bécasse

I think that you may have opened a can of worms there, Pete. The SOUTHERN lettering on the saddle tank is difficult to read in both photos, but you are correct, in the Casserley & Asher book photo, both SOUTHERN and 1685 are in the Bulleid small style, not Maunsell as I suggested before. However, the ABC photo definitely has SOUTHERN in Maunsell style on the saddle tank, and I can be certain of that because the name is longer and started further forward than it did in Bulleid style in the other photo. As stated before, the cab side number appears to be in the large Bulleid style, much larger than in the C&A book photo and probably 12". However, it seems improbable that it would be in Bulleid style, and, after carefully comparing the photo with the typeface used in both Maunsell and Bulleid numbering, I have come to the conclusion that it was hand painted and matches neither Maunsell nor Bulleid styles exactly, although it is closer to the latter than the former. It is, incidentally, much brighter than the SOUTHERN lettering on the tank although that might just be the result of being cleaned more often.

Locomotives of British Railways, Southern Group, by Casserley and Asher has a photo of 1685 in dirty Maunsell livery which had been applied in July 1934 when it was recylindered (and renumbered from A685). Interestingly the photo, also by HCC, in the Ian Allan Southern Railway ABC (mine is a 1946 edition but same photo), shows exactly the same Maunsell SOUTHERN lettering on the saddle tank above the handrail, but the cab side number now appears to be in large Bulleid style, suggesting that the cab, but not the saddle tank, had been repainted at some time post 1934.

Oddly, I did a Saturday Oxford-Evercreech Junction round trip only 18 months later, although I my case I travelled out via Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads (with a side trip to Severn Beach) and Bath Green Park, and returned via Bath Green Park and General. It was amazing to look at your photos and see how much had changed in those 18 months.

There is a simple technique for thinning gears which I have used successfully a number of times in the past. Use a piece of plastikard which is the same thickness that you want the gear to be - for example 30thou for a 0.75mm thick gear, 40thou for 1.0mm, etc - and drill a hole in it a little smaller than the diameter of the gear, then broach out the hole so that the gear is a very tight fit. (If you have a series of gears to thin, the scrooges among us will start with the smallest and work up to the largest!) Use double-sided sellotape to fix the plastikard to a hard, very flat surface - I use an old mirror - and make sure that the gear is pressed very thoroughly into the hole. Then use a broad file to slowly file away the exposed side of the gear until it is flush with the top of the plastikard. You might think that the file would cut into the plastikard as well, but, with care, it will do no more than marginally abraid it.

Judging by the depth of the main girders in the bridge at Yoker, it was probably built without any intermediate supports (as a very rough guide, the depth of the girders has to increase in proportion to the length of the unsupported span). The addition of the supports probably reflects the need for the bridge to carry heavier loads than it was designed for, but may have been a reaction to some weakness that was detected in the girders. With the space under the bridge little used these days, providing the supports would have been much the cheapest way of strengthening the bridge other than filling it in.

Branchlines certainly did a range of loco kits and I think that they are still in business. Their web presence is distinctly rudimentary and you have to email sales@branchlines.com to ask for a pdf file of their 4mm narrow gauge catalogue.

Points on goods lines or in sidings wouldn't require locking. However, a few railways, notably the Great Northern, considered the provision of FPLs on goods running lines to be well worth their extra cost in view of the extra security they provided. I doubt whether anyone ever provided them in sidings.

