hill loop lines and was almost universally worked by 8Fs with just a very rare Crab for variety.

Most, if not all, through traffic between the SR and the WR in the London area was worked by Southern locos via the West London Line. There was though an ex-GWR depot close to Stewart's Lane and traffic to/from that via the West London Line was pannier worked. The Widened Lines mostly saw goods (especially coal) and parcels traffic off the GN main line. The goods had been worked by N1s and J52s but some time about 1953 the traffic was handed to a fleet of (non-condensing) J50s which, it has to be said, handled it remarkably well. Passenger traffic via Snow Hill and the Widened Lines to/from either the GN or Midland was limited to the odd special, probably mainly military, as there were restrictions on the carriage stock which was acceptable.

In London, the loco would be serviced (turned, coaled, watered, etc) at Nine Elms depot. It was unusual at Waterloo for train locos to handle ecs, a fleet of M7s, Panniers, H16s, etc were retained for working ecs between Waterloo and Clapham Junction (or more rarely sidings further out).

Strictly speaking, they worked to and from Eastleigh tender first - which was standard Southern practice for working locos between termini and the loco depots that serviced them, the tender-first locos sometimes working ECS, rather than just being LE, if that suited the operational requirement on the day.

The ubiquitous 4w U-vans (known by the staff as Cavells) were in fact a SE&CR design (and thus pre-grouping) even though the Southern eventually built most of them.

Sunday excursions from the Great Eastern to South Coast resorts were worked by pairs of J67/J69 locos between Liverpool Street (where they necessarily reversed) and New Cross Gate through the East London Line, a Southern loco (probably from Norwood shed) working the trains south of New Cross Gate. There wasn't much freight traffic through the ELL to either Norwood yard (via New Cross Gate) or Hither Green sidings (via New Cross) until the diesels appeared in the late 1950s, probably because of the need to reverse in Liverpool Street station. You shouldn't be surprised at the relative lack of foreign locos on the Southern other than on the very regular South London freight turns. Because of the complexity of the Southern network and the possibility of short notice diversions for operating reasons, foreign locos would have needed a conductor and it was simpler to just change locos. One of the reasons that GWR locos could work regularly from Reading to Redhill, from Andover and Winchester to Southampton and Portsmouth, and from Barnstaple to Ilfracombe was that there weren't any simple diversionary routes available and therefore regular foreign crews could be used, and did so sufficiently often to retain their route knowledge. Plymouth to Exeter via Okehampton was a special case where certain trains were regularly worked by GWR locos and crews (and certain trains via Newton Abbott by SR locos and crews) to maintain route knowledge in case of the need for emergency diversions.

For every passenger train on the Southern Railway (pre- or post-war) with "foreign" motive power there were probably around one hundred freight trains (and quite a few parcels trains as well). Some routes within south London would almost certainly see more foreign locos in the course of a day (or night) than they did Southern ones, Nunhead-Lewisham being an obvious example.

Even though things are obviously just not the way they were, I would still expect a bobby to pick up enough experience in 20 months, especially with some time as a relief, to instinctively realise the difference. I have only ever worked frames by invitation but my brain would have instantly told me that something unexpected was happening - in fact I suspect that my first reaction to an easy pull would have been to query whether I was pulling the right lever. I was always particularly careful pulling fpls, especially given the Southern's habit of working two of them off the same lever which could make for some very hard pulls with a curved layout.

One other thing that I thought that you might have included would have been the capping strip on top of the sides, or at least some representation of the clips holding it down (which can be clearly seen in your photo of the Mid Hants example).

FPL levers where TCs provide the approach locking are clearly much easier to pull than those where a locking bar is fitted, but I still think that any experienced bobby (and almost by definition a relief man should be experienced) would instinctively feel the difference between a lever that was operating point rodding plus a physical fpl and one that was just operating the requisite locking in the frame.

A real wall built with semi-finished stones like that wouldn't be bent round a corner. Rather the cuboid stones would be laid in such a way that the result encompassed the corner with stones at the corner laid at angle to those either side. To replicate it you would need to cut individual stones from the sheet and refix them. It isn't dissimilar to how a brick wall would cope with a rounded corner but the effect is more dramatic because the stones are significantly larger than bricks. In practice most stone walls would be laid with either a sharp corner or a rather gentler bend - or much smaller stones.

