Keith Turbutt

Richard Bring them along tomorrow and we'll take a look. I presume your reference to height is in connection with the clamps. I don't think they will bruise the metal as they will only be pressing down on the former which is presumably the correct shape already. Height shouldn't be a problem for rolling the side edges and you shouldn't need the clamps for rolling the main part of the roof. Cutting to length might be done before rolling? Keith

Richard, If you have some small G clamps, clamp the brass onto the wood at each end. Then on a dense rubber mat or similar roll each side on the matt in the same way as you might make any bend in brass. I don't think double sided tape would work and sounds a bit messy and may distort the brass when you try to remove it. This should sort out the sides . Then remove the clamps and use a round bit of pipe/broom handle of suitable diameter to gently shape the top of the roof on the mat. Cheers Keith PS I have some small clamps but Jim may have some better ones.

Yes, I think we are getting confused because the information gathered is from different dates. I agree the drawing appears to be later ie not 'as built' and the corridor connection may well have been added later. The heading on the drawing 'built by Cravens 1899' may have merely been a way of describing the coach - not necessarily showing it 'as built'. Does the handwritten crossing say 'condemned vans 1935' ? You say above 'Also that end of the first train leaving marylebone is not the right type of carriage. It is close but the three not two compartment version'. As you are building this dining set, does that mean you don't have the correct brake end for this dining set? I think you have now worked out all the possible options and you now have to go with your gut feeling based on the period you want to model these coaches. Finally, Jim said 'Hopefully the weather will let us get together next week.' I know you said you will be on holiday anyway, but the 10 day forecast for HP shows rain 'all day' Monday! Not sure if these comments are of any help but it's certainly fun. Cheers Keith

Hi Richard, That second photo is a great find, where did you get it. It seems to be some sort of event judging by all those top hats and everyone gathered round, It looks like Marylebone? Is that the 3 coach clerestory dining set you are building? Coming back to the brake ends, there is certainly no corridor connection at the flat brake end. By zooming in you can just make out the footsteps coming up from both sides forming a triangular arrangement with one step at the top in the centre - no room for a corridor connection. Could this mean all brake ends were without corridor connections? As we said before 'bow ends' helped to keep the corridor connections closer together, so why would they put a flat end on a brake if it had a corridor connection? Did brake ends with large duckets have flat ends and no corridor while brakes with small duckets (more modern?) have bow ends with corridor connections. It gets curiouser and curiouser! I expect Jim is following this and it would be interesting to have his views. Cheers Keith

Richard, Further to our discussions about windows in the ends of the brakes, in a conversation with Jim this morning he said that the Midland often had curving handrails for access to the roof over rear windows in the brakes , so it is quite possible that this was the case in the photos you showed me yesterday. Looking at the drawings in Historic Carriage Drawings, LMS and Constituents by David Jenkinson there are several examples of this. Yesterday I was concerned about the placing of the footsteps with these handrails where there was a window but the drawings clearly show that there is room for footsteps when there is a rear window. In conclusion, if I were you, I would put windows in the ends of the brakes where there is a suggestion of this in the photo as this seems to have been GC policy. Cheers Keith

Yes Clive, As Richard has already said, we are holding our meetings in the garden in the open but running trains which can be viewed with the double doors open at the back of the garage. This works ok while the weather permits. We're looking forward to seeing what Richard is going to bring next week. Hope you can join us sometime. You will recognize the faces in the picture below which was taken the previous week before the schools broke up so Richard wasn't there. Cheers Keith

..... and here's a few photos

Hi Richard, Great to see you yesterday and to see what you've achieved. I've made this short video on Youtube - a first for me!! It's taken me all morning so I hope it's worth it. Cheers Keith

Yes, all of those please! Keith

Hi Leander, Thanks for the update on Scotland Street. Good to know it's still going. Thanks for the photo, just as I remembered it although It looks like it's been updated it to the 'blue period'. How many finished former exhibition layouts have had such a long life? Keith

Richard, I look forward to seeing (some/most of?) them running here next Monday afternoon - and the Barnums. Bring suitable locos too. Keith

Hi Tony, Apologies if Scotland Street wasn't one of yours or WMRC's. It was certainly a long while ago - probably in late 70s or 80s. Anyway, here is a plan taken from Disused Railway Stations - hope I'm not infringing copyright. It would still make a good subject today. Plenty of shunting opportunities while trains run by on mainline.

