t-b-g

Sadly, the WTT for the GCR Buckingham branch has not survived. Or maybe it never existed! I have established, by reading articles, that the empty wagons are stored overnight in the sidings at Grandborough. They work empty to Buckingham, where it is always market day. They are loaded and then worked back to GJ, where wagons for Grandborough and Leighton Buzzard are detached. The Leighton Buzzard traffic is attached to a passenger service so fitted wagons are used for that portion. The rest goes off to other destinations. The process is reversed later in the day. There are other cattle wagons which form part of the regular goods services. What puzzles me is that both the full and empty trains run as the same class, with the same headlamps and bell codes. Is that how it should be? The cattle for Grandborough could be attached to a local goods but as the cattle train leaves quite a while before the next goods, it seems unlikely that the loaded cattle wagons would be held back.

I have often puzzled about the wording of some of the descriptions. Does express freight, fish, meat, fruit or cattle train mean that they would all have to be express, or is "express freight" one type of train and "cattle" another? Or does it have to be an "express cattle"? I have a reason for asking. There is a cattle train on Buckingham, which is partly fitted (at least one third of the wagons fitted) which runs to Grandborough Junction, adds more wagons and goes to Buckingham. On the way back, it detaches wagons at Grandborough. On the Buckingham timetable it runs as a class 9 under three bells as a "pick up goods" but I really don't know if it should be a different class of train. So is the train class based on the make up and load of the train (presumably a loaded cattle train would be higher priority than a general goods) or is it based on how often it stops to shunt along the line, which impacts line occupancy and overall journey times. Could the train still be an "express cattle" even though it stops to detach wagons at Grandborough, as it is at least one third fitted? I attach Peter Denny's own hand written notes on GCR bell codes and train classes, which list his sources for information.

In my view, the RTR firms are just looking to find something they can add to their locos to make them "better" than previous ones, or those produced by others. Once you have reached a certain level of detail and performance, things like working lights, moving bits, opening smokebox doors and such gimmicks are more about giving their products something they can shout about in their sales pitches rather than meeting any actual needs. There seems to be an attempt to cater for two quite different markets. "Proper" modellers want an accurate, well detailed replica. If there are some fancy gadgets on it, then sales in the "train set" market might get a boost. I would beg to differ about the lamps being fixed and not removable. I bet I could get them off!

The work you are doing on this lovely layout is really paying off. Having seen what you have been getting up to at Missenden, then seeing the photos of the layout at the show, perhaps the biggest compliment I can pay is to say that what you have been doing, which is really quite extensive, just doesn't show at all. It blends in with the original work on the layout seamlessly. Tony Gee

I do a little bit of work in 2mm and fully appreciate the advantages. If you are familiar with Laurie Adams and his Yeovil Town layout, I do a bit to help him out, including this Dean Goods and SR U Class. I enjoy working in 2mm but I would have to start from a standing start on a project with a huge amount of scratchbuilding and I have enough on my plate with my EM and O gauge projects!

Lovely!

I agree. My work has been mostly in EM for over 40 years. If you are building your own models, putting the frames further apart and fitting finer wheels is a nice advantage. If you have to make most things for yourself, doing them to a finer standard is usually of no greater difficulty and can sometimes be easier.

If you like building models, the lack of RTR for your chosen period is an advantage, rather than a problem. I see little point in building models of locos that are covered, often very well indeed, by RTR manufacturers. So choosing a date that isn't well covered by the RTR firms is a good way to go as far as I am concerned.

I was faced with a similar problem when I built some 4 wheelers a while ago. I was told that it might be possible to get some correct pattern buffers from Danny Pinnock (D & S) who can still sometimes supply 4mm bits and kits. I ended up using the generic "early long" buffers from Alan Gibson, as they were to be sprung and the D & S ones are solid castings. They are the right length and general shape. I attach a photo showing what they look like on a carriage.

