Crichel Down

The Bachmann cattle wagon is based on a Swindon-built BR design, as was the old Airfix kit. The Dapol RTR model is also a BR-based model. The Coopercraft kit was based on a GWR prototype. The Bachmann model is 4mm (a scale foot) too long, but looks more or less OK for the BR period, provided you are not too fussy about scale accuracy, and provided also that you don't run any of the Bachmann models together with the Coopercraft or Airfix ones (which would show up the discrepancy). The Dapol RTR model is also too long, but not so long as the Bachmann model . The Coopercraft kit is capable of being turned into very acceptable models of several GWR diagrams. I even managed to convert a couple of these kits into models of the short W3 design. I wrote up these conversions in MRJ Nos. 24 and 25. [Oh, blast! That's blown my cover.] I also converted a couple of the old Airfix kits to represent GWR vehicles (also described in the MRJ article). I take a fairly relaxed approach to scale accuracy, so any or all of the above-mentioned kits and models are perfectly acceptable for use on the layout, so far as I am concerned. The only proviso is to keep the different models apart if they are of varying lengths.

EMGS website not yet updated. This needs to be done a.s.a.p., as it will be the first place most people look to find out whether Expo-EM is 'on' or 'off'.

I missed this post when it appeared, so this is a rather belated reply. I have done quite a bit of research into railway schemes that would have reached Burford, and there were repeated schemes throughout the 19th century (from 1836 to 1904, to be precise), most of which were for routes that would have connected Oxford with Cheltenham, via Witney, Burford, Northleach and Andoversford. The GWR itself obtained an Act to build a broad gauge line over this route in 1847, but they had no intention of exercising these powers - it was just a spoiling tactic to keep the LNWR out of GWR 'territory'. This was not the only line that was authorised. The last was a proposal by the Witney, Burford and Andoversford Light Railway Syndicate, which was set up around 1896 and finally got its LRO in 1904, but like all the others was never built. There was at least one other Act passed in the 19th century (sorry I can't remember the date). It was an obvious route for a railway, following the valley of the River Windrush, and then the Dikler Brook, but a long climb (or a tunnel) would have been required beyond Northleach, but it was quite feasible from an engineering and operating point of view (about 2 miles at 1 in 80 - hard work for the fireman, but no worse from the eastbound climb from Leckhmampton on the Banbury & Cheltenham line).

I have no information about later workings, but when first introduced (in 1935? - I haven't got the relevant reference book to hand), No. 17, which was then based at Southall, ran a regular parcels working from Paddington to Oxford and back. Sorry I can't be more specific about timings, etc., but my relevant books and notes are currently inaccessible.

This question is an old chestnut that comes up again at regular intervals. I think the confusion arises from the fact that BR(WR) seem to have painted service vehicles, such as LOCO coal wagons, black (although I have seen later photos of ex-GW loco coal wagons painted in the light grey BR livery.) I have come round to he view that, in GWR days, such wagons were painted in the same shade of freight stock grey as other GWR goods wagons. However, before we get into a real stew over this, I once conducted an experiment, painting one wagon in GW freight stock grey and another in matt black, and then gave them both a reasonably heavy (but not excessive) weathering - mud from below and soot [a 50:50 mix of matt black and Dark Earth] from above. After this, the actual colour of the two wagons was indistinguishable, and it was impossible to say which was painted grey and which was painted black. After that, I stopped worrying about this problem!

I was puzzled by the reference to one of these wagons being an Ale Wagon. If this referred to the enclosed conversion of the cattle wagon, this is a Goods Fruit Van (Diagram Y10). I assume that the middle vehicle was built from a Coopercraft kit, whereas the other cattle wagon (at the left-hand end) is a Bachmann model. For reasons that only Bachmann could explain, the latter is 4mm too long. This doesn't generally matter, unless you run both types together, when the discrepancy becomes apparent. This is a minor point, and is hardly important. I am a great fan of Little Muddle, so this passing comment shouldn't be taken as criticism, merely a random observation.

I would respectfully suggest that there would be a significant loading gauge problem with a Rectank, even with the chimney removed from the Fowler ploughing engine. This was a really big beast. Even the cylinders on this Fowler engine would foul the loading gauge if the engine were to be mounted on a Rectank.

