Combe Martin

Many thanks for that, it works ! Is there anything that tells me what the differences are ?

'Reply quoting this post' dosn't work if you'r using Windows 8 with its version of Internet Explorer.

Referring to post 357 from deadlyduck, you are wrong in suggesting the 611 hasn't been tested. It has, but having worked in the computer software business all my life, and despite very exhaustive testing, you'll always find that the punters will find bugs that the testing didn't throw up. The 611 has been designed so that software upgrades are easy to install, but as far as a manual is concerned I think in most cases it will work just as per a 511 and therefore if you were a 511 user you'd have a 511 manual. Yes, the 611 has new features but these are mostly automatic or logical extentions of existing features. Ok, it would have been ideal if a new manual was ready when the 611 was available for release, but I bet most of the early 611 buyers would be existing 511 users or upgraders so would know what they are doing. As a 511 owner yourself, (and ignoring the odd software bug) you should know what existing ZTC users like about the 511/611, the control desk layout and feel of the controls is an advantage it has over all the other systems. It's historical falling behind with DCC features (like up to 28 functions, momentary or latching, and this wasn't a problem for all users) has been addressed in the 611. The 611 has a completely new and redesigned mother board using more modern electronic components and memory chips, so isn't inhibited by the problem the 511 gradually got into, ie a lack of memory, which is what made fixing some bugs difficult. It has therefore had to have its software completely re-written using a more modern programing language, as no-one knew the old language any more. This has obviously cost the new owners a fortune, so I can well understand it being released before the manual to people that know the 511, to start re-couping some of that investment. Ok, not ideal but understandable.

Yes, except that 43875 was withdrawn in 1956 and your modelling 1960-1962 !

Mine became 73047.

You'll have to pretend it was preserved !

I'm working from the RCTS book 'A detailed history of BRITISH RAILWAYS STANDARD STEAM LOCOMOTIVES Volume Two: The 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 Classes' one of a series of books by the RCTS about the Standards. It's about 3/4 of an inch thick and is very detailed. The above in post 11 is certainly correct, but for clarification, there were only 3 body styles of tender attached to the Standard 5s. BR1+BR1G+BR1H, BR1B+BR1C, and BR1F. Certainly BR1G and BR1H looked like a BR1 although BR1G had a higher water capacity with the same coal capacity, so where they put the extra I don't know ! The other differences were the addition of fall plate and cab side doors. What bike2steam says above is correct in that there would have been tender swops at a shed, but it's most likely to have been with the same type of tender. Certainly I would have thought that 73000-49 could only be fitted with another BR1 tender, and a BR1 tender could only be fitted to 73000-49. Unless of course it was done at the works and they made cab back/handrail/tender draught screen/fall plate/door modifications at the same time.

To do any of 73050-52 (BR1G) or 73053-64 (BR1H) you'll also have to modify the cab and it's entrance in the same way as for changing the tender (as I've said in post 6). Also you'll need to fit the tender doors too, and fall plate (if you want to). This is what I've done to create 73054. 73050 was transferred away from the S&D in march 1964.

I've access to my Standards book now. You can't renumber 73030 to a named loco without changing the tender. Only 73080-89 (BR1B) and 73110-19 (BR1F) carried names. If you change the tender you also need to modify the loco cab entrance too by removing the 'cab back' (whatever its called) and 2nd vertical handrail. All the tenders not attached to 73000-49 had fall plates and doors attached to the tender. Although these are referred to as gangway doors (to me gangway suggests something to do with corridor connections) I think a better description is cabside entrance doors. So if you want to renumber 73030 without modifying the loco cab keep it within the 73000-49 range, but beware of those being repainted green !, .ie 73001,3,12,14,15,18,21,23,24,26,27,29,31,32,34-37,40 and 49.

Lots of 4Fs had their Johnson/Deely tenders replaced with Fowler tenders. On the S&D in particular the 'Armstrongs' received ones with coal hole fronts rather than coal door fronts, which means Bachmann's 4F can't be renumbered accurately as an Armstrong.

