Osgood

A couple from Bedford retired to Yorkshire. She became a regular at the local church, devoting a lot of her time to church affairs. When she died the widower decided to commemorate her work for the church on her gravestone, and asked for it to be engraved with LORD, SHE WAS THINE The stonemason left a message 4 months later to say the stone was now erected and looked grand. He went to look and was horrified - it read: LORD, SHE WAS THIN He phoned the stonemason and complained that he'd left the E off the end - the stonemason was most embarrassed and said: "Oh 'eck, I'm reet sorry, leave it with me and I'll get it sorted tomorrow for you" the widow returned to the church yard a couple of days later, to find his wife's stone now read: E LORD, SHE WAS THIN

I'm very confident you will find IRLS3 well worth the wait!!

Does 00 ballast look better? I too was not so sure that the use of highly accurate sized ballast is essential - its more a case of finding something that looks right, and yes, sometimes that can mean using larger or smaller than prototype. Anyway - having been very taken with the look of Woodland Scenics Medium ballast on a layout (I believe it is ground nutshell / fruit stone), I searched in vain for some data on the grading for each size from UK suppliers. So I ordered some medium and fine to try. Having got the material I find it is not easy to measure without crushing between the jaws of measuring instruments, and I have no grading sieves of the right sizes. And then I discovered on Woodland Scenic's U.S. site the very data I was after! I failed to find this on any of the UK sellers' sites. So in case it is of any help here it is: Note the O Scale used is, as expected, the U.S. 1/48, the HO being 1/87. Converting the three sizes to 7mm and 4mm scale gets us these scale particle gradings: Compare with a 1980s BR grading spec for ballast which is: 100% passing 63mm Bulk of material 50mm - 28mm less than 1% passing 1.18mm​ Looks like MEDIUM is pretty good for 7mm with FINE a good choice for 4mm. I know grading specs changed a bit over the 150 years or so but not by that much. I also have some DCC 00 samples coming to look at, but again can find no info on grading. In terms of grading of real ballast, it is likely that anything between 2mm and 20mm would have been taken out – as this would have a much higher value as concreting aggregate (crushing is an expensive way of obtaining specific sized aggregate compared to using naturally graded material), but also to ensure good drainage. A small amount of retained fines helps to bind the larger stone, this and crushing dust residue not washed from product accounts for the BR fines spec., indicating they want it clean, but not necessarily washed totally clean. So I was pleased that what I thought looked best on a layout, compared to other layouts at the same venue, in fact turned out to be pretty much to scale. I should of course add - Other brands of ballast are available!

Compaq did a neat compact mouse:

Thanks very much for getting this information DC - much appreciated. And please thank Peter H. I'm sorry I beat you to it (only just though!!). I read a year or two back that DT was working on a second book on Hunslet, featuring their diesel locomotives. I keep searching for info but nothing yet, has anyone heard anything?

Solved - thanks to a decent library. It turned out to be the Hunslet - Wks no 587. One of a pair, built with 586 in 1894. I realised I had a copy of The Hunslet Engine Works by DH Townsley (Plateway Press - highly recommended by the way). Here is a deliberately low res image of a page from the book, showing a convertible locomotive - one of a pair - supplied to the contractor S Pearson & Sons Ltd for use on the construction of the LD&EC Ry Chesterfield to Warsop line. Later used by them on the GWR Patchway to Wootton Bassett contract (which employed over 45 locos). The chimney and dome were collapsible to permit use in driving tunnel headings, hence the flange at chimney base. Looks to be equipped for condensing (for underground work). So the photo is quite possibly taken on one of these contracts, explaining the rustic shed!

No information at all, sorry. Unfortunately I do not have the IRS books. Chimney looks like it might have come from another locomotive - why the odd flange near the base if original?

To quote Victor Meldrew: "I don't believe it!". Look what I've just found - I never thought to do a search for Black Hawthorn 1033 before posting, but this worksplate sold at auction a week ago (£2,250), with the following description: Worksplate BLACK, HAWTHORN & CO ENGINEERS GATESHEAD ON TYNE No1033 1891 ex 0-6-0 ST OC used at West Hallam colliery Ilkeston and named Bernard believed scrapped circa 1941. Oval cast brass face restored. I'm not convinced this is the one, so any ideas? The weather board looks a bit Hunslet-like with those square windows, but not much else.

This is an odd one. I can't decide if it is a foreigner or not. The IRS names list shows only two BERNARDs - a Black Hawthorn 1033 and Hunslet 587. Any ideas?

Not that one. 100% Swiss, that! I have no knowledge of Brussels public conveniences.......

In Basle:

Great news, can I get a trade-in on my 1st edition?

Well, that's professional crane hire companies for you! In all seriousness, Nigel - the 24 bolts clamping both beams together would allow you to lift 4 times the loco weight and still leave a good safety margin. It was the safest way to do it. The rear was slung the same but with a spreader bar above the cab roof. Many thanks for all your replies - have gone for some (hopefully) reasonably well seasoned oak, just hope it doesn't shrink too much. Interesting the use of hot poker to seal the holes - we'll go for a little oversize and plenty of paint on the new bolts as they are only plated.

Thanks Trevor and Paul. I did even wonder about using unseasoned oak for expedience and cost - with the number of bolts holding it all together (24 each end!) I doubt it will move at all. Would just need to protect the bolts from the corrosive tannin. I can't see any grade of wood providing much in the way of cushioning - and we're not talking about banging coal wagons around at high speed! Is it oak or ash for timber framed wagon buffer beams? Tony

Does anyone know what timber would have been used as the packer in steel / wood / steel buffer beams? The buffer beams are 10" deep and the timber 5" thick. The wood should have some cushioning effect so maybe not too hard. Thanks.

You'll be sorry you started that......

WALLMARTIAN ALERT !!

That's great, Cokebreeze - here's my favourite variant:

And there was me just thinking it was time for another fix of ironstone country! What an amazing sight Harringworth viaduct must have been to the local population when first built. If you have any other photographic souvenirs of the ironstone quarry lines and quarries themselves here's one soul who will be very pleased to see them! Tony

Did someone mention coaches?

I'm surprised nobody has yet taken a bite out of that delicious looking nougat scenery!!

I've just received the fourth in the series - http://willowherbpublishing.co.uk/ These really are excellent publications, given the images are the work of several photographers the reproduction is highly consistent throughout and the captions most informative. A fascinating look back to a time when railways were in serious decline yet still exuding character. No freshly sandblasted stonework here - its the real blackened deal. If you're looking for colour images of run-down locomotive weathering then you need look no further!

I quite like the idea - and the centrally mounted magnets would act as a useful ferrous crud clean-up device too, an occasional wipe and that's it. Might cause a bit of unwanted judder over steel track points though

If you are not sick of hydraulic cranes by now, there are some good views here - https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?W=4&F=0004&Step=1&screenwidth=1440 With a few others here - https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?search=1&screenwidth=1440&pixperpage=50&searchtxtkeys=warehouse+Crane&lastsearchtxtkeys=dock+Crane&withinresults=&searchphotographer=&wwwflag=&lstformats=&lstorients=All+Orientations&captions= Another maker was East Ferry Road Engineering Works Ltd who were big suppliers to Millwall Docks. The products of the various makers were almost identical in appearance.