I think it is true to say that The Stationmaster's comments apply generally and not just to former-GWR lines. Apart from the buffer-stop end release crossovers that he mentioned, there were two other circumstances in which passenger traffic could be worked over points which didn't have FPLs (and which weren't clipped and padlocked): 1) on a line worked under Light Railway regulations where the MoT had approved the lack of FPLs (although most Light Railway lines carrying passenger traffic did in fact use FPLs), 2) where shunting moves, typically moving a through carriage from a branch train to a main line train), passed at slow speed over a facing point whose correct position was detected by an adjacent shunt signal showing "off". Some railways, notably the Midland and the LB&SCR, made considerable use of so-called economical FPLs where the locking mechanism was incorporated within the point operating mechanism - and thus there was no separate FPL lever. All(?) power (electrical or pneumatic) operated point mechanisms incorporate FPLs, usually even if they are only ever used as trailing points. FPLs cannot be worked if there is a vehicle in the immediate vicinity of the point and this is ensured either by a fouling bar (inside or outside the rail at the approach to or on the point blades) which has to be longer than the longest vehicle wheelbase or by track circuits. Fouling bars were once commonplace but are very rare these days.

I agree that the Block Regulations, etc., state "come to a stand". However, in the Rule Book (which is, after all, the senior document), Rule 39 is more explicit and states "has been brought quite or nearly to a stand", so the Rule Book clearly introduces a concept of "quite to a stand" for a train which had come to an absolute standstill. Since I regularly observed homes at crossing loops on the SR being cleared for the second arrival in this way, and since to my personal knowledge SR signalmen were no less responsible than those elsewhere when it came to safe working, it must have been a case of interpretation of the regulations - and this, to me, is the likely explanation - that the Block Regulations were less explicit in defining "stand" than the Rule Book. What they were doing facilitated operation and was no less safe.

Interesting, but perhaps not surprising, to see that Regions interpreted the same regulations in quite a different way, although I seem to remember that many ex-GW passing loops were very long with the platforms toward one end and a siding looping off one road toward the other, signalled in such a way that a train from one direction could be admitted (after being checked) into the platform without waiting for the other to be at a stand. It does make me wonder what the procedure on the Highland was, particularly with its predilection for "half-manned" signal boxes at either end of the loop together with setting levers in the booking office?

I quite agree that that is what the Block Regulations stated but it wasn't what I regularly observed where the second train to arrive (and the first to be admitted to the loop) was checked almost to a stand but not quite before the home was cleared. I observed it on single track lines on the South Eastern and Central Divisions and on the Isle of Wight, which leads me to believe that it was normal Southern practice - it was so widespread that it must have been known to DIs and Station Masters and would have been stopped if it didn't have the sanction of "Nelson", at least. It was a typical example, then common*, of applying the spirit of the regulation rather than the absolute letter providing that safety wasn't compromised in any way. It is noteworthy that Rule 39 in the Rule Book, which could be considered as the double track equivalent, specifically mentioned "brought quite or nearly to a stand" and I don't doubt that this was the origin of the similar practice at loops on single track lines, the words "quite or nearly" being considered as implied. I can only remember this happening with steam trains, but I think that my trips with more modern traction over single track lines would have been limited to one trip on a 2H "over the Alps" and one trip on a 3D over the Cuckoo line, and I probably just didn't notice what happened. * And if anyone familiar with today's "tick box" approach to "safe working" doesn't believe me, just remember that the railway unions regularly used "working to rule" as a form of industrial action which crippled railway operation but didn't hit their members' pay packets in any significant way.

I am not sure that the procedure for crossing trains has been spelt out correctly. My experience was with Southern Region situations and Scottish practice may have been different, but the normal arrangements that I observed were: Both home signals maintained "on". First train to arrive comes to stand at its home signal and whistles 1-short to confirm to signalman that it is safely at a stand. Second train to arrive is checked by its home signal but, if the signalman can see that it is well under control (and provided that the first train is already at a stand), not necessarily actually stopped, the home being cleared as the train approaches to allow admission to the loop. If the second train is brought to a stand, it too whistles to confirm that fact (and to remind signalman of its presence). Once the second train is at a stand in the loop, the other home signal is cleared and the first train enters its side of the loop. The advantage of this sequence is that it is marginally quicker but no less safe than admitting the trains to the loops in the order of their initial arrival. I can think of locations where the working was so slick that the signalman, having collected and returned the staff/tablet from the first train, had it reissued it sufficiently quickly as to be able to exchange with the second train as the loco passed the box. There may well have been stations where local circumstances, the prevailing gradient, access to the platforms being by foot crossing, or restricted visibility, for example, resulted in local instructions being issued that trains from one direction should always be admitted first. The sequence may also have been varied if one of the crossing trains wasn't a passenger train. Of course, if one train was running sufficiently late as to not yet be in section, the other train would just be checked and then allowed into the loop and the late-running train would then be able to run straight in without being checked.