I suspect you can only renumber it within the 73000-49 range (mines become the S&D's 73047), but I'm away from home at the moment so cant get to my book on the Standard 4-6-0s. Although they are different tenders, those attached to 73050-52 and 73053-'I can't remember' ... also look the same (except for they may have tender doors and something else) (but different BR number designation) and are different water capacity ??, so the size and shape of the coal space may be different. Another thing to watch for is that some were repainted green, eg 73014, 73049, 73054, one of 73050-52, and probably more. Again it's all in the book on the Standards which is a mine of information. If your swopping tenders, another thing to watch is the cab entrance. Some locos had the extra vertical hand rail, some some weather sheeting, some a tender fall plate, some a 'sort of' 'cab back'. Basically the locos cab features go with the type of tender attached. Have a look at the photos. I've converted Bachmann's green 73014 to the S&D's 73054 by removing the 'cab back' and vertical handrail and adding the tender doors.

It might have been 'off Braunton' but it wasn't Braunton's tender. It was borrowed from another Merchant Navy while Braunton's correct new 'rebodied' tender was being built, can't remember which one.

There is perhaps one other explanation. We know that Hornby have been working on their MN for some while from what they have shown plus Graham Muz telling us that he has been helping with it. 'Late in the day' someone normally 'in the know' suddenly tells Hornby that he's heard Bachmann are working on a Southern tender loco and it's not a small one. The obvious assumption because Bachmann have the N gauge MN is they're doing an 00 one. What do Hornby do ?, what would you do ?. Say nothing, and when Hornby's MN comes out in a years time you'r accused of hurredly producing and rushing out a brand new model to spite and beat Bachmann to all the sales (when their's is still 2 years away) and taking advantage of them when they're 'down' and Kader are disorganised. Or do you keep quiet for a couple of weeks till the froth over Bachmann's announcement has died down and then say 'Oh by the way we're also doing one', and then still get accused of jumping on the band waggon because 'we can beat them to it now, we're organised again and theirs is 3 years away'. Or do you announce yours first to give them the chance of withdrawing (afterall neither side wants another duplicate loco) and Bachmann probably havn't got too far with theirs. OK, so we know now that Bachmann weren't working on one, hindsight is a wonderful thing and (it's not in the catalogue) they've said they're not even considering one, but they have just withdrawn from producing an S15. Now I wonder if that's the Southern tender loco that the source 'in the know' had heard about ?, but they're Chinese and not 'au fait' with Southern locos.

I'll agree with that one !, I've been asking for 34103 Calstock for ages !, and good for S&D modellers too.

Referring to post 301 above, it's an S15 and J50 that have been withdrawn. Just read the announcement fully.

Further to my post no 52 above, the picture of the 2P is on page 134 of Alan Hammond's Legends of the Somerset & Dorset Railway. The loco's number is obscured and it's hauling a single ex-SR bogie van (latest Hornby model) on the (suggested) 17.10 from Highbridge. The picture of 34092 is on page 75 of Alan Hammond's Splendour of the Somerset & Dorset Railway. It was taken on 25.11.49 at Wells Priory Road.

Re post 51 above. I agree that there's not much evidence of Bullieds or 2Ps on the branch, but I have seen one branch picture of a 2P hauling a single 'milk van' on the afternoon 'perishables' service I think, in BR days. When I find it again, I'll post more details. And whilst not a revenue service, the Bullied pacific 34092 'City of Wells' was named 'Wells' at Wells station. Again I've seen a photo. So it got there somehow ! (Or was it at the GWR station ?, surely not !)

That's one type of brake van I've never seen evidence of on the S&D.

The ex Southern Railway brake van as now made by Bachmann was also used on the S&D in BR days. However beware, Bachmann's grey model has left hand guards duckets, whereas all the photos I've found show the grey brake vans were right hand ducket versions. Bachmann's right hand ducket bauxite brake van is also correct for the S&D, though I have only found one photo of them in use there.

Does anyone know if the new Hornby Ex LMS suburban coaches are of a type that were used on the S&D (mostly Highbridge services) in BR days ?

Refering to the above few posts about duplicate exhibition layout names, I once saw at the big Brighton show a few years ago, 2 N gauge layouts of Midford on the Somerset & Dorset line. And they were next to each other too !

So that's easily solved then !

Re posts 264 and 271 and the references to 'Block Control and Feedback' does the ZTC335 not do this ?. If not what's missing ?. I'm not starting an argument, just asking !

And ... as far as displaying the status of F9 to F28 goes, what do other systems with small screens (eg NCE Powercab, Gaugemaster, Digitrax, Lenz) do ?

I've always had the impression that the case that is returned will be the original (ie grey or black) but with a ZTC 611 sticker/plate stuck over 505/511. So it will therefore be possible to differentiate a new 611 from an upgraded one.