A discussion that included the question of what GWR vehicle could be used to carry a Fowler ploughing engine, and how it would be loaded, can be found in this thread on the Scalefour webforum: https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6218 The discussion started on the subject of Carriage Loading Docks ( = End Loading Docks), and then ranged widely over the types of traffic using them, the vehicles carrying such traffic, loading methods, etc. Unfortunately, the discussion came to no firm conclusions, but might nevertheless be of interest to readers of this blog, in light of the appearance of the very attractive Oxford model of a Fowler ploughing engine on the Little Muddle branch.

I had a similar problem on "Crichel Down" way back in 1982, when it was being 'converted to P4' at the old MRC show in Central Hall, Westminster (all done under the merciless gaze of Joe Public!) All the track had been laid using copper-clad sleepers, being careful to saw a gap just inside the running rail on both sides of the track, and yet a mysterious short circuit appeared, and was impossible to trace. Eventually, a very small piece of metal swarf was found bridging one of these gaps in the copper clad. Having cleared it out, the sleepers were promptly painted, taking care to brush paint generously into the insulating gaps in the copper-clad sleepers. After that, there was no repetition of this problem. As the French say, Plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose!

I have just noticed the number on the Metro Tank. It's the same number that I chose for my model (also from an old Wills kit, which is still available from SE Finecast) for which I scratch-built a chassis from nickel-silver, long before SE Finecast produced their etched chassis for this kit. I chose No.615, as it was at Oxford (and its sub-shed at Fairford) immediately before withdrawal in 1931. It had been a London Division engine for a good few years, having previously been allocated to Reading, when it was often seen on the Henley Branch. It was fitted with auto gear in 1930 or 1931, only a short time before withdrawal . Bearing in mind the withdrawal date of this engine, I have had to claim modeller's licence for its appearance on the Burford Branch later than 1931, with an auto-trailer that did not enter service until 1934. But, if it had survived for longer, it could equally well have been reallocated to somewhere nearer the Welsh border. So who's to say it might not sooner or later have turned up at Hembourne?

The running-in board to the left of the station building is fine; it's the one at the right-hand end that would need to be taken out but, as you say, the flower bed at that end of the platform could certainly stay (which would effectively conceal any evidence of the nameboard having been removed from this location).

I should have added that where a through station on a single track line had only one platform, the running-in board might be positioned nearer the centre of the platform, and this is one case where there might occasionally have been two running-in boards, one towards each end of the platform, but a single board is still likely have been more common in this situation.

This is a really attractive and inspiring layout, so I feel guilty in voicing a very minor criticism. There appear to be two station nameboards. There really ought to be only one. The GWR term was "running-in board", which accurately describes its function - a board showing the name of the station as a train runs in to the station. At a branch terminus, the running-in board would be somewhere near the outer (Up) end of the platform. At a through station having both Up and Down platforms there would be one running-in board towards the Down end of the Up platform, and one towards the Up end of the Down platform. Two running-in boards would not generally be found on the same platform, except at some junction stations.

Did you think the extra price was worth paying for the card kit?

In which case, why mess about with a successful format? Irrespective of the thinking that has led to recent messing about with what is on offer, I would still maintain that the best bet for the future of the magazine would be to give readers (and potential new readers) a clear and consistent offer, without gimmicks or confusing variant offers through different outlets or involving a variety of different formats and prices.

None of this bodes well for the future of BRM. I can recall the demise of Model Railways some 25 years ago. Its publishers made several attempts to boost circulation by changing formats and content and generally 're-vamping' the magazine. Unfortunately, these efforts only succeeded in putting off existing readers, without adding the new readers they were looking for. The result was a terminal slump in sales, until the plug eventually had to be pulled on the title. With greater competition now than existed in the early 1990s (in terms of the number of titles competing for a share of the market), subscriptions and regular orders are that much harder to come by, and so all titles must depend on casual sales [i.e. impulse purchases on the news-stands] to keep circulation up. Potential purchasers therefore need to be able to browse the magazine to decide whether to buy a particular issue (so packaging that prevents this is inadvisable), and 'free' offers will only be attractive if they really are free, and do not involve a price hike for that issue. In summary, the overall approach has to be "Don't mess the punters about." Give them a clear and consistent offer, without gimmicks or confusing variant offers through different outlets or involving a variety of different formats. A magazine that fails to observe this principle is in danger of going the same way as the old Model Railways magazine did.