Surely 7 reads to the branch (and should therefore have a full size arm) with 4 reading to the main line. There appears to be no signal reading from the bay toward the branch siding and that suggests that that wasn't a common move.

The LSWR had already created a concrete-product factory at Exmouth Junction before the Southern Railway was formed in 1923. The SR quickly saw the potential of concrete and the Exmouth Junction works were considerably expanded in the mid-1920s and some of the familiar designs date from then. However, design work continually evolved, even post-nationalisation and into the 1960s, and many product designs were only topical for a decade or two. To give just four examples: There were several very different designs of station running-in name board as the design evolved; they couldn't be re-used elsewhere so the design used at any location was specific to the period when the boards were installed. The "classic" permanent way hut with the clipped roof (to ensure that they stayed within loading gauge when conveyed to/from site) was a post-war (effectively post-nationalisation) design quite out of place on a Southern Railway layout. There were two basic designs of the "classic" footbridge which may look superficially similar but are actually quite different, and, again, one was older and one was newer, but here reuse of the old design was possible (but didn't happen very often). An early product of the expanded Exmouth Junction works was concrete signal posts and these were widely used by the SR for perhaps two or three years in the mid-1920s. They were found to be less versatile than had been anticipated and were quickly discontinued. However, post-nationalisation a new design of concrete bracket signal post was developed and examples were installed at a number of locations during the Brighton line London area resignalling of the early 1950s (and one or two may still exist) but nowhere else.

I have posted above a pair of drawings showing the original station building at Bentworth & Lasham. The original drawing was to 7mm scale, but as I failed to include a scale rule on my drawings in those days I would add that the building was about 36 feet long by 12 feet wide. The building at Herriard was all but identical with the only difference being that the lamp was set at a different height. Cliddesden, the third station on the line, had a building the same size but the opening in the front was only one sliding-door width wide, so the building was identical to the right of the marked centre-line but to the left (apart from the frame post for the single door which was immediately to the left of the centre-line) the open space covered by the door in the other buildings was plain wall covered in corrugated-iron sheeting - the windows were all the same as on the two but I am not certain as to how the interior was arranged behind the plain part of the front wall. (Unfortunately, the building seems to have been mucked about with when it became "Buggleskelly" and the film is unhelpful when trying to resolve this question.) The lamp was fixed at the same height as that at Herriard but approximately centrally over the single door opening rather than at the centre line of the building. The sliding doors weren't original, the stations opened with open fronts but the sliding doors were added very quickly. Before the Great War Herriard had a passing loop with the points and home signals (NO starters) worked from a ground frame. There is no sign of this GF in contemporary photographs and I suspect that it may have been sited the booking office side of the initially open area (and thus subsequently behind the righthand sliding door) - the tablet instruments would have been in the booking office. The building at Herriard survived, in poor condition, until comparatively recently. The drawings were prepared from photographs but checked against the remains at Herriard.

It took a few hours for the penny to drop. The name "Losechester" almost certainly suggests that the model was inspired by Winchester station on the LSWR main line to Southampton. I can't remember now how good a copy it might have been although it was double track. I have vague recollections that there might have been a large train turntable at one end, however I think that such a turntable has featured on more than one 2mm FS layout and it is quite possible that my memory is at fault after nearly 60 years. It seems very likely that the LSWR gate set that I remember seeing was Langridge's, and probably most or all of his stock was borrowed for the show. Models were much less reliable then, and the show was open to the public for over 50 hours which would be a punishing experience for any layout today, so it was always desirable to start of with far more stock, and particularly locos, than the operating scope of a layout might seem to require. It does seem amazing that this layout just disappeared from the radar.

