Combe Martin

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the wrong type for 53809 in BR days, though its possible it had a tender swop very late in its life just before it was withdrawn because photos I've seen of it at Woodhams scrap yard show a different tender, and I think it still has this one in preservation.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 !

Just to clarify, Karhedron's conclusions are correct. It was originally a diagram 0.57 built 1946 using a standard GWR underframe. At some point in its life (possibly in departmental use ?, possibly before ?, but at the moment that's unknown) it's been re-tanked with a tank (and the 4 supports ?) from a diagram 2173 ex LMS vehicle, Quote from West Somerset Railway information ..... 'Originally built for United Dairies. Has been re-tanked with tank from ex-LMS Diagram 2173 vehicle. P 1996. At Dunster'. Also given that this same underframe is used under many ex GWR and BR diagram vehicles it surely really cannot now be called a diagram 0.57 ? I would suggest this one shouldn't be used as a prototype for a new RTR model, though the underframe is OK.

W3000 is an ex Cow & Gate tanker, and is the first photo I've seen of a diagram 0.52 one.

I've just checked the list of locos repainted green in the RCTS book, and compared it to the list of Std 5's allocated to Bath. The only green loco's that were at Bath in 1960-1962 were 73031 and 73054, but 73031 was only there from 12.61 to 4.62 , whereas 73054 was there from 4.61 to 8.65 . 73054 had a BR1H tender which was identical to a BR1 but fitted with a fall plate and gangway doors. I've dug mine out (it was packed away mid moving home and building a new layout) and looked at what I'd done to it. It was originally 73014 so had a BR1 tender (no fall plate or gangway doors) and had (what I'd call) a cab back plate plus rear full height vertical handrail. I removed these and fitted the gangway doors (I think I took them off a Std 4 2-6-0) but hadn't got round to making and fitting a fall plate. You said yours had a BR1A tender but the book dosn't show any of those being fitted to the Std 5s, but I think it looks identical to a BR1. It just has a higher water capacity . There is a very good 'sideways on' colour photo of 73054 at Swindon on page 132 of the RTCS book. It also shows the running plate only has lining at the lower edge. I scraped the top lining off mine. If you need any more info just let me know. Peter.

I don't have any experience of Farish models . What's it numbered as at the moment ?

I've just spotted you said yours has a BR1A tender. As I recall isn't that the one that's just fitted to 73050-52 . I don't know what the visible differences are between that and what's fitted to 73054, so it might not be correct.

You'll need to check the tender type and cab 'entrance area' (handrails etc, there are differences) is correct. I cant remember which Bachmann loco I renumbered now, I've still got its box, but the book showed 73054 was in the correct batch.

This book is very good, it has all the details of everything that happened with the std 5's and 4's in their whole lifetime. I bought it because the S&D used loads of them, and I knew I'd have to renumber several Bachmann ones.

I've got the book (is it the RCTS book, I cant remember) about the standard 5's and 4's and it includes details of the repainting, but I'm on holiday in Sunderland at the moment so havnt got access to it. I'll be back Monday evening so can look it up after that if you still need to know. In OO gauge few years back I renumbered a Bachmann green one (cant remember which one now but I checked carefully it was the correct version) as 73054 for a 60's loco.

These are 2000 gallon tankers.

It's just a guess, but does the filler at one end go with a sloping tank for emptying ?

Thanks for this one. I hadn't picked up before that one of the other GWR/BR and LMS differences was 6 saddles for the GWR and 4 for the LMS. From the post by hmrspaul it seems its diagram 0.57 3018 and it had been re-tanked with an ex-LMS one so that's where the 4 supports have come from.

It's an early (no roller bearings) BR or GWR underframe (brake lever on the right hand side and with small same size dampers on all 3 wheel sets. I'm on holiday at the moment so havn't got my picture books and notes with me so cant have a guess at the diagram no. The running number looks like 30?5 ? As we've said before, preservation era tanker pictures sometimes tell lies, but when I get home I'll see if it ties up with anything I've got. From it's paint scheme, its had some 'other' use by BR after it was no longer needed for milk.