Combe Martin

Many thanks for that, so I presume no one else does what I would call a conventional 'old type' point motor which from your description sounds like a slightly more modern version of the old H & M point motor. I just happen to have one of these which I bought 2nd hand at an exhibition. It looks new unused, unlike many. It has a right angled crank but also has an extension piece to the crank pivot so it can be mounted under the baseboard with just the extension piece poking through. This has a small hole drilled though it at the top with a long piece of stiff but sprung wire passed through it that you aim at the point's tie bar. The sprung wire has a right angled bend at the end that you poke through the hole in the tie bar from the top side. The advantage of this is that the motor can be mounted underneath and up to 2.5 inches away from the point's tie bar. I used this on my old layout where I had 3 points parallel and adjacent to each other (at the entrance to the fiddle yard) with no room for a motor under the middle one. I seem to remember seeing this setup on exhibition layouts years ago before Peco bought out their Streamline range.

I'm building a new layout and have laid the fiddle yard on one side of the room using Peco code 100 salvaged from my old layout (no problem there). Now I've come to laying the station and yard on the other side of the room using Peco code 75 Bullhead track and points. In the past (on my old Code 100 layout ) I had no problem mounting Peco point motors underneath the baseboard, and in the few places where the point tie bar was directly above a piece of wood framing that supported the baseboard top (meaning I couldn't drill a hole in the baseboard for the points operating pin that slots into the hole in the tie bar) I managed to mount the point motor on the baseboard top to the side of the point (using one of those adapter plates) and even where there was another piece of track parallel to where the point was and so was in the way, I used one of those extention pieces to connect the adapter plate to the point running it under the adjacent track to the point motor (which was a couple of inches away. I then disguised the visible point motor with a building or piece of scenery. I hope this is understandable. Now I'm laying Peco's Bullhead points I've run into a problem. Typically with a load of them (not just the odd one) where they are sited the point's tie bar is right over a piece of baseboard framing so I couldn't drill the access hole for the point motors pin when I was laying and fixing down the point. No problem I thought, I'll just put the point motor on the surface to the side of the point and disguise it as I did with my previous layout. Now comes the problem, Peco's Bullhead points don't have the little plastic pin at the edges of the tie bar that is for fixing to the point motor adapter base (or the extention piece used for mounting the point further away), they have a LITTLE HOLE ! It looks as though the point only supports mounting the point motor directly underneath the centre of the tie bar's hole. Now Ok, I could lift a load of the track and move the position of the point away from the supporting framing but I don't want to do this because I've just spent ages laying it (and bullhead track is a lot more delicate and fiddly to lay than good old indestructable Streamline code 100 ! The other thing is I'm building a model of a real location and I spent ages working out where exactly to put the points, also bearing in mind that even though I've now got a bigger railway room (I moved house to get this) I've still had to condense it all (just not as much as before). Now I've searched everywhere for what Peco's intention is regarding somehow connecting their point motors (both types), traditional PL-10 solenoid type and the newer slimline low level point motor, and I cant find anything (and Peco are on holiday at the moment !) I dont want to enlarge the little hole, the tie bar is a bit narrow at the ends. The only solution I've thought of so far is to put a Hornby track nail through the little hole from the underside, it's a loose but snuggish fit, fix it with a bit of Araldite and snip off the top. Then take an adapter base extention piece, cut off the hole at the end (the hole is too big, its meant to fit the plastic pin on a Streamline tie bar) and drill a small narrower hole that will be a tight fit over the Hornby track nail. Has anyone else encountered and solved this problem, Bullhead points have been around for a few years now !

Not in the 50's, but there is a report of the rebuilt West Country 'Dorchester' in the early 60's going though Bailey Gate at at least 85 MPH being driven by a certain Mr Smith. Something to do with Mr Beale being right up his backside with the southbound Pines ! Since reading the above quote, I recall reading somewhere else that it was more like 95 !, but where I got that from escapes me at the moment.

Many thanks for that.

Does anyone know what Diagram no. the Ks plastic 6 wheel Siphon kit is. I've got one, packed away somewhere, built up, but it needs some attention in the 'running dept' and finishing off !

Yes, it looks like an ex Express Dairy tank (rap round straps) on an ex LMS underframe (4 tank supports) with lots of extra piping bits. I wonder where the prototype was.

The Std class 5 wasn't produced with a split chassis, that was the Std class 4 before it was replaced with a 'conventional' chassis. Also the Std class 5 has the gear drive on the centre axle but the problem is said to be the leading driving wheel axle so it's not a gear problem.

Have you checked the wheel quartering ?

The Bluebell Railway has 3 stations that will have a 'Gents', it's a couple of years since I've been down there, I would guess that they were built by the LBSCR but don't now know what sort they all are, but maybe worth checking them. Do you mean inside or outside ?