I have posted below two entries from the 1955 MRC Easter Exhibition Guide showing firstly the guide entry for the 2mm ("OOO") layout on Stand 18, and secondly part of the Hall Plan which gives some idea of the overall shape of the layout (Stand 18). I believe that the layout may have appeared again in 1956 but I don't have a Guide from that year (sold out before we arrived Saturday afternoon!).

It is quite possible that there was considerable variation between individual vehicles as I seem to recollect that donor vehicles were selected on the basis of condition rather than adherence to any particular build batch. In theory, BR Mk I coaches were supposed to have been built on jigs to ensure uniformity, in practice craftsmen at the works that built them continued to use their craft techniques and few vehicles were absolutely identical even though they appeared to be - something that was often discovered the hard way when modifications were required and it was discovered that a "standard kit" often wouldn't fit. Remarkably, even the 4-VEP units that were built new for the Bournemouth electrification exhibited considerable detail variation which certainly caused some head-scratching in later years when whole or part fleet modifications were required. One advantage of this, and the paucity of detail photographs, is that if you do get something wrong - layout of steps or pipework, for example - and someone questions it, you just say that you modelled to photographs and clearly your chosen prototype was different.

Yesterday I posted this entry under a different topic where there had been some discussion about the late P D Hancock's L&B-inspired loco (in OO9) "Alistair" whose chassis was built for him by Cherry's and the body by H B Whall: "Alistair's body wasn't the only thing Whall built for PDH because he also had a 2mm scale model of a LSWR C14 0-4-0 rail motor tank. I believe this was one of three built by Whall, one for himself, one for Gilbert Szlumper (who had been General Manager of the Southern Railway), and finally one for PDH. Szlumper's ran on a 2mm LSWR layout (in a bedroom setting!) that appeared at a couple of Model Railway Club exhibitions at Central Hall, Westminster, in the mid-1950s - they made Alistair look large! The 2mm layout itself is a bit of a mystery. The exhibition guides are silent in respect of its ownership (not particularly unusual then) but the contemporary model press suggested that it was the work of a "Major Provo", a name totally unfamiliar to me even though I became a MRC member only a few years later, and indeed there is only one reference, miss-spelt, to that name in the surviving MRC records. It wasn't unusual at that period for people with prominent jobs to adopt a pseudonym when pursuing a hobby and I have often wondered whether the layout was, in fact, Szlumper's as well as the loco." Following which Mark made this post: "I remember the treasurer of the MRC speaking very highly of "Major Provo's" 2mm layout back in the 1980s. It does seem otherwise very elusive. P.D. Hancock's 2mm Gleish Valley Railroad featured in the Railway Modeller for January 1953 & February 1954 with borrowed rolling stock and the C14 itself was described in August 1960. Earlier this year, I had the chance to photograph some early 2mm models by J.J. (Jack) Langridge, one of which was an LSWR C14 from the mid 1920s. http://www.rmweb.co....-medal-winners/ I'm told that Jack Langridge built 2mm models on sub-contract from H.B. Whall so it's possible that the Langridge C14 might be a predecessor of the others. The construction is certainly very similar to the loco described in the August 1960 article. Even with the intervening period, the technology hadn't progressed greatly so a 1950s built C14 would be very likely to be similar to a 1920s built version, scratch built wheels, motor, gears etc. The only departure I can see are spoked wheels on the early loco and disc wheels on the Hancock version. Time/price considerations maybe? There was a cohort of pioneer 2mm modellers in the SW London area (Whall - Kew, Langridge - Isleworth & A.R. Walkley - Wimbledon) and they were certainly in touch with each other. With Cherry's being based in Richmond, perhaps that's another connection." Some years ago Chris Leigh published a photo of Szlumper's C14 in Model Rail, and after some discussion with Chris, I attempted to find out more, since the last time I had seen the loco was when it ran (with a LSWR "gate" set) on the "Major Provo" layout at Central Hall back in the mid-1950s when I was a mere lad of about 10 years of age. The layout probably made a greater impression on me than any that I saw in those halcyon days and I have always been puzzled that it just seemed to disappear. I started by trawling exhibition guides and contemporary magazines which had two results, the name Major Provo as the exhibitor of the layout and a list of names of people actively pursuing 2mm scale in the 1950s. Having joined the MRC in 1960, I knew most of these names but one major surprise was to discover that Sid (SB) Dent, whom I knew as a very fine modeller of the Southern in O gauge, had been very active in 2mm in the early 1950s. (This information also came as a surprise to Alan Blackburn who had known Sid well several years before I first met him.) Cyril Freezer was still alive then and thought that he vaguely remembered Major Provo but couldn't provide any further information (and, of course, he had already moved to Seaton at the time so wasn't an active MRC member apart from the Central Hall show and the Birmingham meeting). He also suggested that PDH was unlikely to be able to help even though he had owned one of the Whall C14s, so I didn't pursue that line of enquiry. Tim Watson thought that the layout concerned might have been Langridge's, but I thought that unlikely and the photo of Langridge's own C14 and the imparted knowledge that Langridge's own layout was based on Swanage has served to strengthen that opinion. The only conclusion that I could come to, based on the known ownership of the C14, was that the layout might well have also belonged to Szlumper. It has to be remembered that the Model Railway Club then had some "establishment" figures as members, both from within the railway industry and without, and that they tended to "hide their lights under a bushel". In those days the MRC met in one of the arches under Waterloo station and it might well have been Szlumper who "facilitated" that arrangement.