Whilst that is true, and the top half of the lever certainly should have been white, it would have been immediately obvious on actually pulling the lever that you were only working the interlocking and not a physical fpl. In my experience, fpls were usually a harder actual pull than the points themselves, certainly no easier, and that is very different from the feel of a lever retained just to work the interlocking. I was always taught to watch the indicator lights on "electric" levers, it only needs a couple of momentary glances and quickly becomes second nature and I have noticed that experienced bobbies, even old hands, always did it too. I find it particularly surprising that a relief man seemingly didn't do it as a matter of course, as it would have provided familiar confirmation in a relatively unfamiliar box.

Here is a rough (but to scale) drawing of a typical LSWR yard gate, the length (and thus the angle of the iron rod diagonals) would be adjusted to fit the requirements of the site so I have just added a single height dimension to facilitate scaling. It would have been painted a pale stone colour with black ironwork.

I wondered about the gate but came to the conclusion that one would be provided to enable the entrance to the yard to be closed off. It would be hung at the other end to that apparently indicated and, when open, fold back against the back of the loading bay. It would be a yard gate, not a level crossing gate, and would never close across the road - as Keith says, train movements along the public highway would be accompanied by a shunter with a red flag (motorising that should be "fun"!).

No signals and points all on hand levers so no ground frame either.

That is what I thought too. Of course, by this date the former rigid set structure applied to much of the Southern's coaching stock was rapidly breaking down, largely as a result of the withdrawal of anything that needed any money spent on it for repairs, but I don't think that the "set" system was formally abandoned (and surviving set numbers painted out in consequence) until later in that year.

St.Anne's Park is on the Bath line on the outskirts of Bristol.

A dimensioned drawing of one of them - as once at Witney Goods.

Given the almost total lack of colour photographs, it is almost impossible to distinguish between red-painted and unpainted coupling rods. It is clear that they quickly became surprisingly dirty in service so any original painted/unpainted difference would seemingly have quickly become irrelevant. I have now looked more closely at the question of droplight frames and cab doors being varnished rather than painted on Darlington-built locos. It has become clear that only the final 20 locos built there with wooden droplight frames had them varnished rather than painted (13137-13144, 13152-13158 and 13217-13221) and these were all originally black-painted locos (with black-painted wooden doors). Darlington obviously considered that green locos looked better with varnished doors because it seems that that works turned out all of its green-painted locos with varnished doors until the very final batches with alloy doors which were, of course, painted green. All of its black-painted production had had doors painted the body colour. While it is possible that the small number of locos built at Doncaster might have had varnished doors in the absence of photographic evidence to the contrary, I think it unlikely, given the long history of livery variations between the two works. I will be updating my original tables and comments in "source 2" to reflect these variations.

I would have expected trains of banana vans from Avonmouth Docks to have run fully fitted. Since the steam heat hoses had to be connected throughout the train there would have been little point in not also connecting up the vacuum hoses.

Indeed, it is likely to be a W-set as initially formed in 1958. It seems to have been common practice on the Lyme Regis branch to remarshall the resident set so that the guard was in the middle of the train, with the consequence that the set number was "hidden".

It depends what you want to use the Jinty for. The M1020 is a little on the small size for heavy work in 4mm scale, however, if all it is likely to do is light shunting or pilot work (their main task on the prototype) or powering a passenger pull & push (or similar) train, it will be fine. Like all the late-lamented Mashima 10xx series motors it is an excellent slow speed runner with a free-running gearbox (as all HL ones are).

My experience of Central Hall shows from 1961 onwards is that professional photographers just grabbed anyone to make up a "crowd" shot so the two spectators could be anyone. However I think it very unlikely that they would have been allowed (because of insurance restrictions) to film a model out of its context during opening hours so, given that other parts of the film clip do show members of the public, I suspect that it was filmed on the Tuesday morning when the show (then) didn't open until noon and that the two 2mm admirers are therefore MRC members or other exhibitors. I don't recognise the moustache or the face behind it but believe the man on the left may well be John Gercken, who was later to serve (and very efficiently too) as the Club's chief steward for a number of years.