I did read once that when we chastise the Americans for dropping the "u" from so many words that it is they who have just kept the original spelling and us that added the "u" later. If I can pick up an old book to do some research and it has the possessive it's, isn't that still current? I am posting this waiting for my soldering iron to change temperature to do some low melt soldering, so modelling is happening! Cheers and hopefully see you soon, although you will be very much missed at Missenden. Best wishes Tony

Wrong Ian. The apostrophe was used up to 16th and 17th centuries but fell out of use round about then. According to Merrian Webster anyway.

So if you are writing about a station and its forecourt, it's the station's forecourt but if you are writing about the same station forecourt and referring to it as its forecourt, it doesn't have an apostrophe. It has never seemed to me to be very consistent and I can understand why people get it wrong sometimes.

Absolutely. This expands on what I was saying about it being down very much to the people running the layout. Some people just want to show off their layout at shows but have no real feel for operating. Others will really put on a show and try to make it as interesting as possible for the viewer.

The exhibition layout of Grantham has plenty of loco changes and other more interesting operations going on. Not on an exhibition layout but I have just finished a most enjoyable morning running session on Buckingham including the working of a slip coach at Grandborough Junction. Another very common thing rarely modelled is a small through station, not necessarily a junction station, where passenger trains terminate. Again, there is plenty of that at Grandborough Junction and the running round, shunting the stock to another platform, with perhaps the loco going shed for coal and/or water just makes it really good fun to operate and to watch. Even detaching a horse box or a van from a passenger train and shunting it to a loading dock adds a great deal of operational interest. Part of the problem is that the exhibition layout and the layout that is interesting to operate are seen by some as two very different types of layout. So you get the "People just want to see lots of trains running and stopping and doing something with them slows it down" attitude. To me, the best exhibition layouts, when the operators are keen, enthusiastic and want to put on a good show, manage both aspects.

I knew Pete Wright, a fine modeller (I particularly recall his lovely work in 2mm finescale) and a former employee in the Plant works at Doncaster. He would almost certainly have been writing from personal experience of seeing these made. I mention this just in case anybody wants to suggest that he might be not writing with good authority.

It would be cheaper to bring a redundant signal box from elsewhere for re-use than it would be to build a complete new structure. There have been plenty of examples, especially on preserved railways, of boxes being removed and re-erected but it happened "back in the day" too. If a station or junction was redesigned and resignalled and the original box was now no longer needed, too small or not suitable for the revised layout (but was still in good condition) it would be removed for other purposes. This could be either the complete box if it was timber or just the top half if that was timber and the lower portion was brick or stone. It happened with signals too. On the GNR main line at Retford, there was a GCR signal near the goods shed. So seeing a signal box somewhere it doesn't really belong is quite appropriate as long as you have a good "back story" to justify it.

I would hazard a guess that the humble 16t mineral wagon kit may have been the single Airfix kit built in multiples by a good number of railway modellers. I am another modeller who learned to put kits together from the 2s range. Saturday involved a trip to the model shop (Nobbs at Lincoln is one that immediately comes to mind) and a kit was purchased. Pocket money was also 2s so it worked out nicely. The trip to Lincoln invariably included an hour or two on the station (Central rather than St Marks). Sunday activity included an afternoon at the dining room table with dad building whatever kit it was. We had aircraft, tanks, ships and railway items. Birthdays and Christmas would always involve a more complicated and expensive kit. We built around 20 16t minerals and we even painted a few brown to represent fitted ones.

Those two sites you link to cover the main types pretty well. You have the earlier type of MS&LR box, with the hipped roof and beading over the joints in the planks. They were mostly all timber but I may have seen a photo of an odd brick based one. Then you have the later MS&LR/GCR types from 1880 onwards, which were a mix of timber bases or wooden. There were different ones on some absorbed or joint lines like the LD&ECR, which had ones very similar to GNR pattern boxes. You need to decide which part of the country your model line is set in and when it was built. For example on the London Extension, I am not aware of any of the MS&LR types. Edit to add I am now! The one illustrated below must have been moved from elsewhere. If you are modelling the original line from Manchester to the east coast you could have either depending on your period, as boxes were renewed or added in the later style after the new type was adopted. So you have three main types. Hipped roof and vertical beaded planking up to 1880. Gable roof and vertical planking from 1880 to 1887 and gable roof and horizontal planking from 1887 onwards.

