WFPettigrew

Frustratingly whilst there is a drawing on the CRA website of the later but not final variant of Pettigrew's rebuilds of the Sharp Stewart 0-6-0s, that is a weight drawing that only shows the side elevation. Obviously the frames and likely footplate would be the same as the original Sharpies, but sadly there isn't a drawing of them either on there. I know that FR20, which is effectively a shorter Sharpie, feels narrower than later locos. A quick measure of a scale drawing of 20 suggests it is c 7'8 across the bufferbeam. But the Sharpies may have had a different width. Maybe @apl31 knows more? All the best Neil

Thanks Jim - it might be, but on zooming in on the original scan, I am not so sure... I think the end of the pantechnicon has 3 rows of lettering. The top one on an arc, then two straight ones below SPENCER BROS above LIVERPOOL. I have tried to grab a zoomed in version as certainly when I look at pictures on RMWeb its hard to zoom in on them. To me the first curved letter looks like two parallel lines with a flat top. So like a Greek pi, but without the serifs either side. Or Stonehenge. But on a slope!

Brilliant! Even more brilliant!

Hi All Sorry this has taken a while, but I do now have a copy of the image of the train at Woodland on the FR's Coniston branch to share with you. This is shared here with permission of the CRA, but it is a copyright image - credit Cumbrian Railways Association - Ken Norman collection. For those of us who know the book, this is a much better resolution rendition. But although now amongst other things the pantechnicon on the second wagon is clearer, other than supporting my earlier idea that the top row of lettering on the end is on an arc, to follow the roofline, I still have no idea what it might have said, given the only visible "letter" doesn't really look like a letter!?! Any thoughts? And any other observations? There are no obvious clues as to the parentage of the 1 plank with the container on it? All the best Neil

Sorry off topic, and not sure where this photo had previously popped up. But - is that pig iron being loaded? Cos if so, thems big pigs!?! Certainly compared to photos of pig iron at Barrow ironworks say, or that photo which was also somewhere on here of the workers manhandling pig iron into/out of a Caley pig iron wagon, I would have thought? And if not, what might it be? All the best Neil

Hmm wouldn't want to be the guard in the final shot of that second film...!!! Ouch!

Well that is rather lovely!

Cannot be sure but many of the Metro drawings did survive, in the library at Birmingham. so Lacy may have also been using one of those, as well as good photographic reference like this. All the best Neil

It's not JUST the cold... Back in the day when the cabs was just a flat sheet, they were called weatherboards for a reason. It's remarkable how dry you can remain standing behind a weatherboard in a downpour, even at 15mph. But perhaps the biggest issue for crews on tender first running isn't actually the weather - it's being shotblasted by coal dust whipped up off the pile in the tender. Even on tank engines with enclosed cabs, this can be an issue when the back windows are open on a hot day. The temporary cure is to water down the coal, hence the hoses running off the live steam injector (going by different names in different parts of the country, pep pipe, degging hose etc) - but that's harder on a big tender. Obviously it depends on the shape of the tender. The tenders on the biggest pasenger locos are not particuarly open at the front, for this reason and to carry more coal. The real problems come with the lower tenders typical of pre-grouping locos, something like a GW 3,500 gallon tender, where any coal dust whipped up will hit the crew full on in the face. All the best Neil

I thought the block of wood in front of the flagpole (?) between the coal cart and Mr Natty Dresser?? But I accept that most of the pictures don't show anything obvious. But clearly they MUST have tied up somehow?!

My initial reaction having spent a lovely quarter of an hour by one of the "steamer" moorings on Windermere yesterday is that you need BIG posts, but of course that's not typical of canals. (And Windermere does go up and down dramatically, no its not that big that it's tidal (!) but because of rain...) Looking back through your prototype photos of wharves, two things struck me. Firstly that when there are posts (either square and hefty like at Cirencester, or less often round) they do stick up noticably above the surrounding ground level - after all if you are trying to get the rope over a post to tie up, you need that post not to be so low that the rope pings off at the slightest provocation. And secondly quite what a dearth of mooring posts etc there seemed to be although some of your photos are boats tied up on grassy banks, where certainly in modern canal use a peg would be driven into the ground and the rope tied off on that. But I would say the evidence suggests posts not rings, and posts need to project maybe a couple of feet (in real life) above the ground level? HTH Neil

That smoke certainly does help. However (here he goes again). If you were driving a real steam loco on a length of track that short, about 6 chuffs would probably be more than enough to then roll to the end. On the first return trip the driver is accelerating at not much more than a loco length away from the end of the siding, and that would never happen - not all steam loco brakes are that powerful/reliable, and a good driver would also be mindful that a brutal braking would send all the water in the boiler up to to the front end, exposing the firebox crown. And a good driver would also remember their years as a fireman, and would only use the steam that was needed to do the job. I think part of the problem is that while DCC has "intertia" settings that can be built in, these apply per loco (and a loco running light engine will accelerate far faster than one hauling a heavy train, obviously). And secondly with any sort of rotary knob controller that mimics the old DC style, how does the system know when to "ease off"? I will readily admit that I don't own a DCC system, and haven't massively researched them because I want to go down the radio control route when I get round to building a loco. But it seems what is really needed is a centre off control knob, where centre is a "no power applied, no braking" and turning clockwise is an ever increasing application of power, and turning anticlockwise is an ever increasing application of the brake. Such a system may already exist but I have not seen it when I have had a chance to play with a DCC handset, and certainly I haven't seen such a system being used, given how it would be audibly very apparent very quickly if it were. Sorry, rant over. Neil

