bécasse

Which is easily encompassed in 2FS by soldering in some 1mm square section brass when assembling the kit. If it is soldered in so that it is just proud it can be filed back to be all but invisible. It is a long while (like 50 years) since I last did a comparison in detail, but I think that there may be one or two other very minor differences but nothing that can't either be overcome or will be all but invisible in such a small scale.

None of my various reference books make any mention of variations in the lengths of the tanks of G6 class locos. Given that their use was normally restricted to shunting town yards, shunting Southampton Docks and banking trains between the two stations at Exeter, all duties where regular access to water supplies would not have been a problem, there would seem to have been no need to consider making alterations to the tanks. Even the loco that was trialled (unsuccessfully) on the Portland branch in 1922 and which did have some minor alterations to better fit it to the task, had no changes made to the tanks. The quoted water capacity was always 1000 gallons. The most obvious variations between locos of the class related to whether an Adams or a Drummond style boiler was fitted (which varied with time), whether an Adams stovepipe or a Drummond chimney was fitted and whether the loco braking had been converted to vacuum (when a cast weight was added to the front buffer beam). The other variation was, as you have noted, the balance weights which was certainly not just an issue of period as photos exist of locos in LSWR livery with balance weights on the centre driving wheel - in fact, among the various photos that I possess, no two locos have identical sets of balance weights, so obviously best omitted from the chassis kit, but the need to check photos mentioned in the accompanying notes.

Surely a G6 is inappropriate for a layout like this, they were town yard shunters and didn't normally venture out on the road - which is why there were so few of them (and why, without travelling around the system, they were so difficult to "cop"). The last 10 "high cab" O2s were visually similar (but not quite identical) to the G6s from the running plate up and were (both passenger and freight) road locos for lines with low axle-load limits. But then, if you are worried about an 0-6-0 chassis, an 0-4-4 is ......................

Immediately post nationalisation, there was a weekly SO permanent way materials train from Redbridge to Exmouth Junction which was worked by one of Eastleigh-allocated Q1s (C14-C22 at that period). The return working of empties was on Tuesdays with the loco "resting" over at Exmouth Junction shed on Sundays and Mondays. In practice it was utilised locally on those days, particularly the Monday, and it wasn't unknown for it to work the Templecombe pick-up goods. The loco in the photo is almost certainly being serviced at Templecombe shed before returning to Exmouth Junction in the course of working this duty. These Q1s were slowly renumbered into the 330XX series, with C19 being the first in April 1948, but the earliest renumbered locos would not have initially carried the early BR crest, either having a blank tender or the actual words "BRITISH RAILWAYS". Eventually the Redbridge materials train was extended to Okehampton curtailing Exmouth Junction's abilities to "borrow" a Q1. I know of no trials of a Q1 on the S&D and suspect that, given the gradients, a trial would have been unlikely. Q1s had little difficulty climbing but, being very light, often experienced problems stopping heavy trains on down grades. It was, in fact, apart from the working described above, very rare to find a Q1 west of Salisbury.

The Aerofilms aerial photo of Bembridge station dates from the summer of 1937, and the vans standing in the siding had probably been, or were about to be, used for PLA traffic (of which there was a lot on the Island). There was very little van-borne general goods traffic in the Island at all (after the grouping anyway) and certainly not to Bembridge, where virtually all the goods traffic comprised domestic coal for the two merchants based there. The goods propelled in in the early morning all the way from Brading, usually leaving the brake van at St.Helens (the guard riding on the loco), the wagons were left at Bembridge all day as the loco returned to Brading with the 2-set that had been stabled in the platform road all night. After the last passenger turn at night, the loco left the 2-set in the platform, collected any (empty) wagons, called at St.Helens to shunt and collect the brake and then ran to Sandown to leave the wagons (which were worked back to Medina the next day via Merstone), before returning to Ryde LE. The PLA vans were probably worked in and out attached to passenger workings at timings that coincided with the working of PLA specials on the Ventnor line, facilitating shunting at Brading. The model pictured, by the way, was P4 not 00. Study of the way in which the layout was effectively made up of three long curved points which ran into each other demonstrates why a scale model of Bembridge is only possible if the track gauge is also to scale. Virtually everything that can be seen in the photo, bar the track, loco and rolling stock, was my own handiwork, now almost half-a-century ago. It was the very first P4 layout to be completed, first being exhibited at the MRC's show at Central Hall at Easter 1971. Like the aerial photograph, the model was set in the summer of 1937, although certain liberties were taken with the trains to provide variety.

