bécasse

........ but already making a name for himself within the company for suggesting that parts of the business which are profitable but not hugely profitable should be closed down or sold off. Fortunately for ICI, he was soon to find a "suitable" role elsewhere and the rest is, as they say, history.

If you do end up with the unfortunate task of having to add a 5mm extension (something I try to avoid too), I have found it best to cut a thin strip of 6mm MDF which is then glued with "strong" pva glue orthogonally to the end of piece needing extension. After allowing the glue to dry thoroughly (preferably at least 48 hours), I sand it all down flat to the required size. If it is going to form part of the sky, you might just need to add a little filler and then sand that down but I haven't had to do so so far. I also always sand down the last millimetre or so to the required size even without an extender fillet; temporarily cramping lengths of straight metal strips either side of the MDF makes it easy to get this just right. Remember, of course, that one should take precautions to avoid breathing in the sanding dust from the MDF.

I saw 7816 arrive at Oxford from the south hauling a couple of Halls one Sunday in June 1965. My memory says both loco and tender appeared to be green through the grime and that the G W R marking looked artificial, but that might have been because that was the only clean part of the loco.

I seem to recollect that the current version of Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) is a much enlarged replacement of the original which was a compact branch terminus, typical of its era, but very well rendered as was everything else that Peter Denny did. It was featured as Railway of the Month in the Modeller circa 1959/60. It sounds likely to be the layout that you found a photo of.

Merry Christmas to you both. It looks from the topless nature of the photo as if you opened that bottle of Bath Ale with a sharp carving knife - I have seen champagne opened that way before but never Bath (or any other) Ale! Personally, I enjoy something a little stronger (12%) around Christmas ........

I particularly recommend Brunskill's Vernacular Architecture. It was first published in 1971, my 1978 paperback edition cost me £ 2,95 (and is much thumbed) and it is still in print - Amazon have it in paperback at £ 18,95. It isn't just worth it for the drawings and diagrams, Brunskill explains clearly how materials and construction styles vary over the UK, the two are related, of course, and will stop you making many a howler in model building construction. One thing that I would add that I don't think Brunskill mentions is that, while bricks are typically 3" by 4½" in plan (with mortar included) and even modern metric bricks aren't far off that size, the height varies (or rather varied until about 50 years ago) with 3" (so four courses are 1' high) being typical in south east England, but as one moves north and west the brick height tends to increase (four courses equalling, say, 1'-1½" or even more). This can make quite a difference if one uses brick courses to estimate the height of walls (and ultimately buildings).

It was most probably April 1945. When deciphering hand-written records it is often difficult to distinguish between 5 and 6, whereas 2, 3 or 4 are unlikely to be mistaken as a 6. Once one person has misread it. and subsequently mis-recorded it in print, the error gets perpetuated and is assumed to be true.

Checking various photos after my previous post, I couldn't find any which showed 3 coach trains in the last decade of the line's life - which doesn't mean that there weren't any, of course, but does suggest that 2 coaches was very much the norm. I also noted that one of the trains depicted did indeed have an ex-LMS (or at least LMS-design) coach as the brake vehicle, although it couldn't be seen very clearly, the ducket made it unmistakable. The other photos were all sufficiently clear to be certain that the first rule of GW/ex-GW train formation applied, the two vehicles were always of a different style. I think it unlikely that any third coach would have been non-corridor, a corridor compartment third/second would have been much more likely, not least because there would have been more of them available, although it is just possible that a particular departure, strengthened for schools traffic, would have had a regular non-corridor vehicle added - the sparse timetable of latter years probably wouldn't have leant itself to schools traffic though.

I suspect that trains were made up, to the required formation, with whatever coaching stock happened to be available in the Plymouth area at the time, doubtless following the old GWR maxim of never having two vehicles of the same type in a train. These could well have included the odd ex-LMS vehicle as well as ex-GW ones. The minimum required formation was probably a van-third (BTK/BSK) and a composite (CK) with a compartment third (TK/SK) added when traffic required.

Normally the Southern adhered to strict rules as to which way round the composite was marshalled between the two brake thirds but the composites for these 10 set (390-399) were built and released into traffic ahead of the brake thirds and were randomly allocated when the sets were formed. To get a set absolutely right, one would need a photo which showed the number of one of the brakes and which showed the composite sufficiently clearly to be certain which way round it was.

Some Toads continued to be allocated to particular services, routes or locations right up to the time that they ceased to be used as brake vans in the BR era, so plenty of Toads were still around with an R.U. marking, but the remainder (I assume the majority) were unmarked. All(?) Toads in the BR era were marked "NOT IN COMMON USE", certainly from 1957 and possibly before.

I suspect that the allocations were deliberately painted out on those Toads which ceased to be allocated to a particular depot. This reasoning being based on the fact that some Toads did remain allocated for various reasons, typically some sort of special fitment (vacuum brakes for mixed train working, for example), and it would have been important that these didn't "stray".