Being lazy and not trawling back through the thread - but the whitemetal buffers do look to have a decided curve on them - as though they were designed to sit on a curved or angled headstock, rather than the square base buffer you have from Markits? But whether or not that is right, or just the w-m ones are skew-whiff, it strikes me you only need to box in the tops and sides, not the bottom. And that it appears from the last photo you will need to file off some of that cylindrical section if you were to be fitting a brass overlay, otherwise it would be too wide/high? If that's the case, then why not file a flat for the two sides, and solder on offcuts of brass to make the two sides. It would likely then be simpler to then use filler to create the top surface (rather than trying to get a third piece of brass to be exactly the right size and to solder that to both the existing buffer and to the two bits of brass you've put on the sides)? Perhaps an even more elegant version of the above would be to create a single piece of brass overlay, folded to form both sides and also the "front" end profile of the buffer housing (which does if the NuCast one is to be believed project a bit further towards the buffer head?) and that could then be soldered in place with filler added. This would have the advantage not only of ensuring the correct housing length, if needed, but also giving you the equivalent of shuttering all round to guide the filler? Clearly if there needs to be an angle on the base, that could be created as well with some shim? Hope this helps. All the best Neil

Controversial view - DCC sound is brilliant for diesel/electric, but rubbish for steam, not just because it is almost impossible to synch up chuffs and wheel revolutions (and once you spot these are out, it's hard to "un-spot"), but particularly because steam locos, even light engine but especially with a train behind them will roll for ages when the steam is shut off until a brake is applied. Yet how many times have you seen a loco with DCC sound chuffing to a stand? It's just WRONG! Maybe if DCC had been designed by Americans who were into steam, then it would actually properly replicate the sounds of a steam engine. And you're right here - having controls that actually mimicked what is on a footplate would help. As for your lovely image of Britain's oldest working steam locomotive footplate, well having fired that engine numerous times, driven it too, and being a Trustee of the charity that owns it, I would say that being on that footplate to "play trains" is really quite special! All the best Neil

And what a great job he did with it. I have been using it for - heck - 35 years now working in radio, and I never cease to be amazed that something that will stick to anything however dusty or mucky (as long as it isn't wet) - pavements, dirty floors, walls, etc. - then peels off demurely without leaving a trace that it was there.

Thanks Aidan, yes I agree it was something like that - the BROS might have had to be Bros or some other squashed variant to fit it into the space on the end. Given the evidence of multiple containers in a single train, I strongly suspect that the second wagon is also a Spencer Bros container, and it's interesting to see that it appears from the half a letter visible (!) to have: SPENCER BROS LIVERPOOL across the end (no Brownlow St) although there is a letter above the S for Spencer which might be a B for Brownlow St but might also be an R for REMOVALS - I have a hunch this was written on a curve parallel with the roof? I am trying to track down an original copy of this and if I do, and it is clearer, I will post more detail then. All the best Neil

Thanks yes it was a distant memory that someone on here had provided more info about the owner of those containers which featured in that photo at Woodland station. I think the firm is actually Spencer Bros - of 50-52 Brownlow Street says Gores Directory of 1900 (online via the Uni of Leicester). I would be wary of dating the photo from when the Sharpie was rebuilt into that form if your source is the sadly widely discredited Rush books? (Rush says 1911 for that rebuild.) It's certainly 20th century, with 4-4-0 No 125 also in shot and both locomotives still have the LNWR style lamp sockets, which the FR used up until shortly before the grouping (circa 1920 onwards) when they switched to the prong type, I presume as a standardisation move to get ready for the Grouping. So sometime between 1910ish and 1920? All the best Neil

As it is likely to be a signal (a point or lock would need pushing back) then there is a good reason to let a lever go: if you ease it back, there is a danger that the wire won't go "all the way back" and thus any detectors will not clear to allow points to be changed. Certainly when I was taught to work boxes admittedly on heritage not network rail, and ex LMS not GWR, I was firmly taught that signals should be dropped unless there is good reason not to. HTH. Neil

I am sure this came up somewhere on here in the past, possibly relating to a big firm in Liverpool - but various searches have come to naught. @Compound2632 does this ring any bells with you, as the most likely source perhaps?? All the best Neil

Actually in this instance yes there is. Because there are 3 very closely placed holes on each spring tab to allow for height adjustment. So they do need drilling out at the right size otherwise you would merge holes, as well as losing the ability to tweak the ride height of needed. Plus the spring wire would be flopping around in a too-big hole which would need to the springing and ride height. Ifyou have a small enough reamer then that should do it but this is opening out an already etched hole, and careful use of a pin chuck does the business. All the best Neil

Fun awaits. A Brassmasters RCH chassis was the very first bit of modelling I did on returning to the hobby. STEEP learning curve because of that, but aside from the "joys" of threading the spring wires through the 0.35 mm holes you will now be able to drill out, they go together very well (even with my hamfistedness). Enjoy....! Neil

Nah, created comic ambiguity in my (COVID addled) brain!

I was similar Stephen when I first read this. Ooh good, some RY Pickering cupboard door traders/PO wagons - of which several Cumbrian companies had examples. But those were all 7 planks not 5. Sigh. All the best Neil

No need to apologise. It made me laugh too. Where I were drug up it were spring term, like..!

My first reading of this was to wonder how you knew the presumably fox victim of the aforementioned hounds was called Hilary....