Covered coal bins seem to have been an Isle of Wight feature at a period when any sort of bin for domestic coal was rare elsewhere (where they tended to be WWII-built). As well as these bins at Freshwater, Orchard's (plus another merchant whose name escapes me at the moment) bins at Bembridge were covered with a corrugated-iron roof, and at Ventnor most of the merchants kept their coal in caves going back into the chalk cliffs.

Actually, to be a little pedantic, they were effectively combined from 1 January 1899 when the joint managing committee was formed. Although legally they were still two independent railways until the grouping, they effectively did everything as if they were a single combined railway from that date - the junctions in the Bickley/Chiselhurst area being an early witness to that fact, even if they have been rebuilt (twice) since.

According to my notes, all the high-window diag.2101 4-compt. brake thirds were in sets throughout their lives with the sole exception of the three odd vehicles 4095-7, which I suspect were built to provide overhaul spares for the other 4-compt. brakes as many of the workings these sets performed needed the large van capacity meaning that the temporary substitution of a 6-compt. brake wasn't an option. Eventually even these 3 vehicles found themselves allocated to regular sets, 4095 from 1946 and the other two from 1954. The records suggest that 3668 and 3669 weren't allocated to sets between June 1957 and June 1958. It is possible that they were just stored somewhere but my suspicion is that they were actually working in a set but that the paperwork failed to record that fact. (I suspect that if they had really been out of use for twelve months, either they, or another pair of 4-compt.brakes in worse state, would have been condemned.)

Very nice to see a model of a Southern signal with the lattices modelled correctly (and very well)!

It wasn't just the painted set numbers that used only the last four figures of the "official" six-digit number, much internal SR documentation continued to use just the four figures too.

One possible answer is that it isn't the original Shillingstone instrument. If the original had become faulty in the early 60s, it might well have been replaced by a redundant (from line closure) machine held in the Elephant House at Wimbledon. Record keeping wasn't necessarily a strong point with BR at that period, particularly if the exchange took place just before this stretch of line was handed back to the WR.

Since they remained relatively loose even with the clips correctly positioned either side of the rail, I ended up soldering them to the rail - which actually turned out to be a simple and quick task which didn't distort the sleepering in any way. It is probably as easy to solder a wire direct to the rail - but since I had bought the clips, I thought that I might as well use them.

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!

And if you need to remove the worm subsequently, just dip it (the worm, not the whole motor) into a plastic cup of boiling water, the heat of which is quite sufficient to break the loctite bond. I should add that this tip isn't original - I was once very puzzled at an exhibition to see someone seemingly dipping a motor into a plastic cup of tea, so puzzled, in fact, that I asked why and all was explained to me. I use the trick (without the tea or coffee flavouring - except in extremis) myself now, it works a treat in freeing loctite bonds not only on worms but on flywheels - and on gear wheels mounted on axles. It is also very useful if you should manage to get a trace of loctite between an axle and a bearing.

If the motor always starts whether cold or warm then there isn't a dead spot in it. Even with the smallest dead spot the motor will tend to apparently come to rest there and won't restart without help, (actually what happens is that the motor starts to rotate but doesn't have enough momentum to get past the dead spot on the first revolution, so it stops again having done no more than one partial revolution, and, of course, since it is now on the dead spot it won't restart itself again). If this is the case, then the problem is mechanical, a tight spot rather than a dead spot, and if this is within the motor itself, running it in both ways with low power and no load should eventually clear it. If the motor starts cold, will continue to run (especially with no load) but won't restart warm after being stopped, then the problem is a dry joint somewhere within it. Putting a resistance meter across the terminals after the motor has stopped itself can be quite informative as, if it is a dry joint problem, you will see a rapid countdown in the number of ohms resistance on the meter's display. This sort of problem isn't really solvable on motors this small.

Those signals are on the Widened Lines but they were owned by the Met and the signalling system, including the boxes, was common to both lines. The colour light signals, and the slides that worked them, were supplied by the British Power Signal Co. The points seem to have been worked mechanically using frames "home-made" by the Met.

Visiting Ventnor station in October 1965, I was very surprised to see a goods arrive, shunt the yard, and depart again. Travelling back to Ryde on the next passenger train, I was even more surprised to find the goods tucked away on the siding at Wroxall, where it had deposited a wagon and was now waiting to continue towards Ryde once the single line was clear. I have often wondered whether that was the final occasion that a wagon was dropped off at Wroxall, the line closing 6 months later.