This all seems an excellent way of losing sales and ensuring a drop in circulation. Time was when I regularly bought BRM, but I have been put off recent issues by these gimmicky marketing tricks and shenanigans with content, packaging and pricing. (Maybe the idea is to kill off the print edition altogether by engineering a significant drop in print sales as an excuse to go digital-only.)

McColl's, Thame (in the Cornmarket) Checked again this morning. August issue still on display - no sign of the September issue.

I was under the impression that this issue was to be published on 16 August, but McColl's still have the August issue on display, and no sign yet of the September issue.

I have no comment to make on the substance of this thread, but contributors should be cautious about writing anything that might be libellous. Can you genuinely prove justification if challenged? (I.e. prove the facts you allege) Or be able to claim genuinely that it was fair comment?

I was looking forward to the video of Buckingham, only to find that it wasn't on the DVD. Very disappointing. Design and production editing of the magazine also seems to be slipshod. (I won't bore everyone by listing all the misprints.) The photos of the Buckingham Branch (as mentioned before) are too dark, and whoever designed the front cover needs to be sent on a training course in Graphic Design! What on earth was the "Also in this issue" overlay doing up there? It could and should have been put lower down, where it would have obscured only some plain track, and we could actually have seen the main subject of the photo - the train, and the gasworks behind it. The whole design of the cover was far too 'busy'. I pick up issues of BRM (like other magazines) when they appear to contain something interesting. I don't think it would be worthwhile taking out a subscription and, like at least one other correspondent, I certainly don't want to have to access the magazine online. If BRM doesn't serve readers of the paper version of the magazine better, we shall simply stop buying it. [Having said all that, I did enjoy Jerry Clifford's description of his Tucking Mill layout.]

In 4mm scale, the fence wire would be very thin. Some modellers (me included) only install the fence posts (5" x 5" - old sleepers cut in half, with a pointed top to throw off rainwater, set at roughly 6 foot intervals), and omit the wires altogether. It's simply a question of personal preference whether you do this, or whether you use overscale wire (filament), which is extremely fiddly to fix. In answer to the original question - yes, galvanised steel wire, which would go a dark rust colour within a year or two. The wires were always stapled to the outside of the fence posts (i.e. facing away from the railway), except where cast concrete fence posts came into use later. In the latter case, the wires went through holes cast in the concrete posts. The wires were not evenly spaced up the post; those nearer the ground were closer together.

I care about neither of these issues. I will pursue my hobby as long as I am physically and mentally able to do so, and it is of no concern to me whether younger generations take up the hobby or not. If a shrinking market were to lead to various RTR ranges or kits becoming unavailable, I would just make do with what I could get hold of and (if necessary) scratch-build the rest. I am old enough to remember a time when there were far fewer RTR models available, few of which were anywhere near the standard of today's models, and when the only alternative was lumpy whitemetal kits or scratch-building. And yet we thoroughly enjoyed our hobby. If the likes of Hornby, Bachmann, et al disappear sooner or later, I certainly shan't lose any sleep over it. I have found some of the current RTR models very useful, but there is really no product or component that is absolutely indispensable. Whatever happens to the model railway market, most of us will carry on regardless with our chosen hobby.

My wish list is more specific than the poll list: Diagram N. This is the model produced by Lionheart (now Dapol) in O Gauge. I have long wanted one of these in 4mm. Doesn't need to be RTR; a plastic kit would do. Bill Bedford was talking about doing one as a 3D printed model, but impact moulded polystyrene (possibly a kit, as mentioned above) would be preferable. This model would suit all periods from Edwardian to 1950s, and is the best prototype for anyone wanting a wooden-bodied trailer that could have been seen at any time within this long timescale. Diagram U. Not really a priority, but it is an attactive version of the 70-foot design.