Clem

I put 'agree' on this. I bettter make it clear, I didn't mean the last sentence

Good evening again Andrew, I would simply say yes to most of this - certainly your comments on the size of the task going through the CWNs, photos etc. and deciding what to do to best reflect the line. I have thought about using a Kirk kit or kits for a BT(5) and also for a D246 BT(6) which appears quite regularly in photos but not so much in the CWNs. I've also thought of trying to butcher one or two Hornby non-gangwayed Gresleys but yet to bite the bullet. It is encouraging to know that the information on formations is out there, albeit, to some extent, spread around. I'll take a look at this John Tomlinson link. Thanks for the heads up on it.

Yes, you mean GN diagram GN218RR. I have a photo of 69818 on the dido with it E44071/2. I think I need to try to get some annotated CWNs. You know the exactly the origin of the carriages, I'm only guessing. I finding there is something very satisfying matching the CWNs up with the photos, matching a snapshot with planned passenger formation. I have a couple of 210s to build, plus a couple of Gresley SP 310s although it's difficult getting them going with them with so much other stuff to do. And couple that with not being a fast worker. I'm retired and their still doesn't seem to be enough time! But I feel the passenger side of my layout will only fully come to life once I've got a couple GC and a couple of GN carriages in the mix. BTW, do you know if anyone does etched sides for a Gresley BT(5)?

But that's going the other way to the photo. The 12-57pm from Derby seems to have a (presumably GC) T(10) and two twins which have BT(5)s which aren't 210s. In fact I'm not sure off hand what diagram those twins are.

By experience of a lot of books and their captions, that rings true. However, Roderick Fowkes seems to be pretty on the ball for most if not all captions in that book with many of his captions indicating the time and date of the train - and they seem close enough to be acceptable. I suppose having a layout which is ficticious, albeit to the character of a prototype, I could get away with doing what I wanted, but somehow running to a timetable with the stock totally plausible from the CWNs is how I would like to go. I'm still trying to get hold of freight working timetables for the period, although on the coal side I think many ran as required depending on requests from the individual collieries through control.

Good afternoon. I have a question.. Particularly for Robert (robertcwp) or Andrew (Headstock) regarding CWNs. Do we know how accurately these notices were carried out? I ask because I've been checking one or two against photographs of known trains (time, origin and destination) on known dates and whilst the flavour of the CWN is pretty close, the detail i.e. what carriages used seems to have differed a little in quite a few. One for instance is a Nottingham-Derby Friargate train, the 12-45pm from Nottingham on June 29th (Tuesday) 1954 (see photo below from the excellent book Steam in the East Midlands and Lincolnshire by Roderick Fowlkes) . The CWN states: BT(4), CL(3-4), BT(4) - 3 vehs but the photo is clearly BT(5), Twin - CL(2-5)-BT(6). In others the CWN states 3 vehicles but the photo clearly shows 4 or 5 vehicles albeit it looks like the correct or something close to correct, plus 'strengtheners'. The most common discrepency seems to be the number of compartments on the BTs in one case it is 3 when 5 is stipulated, but you get the idea. Any thoughts? (BTW thanks for the PDFs Robert)

I think something that Frank mentioned is very important in the bogie discussion. Apart from the riding qualities through pointwork and curves, which I think if done correctly, the bogie side control gives, possibly the most important gain is for those people who use screw and 3 link couplings. It provides mitigation to reduce front buffer beam overhang experienced on a curve or even worse a reverse curve to stop buffer locking when propelling by reducing the overhang by leading the engine into each curve with the bogie or pony. I don't off hand remember exactly how it's worked out, but the biggest offenders for overhang are those with the greatest distance between the buffer ends and the mid point between the leading and trailing (rear) driving axles, if I remember correctly. On the topic of sprung versus rigid, it's a fact that on my layout I have three J39s. Two are sprung and one is rigid. They're all roughly weighted the same but the sprung ones don't slip on loads on my very tight curves where the rigid one does. I'm sure other people have anecdotes that provide evidence of the opposite but this has been my experience in spite of the fact that the tests Frank mentioned concluded no difference between the two methods. The bottom line is, we all do what works for us.

Good Afternoon Frank, The last I heard was that someone had bought all of Mike's equipment with the intention of starting production again, I think in Wales. That was quite a few years ago and as I've heard nothing since, I assume that nothing came out of it. I seem to remember someone describing Mike's production equipment as being 'Heath-Robinson'. Maybe no-one else could work the magic to make it work?

Wow, that's brilliant Tony. If I was starting out again I think I might just go late 20s, or early 30s just to include a B3 and a couple of B7s... Lookswise, that takes some beating. Looking forward to seeing it painted, too.

Good morning Hawin. I remember seeing 60813 in Cowlairs in April 1966 in a seemingly sad state. (see photo below - sorry about the rubbish standard of my photography at the time!). Surprisingly, she was put back together and sent to Dundee for a final 6 months. The thing that interests me from your post is the close up of *that* chimney. It appears to have a bog standard austerity chimney! I always thought it was a plain stovepipe chimney. Not an improvement in looks but it certainly made 60813 a stand out locomotive! I think I'd saw her in August the same year in better condition, but didn't photo her.