The only time that the Bembridge branch was worked pull-and-push was in 1936 while the engine-release turntable was being renewed and enlarged, the ex-LCDR 3-set was used. Vehicles from the former Ventnor West branch pull-and-push bogie set did appear on the Bembridge branch after the closure of the Ventnor West line but were always run round. Oddly, the branch freight was propelled, and apparently often without a brake van, from St.Helens to Bembridge in the early morning, the loco then taking up the passenger service with the carriages which had been stabled in the platform overnight. The process was reversed after the final passenger working of the evening, the loco leaving the carriages in the platform and then working the empty coal wagons (and possibly PLA vans) to Sandown, picking up the brake van and any wagons as required from St.Helens wharf en route. There were occasions when the brake van worked through to Bembridge, where it was stabled in the general goods siding, possibly either when there were PLA vans for Bembridge or when there were no wagons to be dropped off at St.Helens wharf, but the working was still propelled as the stabled carriages blocked the run round.

The through working from London Waterloo to Bristol/Portishead wasn't shown as such in the public TT but was in the Carriage Working Notices. While this may have been understandable while a reversal at Bournemouth West was involved, it looked odder once the West closed and the 3-set was just detached at Central and a new loco attached to work it forward to Bath. This train also called, un-advertised, at Templecombe Lower Platform, whose only advertised service was a late-evening terminator.

From London Waterloo (08.35 semi-fast RP) via Bournemouth West. The working involved reversals at Bournemouth West and Bath Green Park.

A boiler explosion in a loco only built in 1924 would have resulted in an investigation by the MoT, doubtless looking for any potential design flaws. The resultant report would have been full of useful information on the class but it must have been mis-filed as searching through the listings of MoT reports published in the years leading up to 1947 failed to find it.

So little known were these locos that they even escaped the eagle eyes of Ian Allan and Uncle Mac (A.B.Macleod) when they compiled the 1947, and final, edition of the ABC of LMS Locomotives, and they were thus excluded from this august and otherwise comprehensive volume. This omission led the class to be known among those few spotters in the know as les poissons d'avril.

The Commercial and Civil Engineering (including S&T) functions, but not the operating function, of the former Southern Railway Exeter Division were transferred to Western Region control in April 1950, reverting to the Southern Region in 1958. The most obvious result of this was the application of the WR brown and cream colour painting schemes to a number of former SR stations in the west country. The Exeter Engineer's District tended to continue as much the same independent fiefdom as it had done when nominally under SR control and so there was little evidence of WR influence in engineering and S&T matters during this period (although drawing titles and numbers were altered to fit the WR way of doing things, only to change again in both 1958 and 1963/4).

I understand that, and I certainly understand the gentleman on the Bachmann stand saying that you were unlikely to see any TR painted models adapted from the Thomas range, after all he had to say that. However, and given that cost of making new tools has become dramatically reduced compared with the bad old days (just look at all the variations produced on short-run models), Bachmann could clearly and economically produce a set of new tools to produce Talyllyn, after it is a small model and some new tools would have been required anyway, and, most importantly, Bachmann have already done almost all the development work on making the tools and that is the expensive bit these days, the computer can do much of the design work but it can't do it all. Even better, they have probably now got a good idea of the market size for such a model and for possible extensions to a range, Sir Hadyn, for example. The Thomas brand owners might sabre-rattle a bit, as is their won't, but they would be on very dangerous ground pursuing it further, losing a European court case could seriously undermine the return that they get from the brand. Remember it isn't just IPRs at stake, the agreements that they currently enforce cut across the single market and highly-paid international lawyer friends in Bruxelles tell me that neither the Commission nor the courts look at all favourably on such agreements - which is probably why Skarloey does in fact seem to be reasonably readily available in the UK.

I would very surprised if the owners of the "Thomas" brand could get that enforced by the courts given that the loco Talyllyn is a real entity in its own right (and therefore a model wouldn't be a model of Skarloey in disguise but of the real thing). The courts tend to show a real dislike of artificial constraints on trade which this would clearly be. Even if the brand owners, rather than Bachmann, had paid for the scanning of Talyllyn for the Skarloey model, I doubt whether the courts would do more than make Bachmann pay, at most, the cost of the scanning. In fact, if Bachmann were to produce a Talyllyn model for sale in Europe and then start selling it in the UK "in response to the demand", the courts would almost certainly back Bachmann as the single European market would be considered paramount, given that the brand owners have no "Talyllyn" rights giving them protection. Indeed, as the Football League discovered, the European court could well blow a significant hole in the brand rights they currently "protect" so aggressively in the UK.