Jol Wilkinson

Tony, you are correct about the different height of the cranks and I perhaps phrased my wording badly. The crescent shaped crank does provide the correct alignment for the rodding and gives clearance and maintenance access to the joints between the rods and levers, which is what I was trying to say when I said "around the L shaped one". Producing the rodding system for London Road No 2 signal box provided some interesting challenges and I learned a little about how the levers could be arranged. The use of the hand lever in the foreground, operating a point into the engine shed area came as a surprise, as it is so close to the signal box. However this was apparently common LNWR practice for sheds and yards and the advice came from several sources. Southwark Bridge Models (available from Roxey Mouldings) do a range of excellent etched hand levers of various types. Jol

Tony, I had two excellent books as a guide, Jack Nelson's LNWR Portrayed and Richard Foster's LNWR Signalling. I was also fortunate in knowing both Richard Foster and retired BR signal engineer Derek Smith who gave some invaluable guidance for what is a fictional layout based on real railway practice. I was delighted at a recent show when a retired signalman introduced himself and commented very positively on the point rodding layout. All I need now is to sort out some signal wire posts and pulleys Perhaps you have some pictorial records of the signalling infrastructure at LB to help, but I don't know if comparable signalling infrastructure books exist for the LNER. Putting in the infrastructure details really brings, in my view, a layout to life. It may be that people don't particularly notice it as much as you will as the builder, but it really sets the scene and brings atmosphere to a layout. Jol

I don't think you can blame "Hatfield". Town planners, on the other hand!

Perhaps the small diameter wheels dictated the lower level of the "motor block" and this caused the error with the pickups. Still, there is no real excuse for getting it wrong, especially for a commercial organisation that employs professional designers. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time, look at Honda and their F1 engine. It must be something to do with far eastern culture.

Tony, the photo provides the answer. The crescent crank fits around the L shaped one and lines up with the rodding to the points (whose spacing is set by the rollers) and to the lever frame. And yes, it took me some time to work that out originally. Setting up the levers and the point rodding in a logical sequence must have been quite a challenge.

Stubby, depending on how much energy you've got left at the end of the day, then St Albans is better for restaurants, etc. and isn't too far away. The Galleria has an Odeon multi screen cinema, so that might be an option. I've had a quick look and I think they are showing "Their Finest" next week. Recommended. Jol

Keith, I don't regard myself as a modeller but as a model maker. For me that distinction simply identifies those that prefer to create their own models, be it scratch built, kit built, kit bashed or RTR modified. Ultimately it becomes a question of choosing your own destiny, rather than others defining it for you on by deciding what to produce. I find it slightly odd that people will build baseboards, scenery, install wiring, etc. and then limit themselves to buying what the RTR manufacturers produce to run on their layouts. If you are lucky you can get a representative collection of models to cover a period/location. However, if you want to model - with reasonable accuracy - early grouping or pre-grouping early, then you can't get enough from the RTR manufacturers. Your comment that you will probably return the Coal Tank is enlightening. As a member of the LNWR Society, I know that some members hope that the introduction of the Coal Tank would generate more interest among railway modellers in the LNWR. Perhaps people are generally buying it simply because it is an "unusual" model and they have no real interest in the LNWR or pre-group railways. Jol

Michael, nice trackwork. The Brassmasters etched rodding rollers (stools) are correct for LNWR/LMS but I didn't find them very easy to assemble. I know others that have readily done so, so perhaps I didn't have the right knack Ambis Engineering also list them on their price list but I don't know what type they are. The MSE/Wizard ones that Tony used are cast w/m so don't need assembling. THere isn't a photo on their website so I don't know if they are suitable.The Modelu 3D printed version is excellent but wrong for LMS (they are GWR pattern). Then their is the Wills version, but the consensus is that they are too overscale. Generally they were set at 7' apart, IIRC. The real thing ran around curves and the spacing distance for the stools was sometimes reduced.

Having just completed the second of my kit built LNWR Coal Tanks (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14518-lnwr-4mm-rolling-stock-for-london-road/) I know fitting pickups around the lower ashpan of the firebox isn't an insurmountable problem. It seems that whoever designed the pickups and whoever signed off the final design either doesn't understand how a model may be used or perhaps they only tested it with Bachmann track which didn't present a problem. The reaction to this issue is interesting. On the one hand people consider rightly that Bachmann shouldn't release a product which isn't fit for its intended purpose . What is that intended purpose? Do Bachmann intend it should only be used with their track system? That's possible and they equally can't be expected to know what type/standard of trackwork every purchaser may use. On the other hand, people who presumably consider themselves as "modellers" aren't willing/capable of adjusting or modifying the pickups. That is provided that it is reasonably practical, by which i mean can be done with the tools a "modeller" would have to hand.

Which you could allow for, if required, by the positioning of the right angle lever connecting to the point operating tie bar.

Tony, the spectacle plate was also a casting on the LNWR signal but the arm was pressed steel plate. There was also a cast arm "cramp" that held the lot together and incorporated the arm spindle mounting, etc. So you may be right that the arm was sufficiently balanced to return to the fail safe position but it would have been rather marginal. To quote from Wikipedia "During the 1870s, almost all the British railway companies standardised on the use of semaphore signals, which were then invariably of the lower quadrant type. From the 1920s onwards, upper quadrant semaphores almost totally supplanted lower quadrant signals in Great Britain, except on former GWR lines" ​Perhaps the adoption of UQ signals by the LNER, LMS and SR - other than standardisation - was that, unlike the GWR version, LQ's weren't regarded as sufficiently fail safe.