In the 50's the Pines restaurant car was a Stanier 12 wheel coach though not unfortunately the RTR model currently available from Hornby (the ex Airfix/Dapol model). I don't know which diagram it was but someone more expert than me on here will know. I do believe there are Comet sides for it. Photos in Ivo Peters and Norman Lockett books show it being the 4th vehicle on the down Pines. Photos show it was still a Stanier 12 wheeler in mid 1961 though my understanding is that it changed to a BR Mk1 around this time. I've no info about the open (diner ?) attached to it. I'm not expert on Stanier coaches and most Pines photos concentrate on the loco so because of the photo angle it can be difficult to recognise the coach types being used. When I have been able to do so they don't tie up with the CWN. The Pines was the only service over the S&D which conveyed a restaurant car though I don't know about the 'Pines relief'. Gresley restaurant cars were never used on the Pines because (my understanding is) it didn't originate on the former LNER which had electric charging points for re-charging and most Gresley restaurant cars had electric cooking. There were a few (3 I think) Anthracite Gresley restaurant cars plus a few gas powered for those restaurant services that started on the ER but finished away from it.

4417 (44417 in BR days) was a left hand drive loco.

I'm thinking of motorising a RTR milk tanker so that it can shunt other milk tanks at a milk depot where they probably used what I think are called 'pinch bars' to move tankers by hand. Does anyone know of a kit (probably etched brass) that will do this.

Yes, you'r right, Bachmann's 'Armstrong' hasn't got a Fowler tender and their Johnson tender that it's supplied with is the wrong type and no-one does the correct RTR one. What I was getting at is that all the Armstrongs eventually acquired a Fowler tender, but the Bachmann model with the Fowler tender also has the wrong type for an Armstrong but which could be converted using the Brassmasters Etch, and then re-numbering. As far as I know, Bachmann havn't produced a 4F with Fowler tender and numbered as an Armstrong. One other point Bachmanns 7F is the 2nd series that were built with the large boiler, but then later in their life retro fitted with the small boiler, this is how Bachmann have modelled it, so is it wrong to have it in S&DJR condition and as no. 89. No 89 received its new small boiler in 1930, but in 1930 it was renumbered as 9679. Also, photos show Bachmanns Fowler tender is the wrong type for 53809 in BR days, though its possible it had a tender swop very late in its life just before it was withdrawn because photos I've seen of it at Woodhams scrap yard show a different tender, and I think it still has this one in preservation. I cant recall what type of tender it was built with, and there is an article in one of the S&D trusts magazines, Pines Express, all about the tenders fitted to the 7Fs, but I can't find it at the moment. But I'm sure it wasn't a Fowler tender with coal doors which is what it's modelled with. ..

Its the tender front on the Bachmann 4F Fowler tender that's wrong. The've used their 'Coal Door' front tender, whereas it should be a 'Coal Hole' front tender. But Brassmasters do a 'Coal Hole' tender front etch for the Fowler tender which can be used on a number of Bachmann and Hornby Fowler tenders where its wrong for the loco you want, Eg Bachmann 7F, Hornby 4F, Hornby 2P. Not all of these are wrong, it depends on which loco you'r modelling.

Further to my post just above, I've blown up the black and white picture and studied it again with a magnifying glass too, to look at the row of tankers on the right. The 1st tanker (the half picture) looks like an ex LMS tanker (brake lever between the left side 2 wheels), but its the next 2 that interest me. The first of these is I think a Diagram O.51 GWR tanker of lot numbers 1668 or 1671. These are the only ex GWR tankers with the central side platform and with the lever brakes, and they were the first to be so fitted. All ex GWR tankers before them (including Diagram O.51 lot number 1619) had Dean/Churchward brakes. The 2nd of these tankers looks like it has Dean/Churchward brakes (I cant see the big brake lever, but I think I can see the small Dean/Churchward lever) which means its either a Diagram O.51 lot number 1619 or a diagram O.39 . These 2 diagrams were virtually the same. Re ... the tanker I think is orange, page 78 of the David Larkin book I've mentioned previously has a picture of exactly that, and at Torrington too.

The only thing I can add to these pictures is that the tankers are Unigate Creameries (no full wrap round straps) and in the black and white photo the nearest tanker is an ex GWR/BR (6 tank supports) and the next one looks like an ex LMS tanker (4 tank supports). The red tanker in the colour picture may be an orange tank which might be St Ivel.