Alistair's body wasn't the only thing Whall built for PDH because he also had a 2mm scale model of a LSWR C14 0-4-0 rail motor tank. I believe this was one of three built by Whall, one for himself, one for Gilbert Szlumper (who had been General Manager of the Southern Railway), and finally one for PDH. Szlumper's ran on a 2mm LSWR layout (in a bedroom setting!) that appeared at a couple of Model Railway Club exhibitions at Central Hall, Westminster, in the mid-1950s - they made Alistair look large! The 2mm layout itself is a bit of a mystery. The exhibition guides are silent in respect of its ownership (not particularly unusual then) but the contemporary model press suggested that it was the work of a "Major Provo", a name totally unfamiliar to me even though I became a MRC member only a few years later, and indeed there is only one reference, miss-spelt, to that name in the surviving MRC records. It wasn't unusual at that period for people with prominent jobs to adopt a pseudonym when pursuing a hobby and I have often wondered whether the layout was, in fact, Szlumper's as well as the loco.

For the sake of completeness, I have added below details of the locos allocated to the RAF Fauld munitions depot in 1968, by which time it was the only other remaining rail served RAF munitions storage depot in the UK with narrow gauge (although in fact used by the USAF). Standard Gauge Ruston 4wDM 80/88HP AMW184/198322, 1940 AMW185/198323, 1940 Narrow Gauge (2 foot) Ruston 4wDM 44/48HP AMW196/198286, 1940 AMW197/198287, 1940 AMW202/200800, 1941*§ AMW206/203016, 1941* AMW210/203020, 1941* AMW231/203031, 1942* AMW232/203032, 1942* *I think that these locos were probably built to the slightly different design in which the sides forward of the cab sloped (widest at the frame) but were not "streamlined" in the way that the later 48DL was (see the photo of the green 44/48HP loco in one of Kelly's posts above whose bodywork is in the '1941' style) §Also listed as being at Dinton suggesting that even as late as the 1960s these locos moved between depots Greenwood & Batley 4wBE AMW180/1608, 1939 AMW181/1609, 1939 AMW233/1838, 1942 AMW234/1839, 1942 AMW235/1840, 1942 Again I am not sure which of the GB 4w battery loco designs these were These were the locos surviving in 1968. There must have been many more at one time especially as some were almost certainly destroyed when half the munitions store here blew up later in the war.