That'll do Bear, that'll do. To be spoken in best northern "Babe the sheep pig" voice!

I would agree that these sorts of models are ideal for learning new techniques and developing the skills in using tools, either for carrying out basic tasks or for painting and weathering. You are quite right, this sort of modelling was cutting edge in the 1970s. I like to think that the modelling world, from kits to RTR, has moved on a bit since then but it is rather heart warming that you are trying to keep these old relics relevant in the modern world. There are one or two RTR bodies (possibly "Playcraft") with new underframes on Buckingham but I wouldn't ever try to pass them off as scale models nowadays.

Absolutely agree with you Tony. Like all of us, I started as a complete novice and took the time and trouble to develop whatever skills I have over 50 years (and I am still learning now). I accept that not everybody wants to go down the same route as me but that doesn't stop me wanting to put it forward as a possibility in the hope that some might try it and actually get to like it. I am sure there will still be many who will see a Triang wagon from the 1960s as more than adequate for them. I am sure you will produce an interesting series of articles. I hope that you will cover the joys of making things from a few cheap raw materials as part of it. I don't have 1% of your experience in writing articles for magazines but when I read about what you are doing for the magazine, the thought passed very quickly through my brain that if anybody ever asked me to write an article that isn't about how I actually carry out my modelling, I would really struggle. I will bore people silly all day long if they want to discuss how I build things but I wouldn't be too interested in writing articles teaching them how I don't.

I would find it very odd writing a series of articles on "How I don't model". Do as I say, not as I do!

I am not sure that my interest in obscure periods of history and railways counts as a fetish and I am not sure that there are shows that cater for my tastes! I knew what was at Wakefield before I went and I still went and enjoyed my visit. As I said, commenting about there not being much there that matches my interests says more about me than it does about the show, which I described as being good quality and worth supporting.

It is interesting just how much second hand "tat" there is knocking about. Most shows have a few stands selling it, often at prices that no discerning modeller would pay for such poor models. Perhaps they hope to catch the family market, where the discernment level is just not there. It is also interesting how different modellers approach the hobby from a "low budget" angle. For me, tarting up a poor quality old RTR model isn't a route I have ever considered. For many years, my spending on railways had to be very restricted but it didn't stop me enjoying the hobby. I have seen people posting on here about packing in the hobby because of the high cost of RTR items and it always makes me smile. I just started less ambitious projects that allowed me to build more for myself. A sheet of 40 thou plastic will make quite a few 7 plank coal wagons and if you are half decent, they will be better than the poor RTR offerings from decades ago. I bought a few components like wheels, axleboxes, buffers and etched W irons, so the total cost of each wagon was probably more than the cheapest "tat" secondhand RTR but I wasn't trying to stock a huge layout so the overall outlay was reasonable. You can get etched brake gear fairly cheaply and easily too and sometimes I used etches, sometimes I made my own. I taught myself how to scratchbuild locos, carriages and wagons and pretty much anything else I needed. I wonder how many people there are in the hobby adopting that approach on expenditure grounds today? Not many would be my guess but it is certainly another way to enjoy the hobby with limited finances. Nowadays I could afford to buy things if I wanted to but I still choose to make them myself, either from kits or from scratch because of the satisfaction that I gain from doing things that way.

A few months ago I had a vivid and very detailed dream that I was at an exhibition running a layout based on a similar idea. There was a blue 03 shunting a blue ex LMS bogie full brake and a few 12t vans. It was based on the parcels bays at Lincoln Central but all that was modelled were the two tracks flanked by platforms, with some offices down the back and the end of the main station building across the end. There was a single point and the two tracks went down to one, which disappeared under a road bridge (moved nearer than it was in real life) onto a traverser fiddle yard. I used to trainspot there in the 70s and seeing 03021 and 03022 pottering about shunting vans was a big part of the interest in going. If you search for images looking for "Lincoln parcels bay" there are photos that show it nicely.