Tony, I don't think that LQ arms are balanced to return to danger. The pivot would have to be far out and certainly the LNWR version wasn't. So the balance weight does have an important part to play. Of course it was different for UQ arms, where the weight of the arm and its CoG was in the right place to fall to the on position. Then there are GNR somersault arms, weren't these neutrally balanced?

It is a design fault. Manufacturing will produce what the designers stipulate and and QC will check they have produced it to specification. A better question would be - given how long they take from announcing a new model to releasing it - why Bachmann UK didn't spot it? Of course they may not have seen a finished production model, which brings into question their corporate design and manufacturing strategy. Clearly a product not for for purpose if Martin_R's experience is anything to go by!

Stone blocks were also used, especially in Victorian and Edwardian times. Some railway companies also used extended sleepers to provide a support for the rodding roller mechanism (I read somewhere that the word stool actually referred to the mounting base). Clive Mortimer (post 16741) makes the valid point that a lot of this interesting railway infrastructure is missed out from layouts.With the introduction of the Wills rodding and other items available from Brassmasters, Ambis Engineering, Roxey Mouldings and others, there is really no excuse to ignore this aspect of track and signalling. Even though the Wills rodding is overscale. it is definitely better than nothing for those who don't want to put in a bit more effort. For those modelling later periods, then I am sure the relevant electrical "boxes" and hydraulic mechanisms are available.

Various etched rodding components have been available for some time, but unlike the Wills and MSE items, need some tricky assembling. Modelu have produced some excellent 3D printed GWR rodding rollers. I used the Colin Waite variety on the extension to London Road, partly because that was used on the original section. Although no longer manufactured I managed to get some on eBay and a fellow S4 Society member sent me some from NZ. Technically they are incorrect for the layout as they is apparently based on the GWR pattern. I found the Brassmasters LNWR/LMS type difficult to assemble although I used some for the under track sections at it is lower. Ambis Engineering also list them but I don't know what they are like. The Ambis website has some detailed information on their website about prototype installations (not always the easiest to navigate). I too used the MSE square N/S rodding, painted red oxide and weathered.

I resided in Essex for several years in the sixties, but managed to get out. I found Intelligent life can exist in other parts of the UK, including Sussex, Shropshire, Herts, Northants. and Suffolk. Lovely Suffolk, that's where I live now. When we drive down the A12 and onto the M25, we notice a definite change in the driving "style" the further south we get.More aggressive and "Me, Me, Me". Probably partly due to getting nearer to the centre of civilisation as the residents like to believe, A.K.A. London. (Where's the irony button?)

A12. Could be a native of Essex, but the use of the word "thought" would rather rule that out.

Seemingly taken from the front garden of a house. Perhaps by one of Richardson's gang. An internet search on Richardson turns up a Daily Fail article, which includes the photo above.

A friend has just bought one with a view to converting to P4. However, he firstly took it for a run on a fairly large OO layout of another of his friends. It ran alright on plain track but upon reaching the first set of points it got stuck. On examination they found the pickups were contacting the rear face of the tyres below rail head level. Looking at some of the photos, the centre axle pickup can be seen and does look rather low. Anyone else had that problem?

Not a Jenny Lind, but something similar from that era, a LNWR Bloomer. Unfortunately I've lost the details of the builder and photographer, so can't give due credit.

Brian, the Jubilee is the property of John Redrup, one of the original builders of the terminus version of London Road. About half the stock that currently appears on London Road belongs to him. So I don't have the Jubilee in my possession at present and don't know how the person that built it arranged the chassis. Quite simply, it would get wheelspin on other than very light loads, which would normally indicate lack of weight, although it seems reasonably heavy. The 4-6-0 and 2-2-2-0 locos by the same builder performed quite satisfactorily. What is the current best practice for P4? That'll depend on who you ask. CSB's have their advocates, some prefer "wire" springing, while others stick with compensation. I tend to do the latter, because I find it works for me and is usually simpler to do on the locos I build.

Sandy, regrettably, your comment gave the impression that London Road's operators aren't up to the task. However, as you weren't at Bracknell (ExpopEM hasn't been held at Bletchley for a long time) I don't intend to debate it further. PS - I don't understand about Polybears's post. As it appears to be from someone else (Brian) I'll reply to it separately.

Sandy, thank you. Several of the operating team have asked to be introduced when we next see you at a show. Thanks Steve, the stock attracted a lot of interest and positive comments. The Edwardian figures did too, several people enquiring about their genealogy. The only loco we had haulage problems with was a Jubilee 4-4-0 four cylinder compound. This seemed to have adhesion problems and suffered severe slippage on occasion. This was built for John Redrup by a well known LNWR OO modeller. While the body and tender are very nice, having now seen another model he has built, we are now of the view that he hasn't fully grasped the best way to compensate/spring P4 locos.

I too had a look at those. 17 mm diameter by 26 mm, so a good size for larger locos, but unfortunately no end fixing screw holes as far as I can see. The sellers shop has a large selection of motors, but very little that seem to get near the size/voltage requirements that we have. A quick look at Peter's Spares shows a number of Hornby motors, but at prices well above what we have been paying for Mashima. No size/fixing details given as they are quoted as replacements for specific Hornby locos.

The only way to find that out would be to ask them, but would they be willing to share that information? It may be that they commission specific motors from an established manufacturer, rather than buying off the shelf.