You've only missed it by a year. It was a Colwick loco until October 1957 and as such may well have appeared quite frequently at LB.

Good Morning Tony. May I ask, what kit is the J39 from? The tender looks somewhere between a 4200 gallon and a 3500 gallon tender whicch tends to make me think it's the old Wills kit. It certainly has captured the J39 look about it, whatever the source was. I love the way your crew of the J6 look so authentically busy. They really bring the model to life.

Good morning Andrew. Changes to Colwick motive power in the mid 1950s: In 1955, 3 L1s and 3 more A5s came to Colwick, plus a couple of J11s and a couple more J6s. They can be matched with 3 withdrawn J5s and 2 withdrawn J6s as well as the transfer to West Yorks or withdrawal of all the remaining N1s. The N5s also moved away North to Sheffield and were replaced by J69s from Stratford. The J1s and J2s went a year or two earlier. The N7s left for Stratford in April 1954. A couple or so N7s remained at Annesley until late 1956. From about 1955 the main shunting tank for Colwick yards changed from being almost exclusinvely J52s to a mixture of J50s, J69s and J94s as the J52s dwindled and finally disappeared in April 1958. In January 1956, there was a big heavy freight engine reorganisation with many O4s leaving for Mexborough and replaced with WDs. Before January 1956 34 O4s and 47 WDs. After January 1956 Colwick had over 60 WDs and only 16 O4s.

I need an emoji that's 50% friendly/supportive and 50% funny.

Evening Andrew. Colwick had them from 1955. But yes, they only really grew in numbers after 1959. And I would always prefer to see an A5 or J6 on the locals, not to mention a J39 or a K2.

Hi Lloyd, 'Bug cars' ... definitely! .. or sometimes, just 'bugs'. The year or two before it was often an L1. I particularly remember that section from Bottesford to Allington when we always seemed to go like the clappers! It wasn't always an L1 though. I remember going for the short trip from High Level to Victoria behind 61821 and I even took a photo of it with my brownie 127. Unfortunately, that photo has been lost for all time, much to my regret.

Yes. That's very true. I remember too, the advantages of travelling in a DMU whilst trainspotting. But if any type of DMU came close to being acceptable in circumstances other than the above, for me, it was the class 114s. If one appeared RTR I'd be tempted to get one, just for the nostalgia of those Nottingham Victoria (or London Road High Level) to Grantham trips which, after about 1962 were more often a 114 rather than steam.

Good morning Tony, I think the lightweights were around as early as 1955 and actually ran on the Derby line for trials. It prompted me to get one in for conversion some years ago. But to be honest, I've got enough on doing steam (which is always going to come first with me, obviously) and I'm not sure when or if I'll get around to it. Clive made the point that there were Cravens at Lincoln in 1958 but I must say that I never saw one in all my trips to Grantham in the late 50s/early 60s. It was always the class 114s. If you did decide to build a DMU Tony, I'm sure it would be of top quality but, Deltics aside, I'm sure you're a 100% steam man (like me - with all respect to Clive and other diesel fans).

Hi Doug. Cheers for that. Do they still do a 6'2" wheel?

Cheers Pete. Yes, that's brilliant news. A fantastic piece of modelling by a team of top class craftsmen. I hope a future visit isn't out of the question after this virus has been mitigated.

Ha ha!! Don't be devastated, Frank! I'm very patient and I have years of railway projects to do, so I won't be stuck! But I will let you know how long they take. If it's 3 months, that would be very acceptable. They don't appear to have the range these days that they used to have. Yes you could be correct about AG cramkpins being metric, but they're a little less than 1mm. I've measured them at around 0.94 mm on average over the outside of the thread. When I tap return cranks with a 14BA tap, they usually go on quite easily. But maybe where you have a precise 14BA nut, it's a little tighter than a hand tapped crank.

Good evening Tony. I may be mistaken but I would have thought that this service would have been a class 114. (E500xx/E560xx twins). Not being a diesel person, does anyone make these. They were the only type you ever seemed to get on the ER around Nottingham, Derby and Grantham - at least before about 1962/3.

Hi Frank. Thanks for the kind comment. I've bitten the bullet and banged an order in for a set of Ultrascale wheels for my next 0-6-0, whatever and whenever that may be. (Could be J5, J6 or a J39/3). A quick question: it's been a long time since I last used Ultrascale. Can you remind me, are the crankpin screws 14BA as Alan Gibsons wheels? If it's a J39, I'll need to tap the crank for the lubricator drive on the RHS. Cheers Clem.

Wonderful news.

A little update. My ex-rocking and rolling J39/1 is now complete but no longer jiving like a Teddy boy. I put a new rear wheelset on it and it's been weathered. Seen below slowly pulling a short train out of the goods yard. The train has actually been placed there for entry into the workshop and returned after this short demo vid. The containers need shackles adding. I also need to do brackets and a lamp on the brakevan, load in the open wagon.