Given the golden GWR rule that no two carriages in a train should be of the same type, you must have hundreds of carriages in total - or have you just not got round to modelling the others yet?

The first etched vehicles I got involved with were two (unusual) panelled carriages which we paid a printer a small fortune to etch in zinc. The paneling came out beautifully but the printer could only do one-stage etching so the actual windows still had to be drilled and filed out - it was all but fifty years ago, mind (and in 4mm scale).

Rather than a curtain, these days I use a board which has a second purpose of closing off the front of the layout during transportation. I did look at hinging it but found it easier to bolt it in either of the two positions. In its "hiding the under-pinnings of the layout role" the lower edge resides in mirror clips attached to the legs, which keeps it nicely rigid. It doesn't go right down to floor level, of course, but does go down far enough to ensure that viewing the layout isn't detracted by sight of the legs, etc. One other thing that I now do regularly when I build a new layout is to incorporate a few stick-on metal hooks on the non public side of the layout board - very useful for hanging jackets, etc, during a show.

Trip cock fitted class 15s seem to have been the universal diesel loco for BR workings over the east side of the Underground network - I am reasonably certain that they worked over the eastern end of the Central Line and they definitely worked over the East London line. Because everything happened at night they were rarely seen and even more rarely photographed.

Wills (Peco) so-called 4mm roof tiles are only marginally small for 7mm scale, both the SSMP211 Red Plain Roof tiles and the SSMP217 Fancy tiles being suitable. Prototype roofing tiles have been a standard size for centuries (since 1477 in fact) 10,5" x 6,5" wide x 0,5" thick, the lap, as laid, varies according to the pitch of the roof.

The old style signs started to be replaced in 1964 and replacement was almost totally complete by 1968 - I was dashing around measuring up the rapidly disappearing old ones so I remember the dates well. Odd ones did get missed, and survived for decades, but the survivors really were few and far between. Incidentally, it wasn't only the road signs that were changed, all the road markings were altered too. Some, parking restriction yellow lines (a yellow line meant "no loading" pre-Warboys and was a real rarity) and give way and stop lines at junctions were changed very quickly. Others, such as lane markers (where the relative lengths line/space changed), were only altered when it became necessary to repaint them.

I had originally typed 0,57 cm but then decided that quoting the thickness in millimetres was better - but forgot to move the comma, sorry! The original post has been corrected now. The modelled thickness quoted - 0,075 mm - is correct and I reckon that cartridge paper is too thick, but everyday copier/printer paper is about right, provided that any paint isn't too thick. Incidentally, modern reconstituted slates are even thinner.

I have great piles of traditional roofing slates in my cellar so it has been easy for me to measure the thickness of a pile of 100 of them to get an accurate average thickness. In fact, a pile of 100 is around 57 cm high, so each slate is 0,57 mm thick, divided by 76,2 for 4 mm scale gives a scale thickness of around 0,075 mm, marginally thinner than typical 75 gm A4 copier/printer paper. Artist's acrylic matt varnish is probably the best medium for sticking slate strips together for a roof and, if you are using a Scalescenes' print, weathering will quickly remove any hint of a white cut edge. The slates on the completed roof should look almost flat, they do on the prototype.

..... with Bisky Bones?

That photo is certainly 1962 or later. The Mk1 3-set doesn't have a set number (but is clearly a set) so the photo has to have been taken after the set numbers were abolished and painted out. Mk1s were generally kept in their original sets, Maunsells, and to a slightly lesser extent Bulleids, became mixed up to a much greater extent as individual vehicles were taken out of service because they needed repairs which weren't authorised on cost grounds. Many Maunsells disappeared simply because of their age.

Yes, I agree this set is in 1956 Southern Green, almost certainly repainted direct from revarnished SR malachite rather than having an intermediate crimson stage. With a six-year repaint, three-year revarnish programme, the Southern was well placed to retain a fair amount of rolling stock in malachite until the 1956 scheme reintroduced green as the official regional coaching stock livery. The ready availability of green paint for electric stock no doubt helped to allow the "green as long as possible" policy to be maintained. Ironically, a lot, almost certainly the majority, of secondary service stock was repainted into crimson, simply because the opportunity to repaint it after the war didn't arise until after crimson became the rule. This particular 2-set clearly managed a repaint before then.

Is this better:

My father was an LPTB bus driver throughout WWII (also a reserved occupation). The fact that no similar badge featured among his collection (although his National Fire Service badge did - he also drove fire engines in his "spare" time) was one of the things that made me doubt that the rail service badge was genuine because I find it very difficult to believe that if LPTB gave badges to their rail staff then the T&GWU didn't insist that similar badges were provided for bus (& tram) drivers. It may well be that LPTB didn't give them to rail staff in the same way that the main line rail companies apparently did.