Somewhere maybe ??, the NRM perhaps, but I'm just an amateur not an expert. Regarding measuring up a tanker at a preservation site ... The underframes are not the problem, each of the big four had their own standard design. Early GWR ones had Dean/Churchward brakes, later ones (most of those pictured) had lever brakes (by the right hand end wheel). BR built underframes were the GWR pattern with later ones having roller bearing axle boxes. The LMS changed their type of bracing sometime in the 40's. So for example if you've measured up a preserved GWR underframe with lever brakes somewhere, it'll be correct regardless of what tank top 'setup' is siting on it. It's the tank tops that are the problem. They were owned by the dairy and it seems that in their later days sometimes tanks (and their supports, ladders, side or top platforms, etc) were swopped from (for example) an LMS underframe to a GWR underframe. So, whilst the running number on the underframe is correct, its diagram number can surely no longer be correct because what is above the underframe no longer looks like what it was built with. Photographs (some on here) of preserved tankers show some that should not be used as the basis for a new model. However, from what I've seen, the current owners generally do have the history of their tanker, so 'howlers' shouldn't happen as long as they're consulted. There are also a few milk tanker experts (not me) that can be consulted. One more point regarding original drawings, my understanding is that often the real thing dos'nt tie up with them. What I know I've gleaned from the Rumney models website and it's '3000 Gallon Milk Tank Diagrams' paper which I've printed off. This plus the David Larkin book ... BR PARCELS AND PASSENGER-RATED STOCK Volume 2 which has lots of milk tanker pictures mainly from the late 60's to early 70's period but when they were still in use for milk, plus info from a few people on here that are far more expert than me.

These are clean compared with the ones I've seen on the S&D, they are 'black' by comparison !

I've not suggested a manufacturer produce an ex SR or ex LNER tanker because these 2 fleets were easily the smallest compared to the ex GWR/BR and ex LMS tanker fleets. Any manufacturer taking the plunge with an accurate milk tanker is going to want it to have the widest possible appeal. This isn't just me, others on here have also brought this up. The 2 pictures of SR 4409 are both bogus. SR 4409 was a United Dairies/Unigate tanker not Express Dairies or CO-OP. The liveries themselves are not bogus, just not on SR 4409. This seems to be a preservation era Faux Par. Also, all the pictures of Express Dairy tankers I've found (bar 1) have 4 full 'wrap round' straps holding the tank down, whereas United Dairies tankers have the half hidden/part showing hold down straps, as per the SR 4409 pictures. This is a fairly simple way of identifying which fleet a tanker belongs to, though be careful of tankers from the smaller dairies that by the late 50's had been merged into the big 2s dairy fleets.

Well I started this thread in Hornby because I thought they might be most likely to produce something 'more quickly' than someone else, and I couldn't think where else to put it, but at the same time also hoping that another manufacturer would spot it and take up the challenge as well because there are plenty of different options for manufacturers to not compete with each other (though I appreciate they have to be careful to not be accused of collusion) eg GWR/BR or LMS underframes, Unigate with no external strapping versus Express Dairy with external strapping (and that includes the smaller dairies whose fleets eventually merged with the 'big two'). So, maybe one of the others, and there are at least 4 will be interested too.

Hmmm .... sounds promising ... maybe ??? I don't suppose you made a note of their running numbers did you ?, I can check which diagram they're from if you have.

I've read through this entire thread about Dapol's signals and what strikes me most is that it seems to me to be a Dapol public relations disaster of their own making. Loads of users reporting signals that don't work, or they used to but now they don't, club layouts that had a lot (roughly 9-16?) but of those only 2 still work, lots of 'broken' signals sent back to Dapol, users ringing Dapol to complain and getting 'short shrift' from a very unsympathetic Dapol employee at the other end, Dapol continuing to insist that the power supply should be 16 volts AC, and only eventually issuing a notice to use no more than 12 volts DC, it goes on and on. Dapol's website still says the power supply should be 16 volts AC when clicking on some signals. So what is the 'state of play' with these now ? Are they now near 100 % reliable ?, has the mechanism been modified to improve their operation, some on here say they use less than 12volts DC to operate them, what is best ?, and what are users general opinion of them now ?, am I risking my money and time in using them and still maybe giving them up as a bad job ?

The Somerset & Dorset in Colour by Mike Arlett & David Lockett has on pages 94 & 95 a picture of 73054 at Evercreech Junction dated 1964 with what looks like a 'scratch' set comprising of a Brake Composite, Corridor Second, and Brake Second (reversed), all in BR (Southern) green. The Brake Composite is on Commonwealth bogies but dosn't look like it has aluminium window frames

Have you got 34043 Combe Martin ?, it wasn't there when I saw Bournemouth West at Shepton Mallet. You have to have it, judging from the Ivo Peters books it was on the Pines a lot. And I think it was on the first diverted Pines (away from the S&D) when it failed (for good) I believe. Still my favourite though, what a surprise !

I had the exact same problem, ran Norton, rebooted in case it was me, nothing worked, then after several re-connects to RMweb the problem dissappeared !