Miss Prism

Nick, when using the HL CSB jig, using the round bushes in the rigid axle holes (your 57xx_03.jpg above), did you find the round bushes needed small flats on them to fit in the jig slots or did you wipe the jig slots with a file?

Reading's moniker was "Bulbs, beer and biscuits". I think David Hyde's book has some details of the night freight nicknamed 'The Biscuit'.

I perhaps should have added that those coal trains might have been WWI 'Admiralty specials' to Dover.

In Great Western Portrait 1913-21 (a fabulous little book btw), there are two pics of coal freights to/from Guildford, both with Dean Goods engines. So I had always assumed these inter-company workings were therefore well-established.

Through/transfer freights were common, Mike. I don't know the specific workings, but they would be e.g. Banbury/Oxford/Moreton/Scours Lane to/from Guildford/Feltham etc. The usual southern engines were Q1s and S15s in later days, with the usual engine changeover place for northbound freights being Oxford. I think I've seen a pic of a 72xx coming up from the Southern, but I'm not too sure the 72xx loading gauge would have been allowed much east of Reading on the Southern. The freights were quite long, and I'm wondering if they were banked up that 1:41 gradient. (I was on the west side of Reading, so didn't get to see any of the detail on the east side.)

Here's an 1898 map of the site covering what is included in the H&P aerial pic. The GWR station depicted is at the start of the massive '4-line rebuild', and the space for the extra lines and the new station building can be seen. The SE&CR diveunder, connecting to what would become the 'goods avoiding lines' on the north side of the GWR station, is shown, as is the connection from the east end of the Kings Meadow goods yard to the H&P complex. I think the gradient on the SE&CR diveunder was quite steep, which is why many of the transfer freights were often hauled by the heavier goods engines. And is that a brand new Urie H15 sitting to the right of the SE&CR junction box?

The slow-speed DCC running being reported is commendable, but I would have thought that a more pertinent benchmark, both for DCC and DC, would have been the smoothness and consistency of the acceleration.

I think 1921 could be a distinct possibility for the date of the picture, as other aerial shots were known to have been taken over Reading in that year. If so, some the wagons will have received some '1920' lettering refurbishment, which may also have included a new wash of white for the roofs. Having said that, there is at least one Iron Mink in pre-1920 (large G W) lettering with a very white roof!<br /><br />The 5-vehicle coaching rakes on the main and slow down lines are interesting, each looking like four clerestories sandwiching a Toplight.

Despite the official caption description of 'early 1930s', this overview of the Huntley & Palmers' complex at Reading is much earlier, given the absence of post-1922 stock on the GWR mainline. The top of the picture shows the east end of Reading's low-level Kings Meadow goods yard (on the north-east side of the station). http://www.huntleyandpalmers.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=huntley&f=generic_fullsizeprint_fr.htm&_IXFIRST_=26&_IXMAXHITS_=1&m=quick_sform&tc1=i&partner=huntley&text=railway&tc2=e&s=XvOCtd87J_E

Excellent posting, Castle. Modellers often moan about what they have to do to get kits together, but it all pales into insignificance compared to what you 12":1ft bashers are faced with.

And here's the access from H&P straight into the mezzanine floor of the 'the Depot': http://www.huntleyandpalmers.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=huntley&f=generic_largerimage_postsearch.htm&_IXFIRST_=23&_IXMAXHITS_=1&m=quick_sform&tc1=i&partner=huntley&text=railway&tc2=e&s=XvOCtd87J_E

If you're taking inspiration from that amazing Huntley & Palmers' shot, Mikkel, I think you ought to be sticking to c 1908... (I doubt the trackwork would have looked like that post WWII !). Btw, I suspect the pile of boxes are empties.

What's the gear ratio in the Hornby drive bogie?

A bit like the prototype!

A double slip could provide some flexibility in shunting (vans, etc) between platforms 1 and 2? Besides which, most of the turnouts will be fitted with FPLs anyway, so a double slip adds no further hazard.

Yes, there is an etching out there, Castle. Hang on a mo. Brain-scratching time.

Hells bells, that's not what I was expecting. What do the mag reviews say about this?

In your experience, Ken, how many kit instructions advise this very sensible check?

Thanks, Ken. What made you detect it was bit unbalanced?

Could someone who's got a BIL tell me what the lateral distance is between the centres of the collector shoes.

First of all, I do understand Hornby's desire for secrecy when announcing new products. Going back a few years, they planned to do the 4-CEP, but news of this got to Bachmann via a Hornby employee (very soon thereafter, I understand, to be an ex-Hornby employee), and the ever-combative Graham Hubbard quickly re-arranged that particular bit of history, despite Bachmann development and production periods every bit as long, if not longer, than Hornby at that time. (Hubbard also upstaged Kohler over the Hall, leaving Hornby with its excellent but less popular Grange.) The upshot was that Simon Kohler, still wanting to do an 'express' EMU, did the VEP. Kohler's fixation with fanciful express stock and large locos continues unabated, hence the 5-BEL. It was the wrong move in my opinion. The smart move, even then, would have been to have gone for the 2-BIL straight away (it consistently rated highly in the polls). Had that happened, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now, and we would have had a 2-BIL at a higher spec, and probably cheaper too. In that light, the 2-BIL has not been rushed out too quickly, because it was already five years too late. Clearly, the 2-BIL had been in development for some considerable time before its public announcement in December 2012. The downside of Hornby's secrecy is that they seem happy not to consult anyone, and obvious and elementary mistakes can slip through. Chief amongst these is that Hornby assumed the prototype had two drive bogies. If they'd only asked...

Keith - 855 was one of a largish lot built by GloucesterRCW, so construction was probably spread over quite some time. Looks like early examples of Hornby's C82 3rd would therefore have properly been outshopped in GWR livery.

Quite correct, Keith, but I suppose the point is in the starting context of this thread is that none of the Hornby diagrams fall into the 'strictly GWR' category.

Someone on MREMag wanted clarification on the BRM review referring to 'incorrect dimensions of the outer bogie of the trailer car' (I don't know what the exact words of the review were, perhaps someone could clarify), and Kohler responded merely that the official drawings "show 8'9" wheelbase for the motor bogies", i.e. he avoided the issue of the different frame shapes, presumably on the basis that Hornby think the prototype has two drive bogies...