I suddenly realised that I had a 1968 list for locos present at the Chilmark[C] and Dinton[D] depots. Note that locos could be interchanged between the two and that the AMW-prefixed number was the painted number and the other the maker's number: Standard Gauge Fowler 0-4-0DM AMW154[C]/22604, 1939 AMW242[D]/22996, 1939 I imagine that both these were to the design that is just about to produced in O gauge by Ixion Narrow Gauge (2 foot) Ruston 4wDM 33/40HP AMW 161[C]/194770, 1939 Ruston 4wDM 44/48HP AMW165[D]/194784, 1939 AMW166[D]/193987, 1939 AMW193[D]/200513, 1940 AMW194[D]/200516, 1940 AMW202[D]/200800, 1941* AMW204[D]/200802, 1941* AMW205[D]/200803, 1941* AMW224[D]/203019, 1941* *I think that these four locos were probably built to a slightly different design in which the sides forward of the cab sloped (widest at the frame) but were not "streamlined" in the way that the later 48DL was (see the photo of the green 44/48HP loco in one of Kelly's posts above whose bodywork is in the '1941" style) Greenwood & Batley 4wBE AMW175[C]/????, ???? AMW176[C]/????, ???? AMW177[C]/1613, ???? I am not sure which of the GB 4w battery loco designs these were It seems likely that all the 44/48HP locos were flame-proofed but Ruston didn't perfect the flame-proofing design until after 194770 had been built so that can't have been flame-proofed from new. The external appearance of flame-proofed locos was very similar to those just fitted with exhaust scrubbers. There were a quite a lot of RAF munitions depots of various sizes scattered round the UK during WWII and afterwards, and it is likely that some locos were moved between sites.

I have now checked back on the Ruston listings I have: 194771 was a Ruston class 33/40HP (NOT 40DL which was a post-war classification) built in January 1939. A second 33/40 194770 was built at the same time and I suspect that that may have gone to Chilmark too. 194784 (the "Fire" engine) was a Ruston class 44/48HP built later in 1939 - there was a batch of seven of these locos, 194778-784, built between May and October 1939, and some others of these may also be Chilmark locos. If so that suggests that the earlier 3-cylinder locos were found to be underpowered. My notes suggest that the two types were the same overall length at around 11ft 4in, but that on the 33/40 the shorter engine casing (3-cylinder rather than 4) started farther back on the frame, and that otherwise the two types were more or less identical (certainly for the purpose of a OO9 scale model). My notes don't identify the detail fittings of the locos and the Bala Lake loco has clearly been mucked about with, but from what I can see and deduce I suspect that both types at Chilmark had cabs, added frame-side weights and exhaust scrubbers - the "Fire" engine can be seen to have all these features. I think that the exhaust scrubbers, mounted behind the cabs, required the frame to be extended at the rear (to about 12ft in total). The Meridian Models 27/32HP body kit wouldn't make a bad starting point because the complex front radiator area, the fuel tank and the cab would be usable and you would have to make new frames, engine compartment sides and top and exhaust scrubber, although none of these would be difficult. The biggest problem would be finding a suitable chassis. The prototype wheelbase was about 3ft 4in (say 13.5mm in OO9) with a wheel diameter of 1ft 4in or 1ft 6in (say 6mm in OO9) and I am not aware of anything immediately suitable in either ready-to-run or kit form. However components from, for example, Nigel Lawton would facilitate a scratch build.

I would seriously question your intention to paint them, especially in 2mm scale, as I would always use one (or more) of the Birchwood Casey range of gun blues applied with a small brush. Super Blue, Brass Black and Aluminium Black all produce slightly different but very realistic effects. The final result may not be as matt as one might wish (although that may be realistic around stools and especially cranks where oiling may have taken place on the real railway), but this is easily overcome by applying some well diluted matt acrylic varnish - I always use a brand intended for use by artists.