One example of main line trains on a short exhibition layout, although not ECML, is (was?) Sydney Gardens, a prototype location on the approaches to Bath. The baseboards were set quite high for eye level viewing of the trains passing by. Another short layout that comes to mind Tony is Scotland Street. I think this was a Wolverhampton club layout (?) where the goods yard was at the front and the running lines at the back. How long ago was that? Keith

Hi again, There is a photo of 61756 in July 1962 at Doncaster, after withdrawal, on Rail-Online https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p454466722 The loco looks complete without the extra pipes that stationary boilers usually have. The shed plate could be 34A - it doesn't look like 40E. If the loco did any work before becoming a stationary boiler this may be recorded in the RCTS Railway Observer as I should have thought it would have been an unusual event worthy of reporting. Maybe somebody with copies of this period could check.

Hi, The Motive Power Miscellany/Eastern Region/GN Line section of Trains Illustrated April 1961 notes 61756 on Kings X shed on 5th February. At the end of the same section of TI in August 1962 it is noted that the last K2 61756 has ended its career as a stationary boiler at Kings Cross shed.

Hi Richard, The Barnums look great and well worth all the effort that you have put in over he months. I look forward to seeing them run round the track on a Monday night, whenever that might be - complete with bogies. Well done! How about one of these to haul the train? (see below-copied from Tony's blog - hope he doesn't mind!) Cheers Keith

Yes, Clive. Unfortunately we're in unprecedented times. It was only with great reluctance that it was decided to cancel Monday night. As Jim said, RichadH had stopped going to the Belfast for that volunteering role. This was because his wife, Pat has Asthma and he didn't want to put her at risk. On the positive side we at least have a hobby to occupy us while this is going on. Cheers Keith PS Apologies to RicharI for high jacking his blog.

Hi Tony, Thought I would join in on this thread. The RCTS 'Green Bible' Vol 3C deals with the D16s. On page 32 it mentions that the D16/2 rebuilds to D16/3 retained their decorative valences. Apparently this was because there were no modifications to the footplating and distinguished them from the earlier D15 rebuilds to D16/3 which had this valancing removed. The exception, and there is always one (!), was Royal Claud 8783 which lost its decorative valancing following repairs due to an accident. 36 D16/2s were dealt with in this way. Pages 53 - 55 summarise the D14, D15 & D16 Classes and indicates those D16/3s that retained the decorative valancing. I have amongst my (too many) unbuilt kits a Mallard D16/3 and was wondering whether a shortcut would be to build the body and use a Hornby chassis (or is it a mechanism?) but I'm not sure it would fit. However I think I know what your answer would be! Looking forward to arranging our 'annual' visit to LB later in the year. Regards Keith

FWIW the umber shade on the Bachmann Mk1 Pullmans is far lighter than the Southern Pride ones (I completed a rake just as the Bacchy ones were announced!), so it does make you wonder what the right answer really is. Hi John, Quite right, the Hornby and Bachmann umbers don't match either. Very annoying as you need to use Hornby brakes with Bachmann Mk1 Pullmans unless you are running a later period when I believe standard Mk1 brakes were used. Repainting for me is not an option with all that delicate lining. One solution is to use Precision Labels overlays. They do the umber for Pullmans. You have the choice of overlays for the Bachmann Pullmans to match the Hornby umber but you can also choose overlays for the Hornby brakes to match the Bachmann. I preferred to match the Hornby umber which I think is closer to the actual colour - at least that's how I remember it. You can choose any car number/name - they don't even need to be authentic names! The link I used is "www.precisionlabels.com/sl20.html" for the Pullman overlays. I found their service very quick. Keith