Froxfield2012

Scalescenes downloadable kits not Bachmann Scenecraft? The position of the windows would preclude putting the chimney where Scalescenes have it. I am grateful to Stationmaster for pointing out the strange brick support for the stairs platform (but not incidentally for the "offices" at the top of the stairs!). I had missed that and considered this as a roughly suitable ready to plant representation of the Southcote Junction box in which I spent so much of my youth. I still might consider it?

My long-awaited 1444 arrived today. All chipped and run in it seems to work very smoothly indeed. It serves well as a reminder of last day of trains on the Wallingford branch under BR, although of course in pristine form it is a good deal cleaner than the 1444 that I photographed back in the 1950s!

We have holidayed regularly in Weymouth over the years and I am pretty sure that this is the Westham Road crossroads judging by the trees and the shape of the corner. In which case the fence of the old Melcombe Regis Primary School is right behind!

Good photos with memories of Weymouth! There must have been something about the location of picture number two which means that the loco tries to escape from the right hand side of the shot. See my father's effort earlier in this thread!!!

And it appears to be of recent origin. YouTube video at South Devon Railway in September 2016 shows this lion facing forward. An October 2016 video shows a blank side to the tank: presumably a repaint in course!

Rails and Kernow suggest a 6pin DCC socket. Hattons seem to think it's an 8 pin socket. It would be good to know which is right before ordering? Some of the Hattons pictures seem to show similar poor fit of the cab assembly as those used by Rails. I am looking forward to comment here from someone who has seen the actual models!

Mind you, I also notice that my pictures of the preserved 1369 carries the shed code 72F Wadebridge, from which shed it was finally withdrawn. It doesn't stop 1369 still carrying a nice shiny brass bell!! Weymouth could also be 71G?

It looks to me as though the two BR locos 1367 and 1368 carry the shed code 85E and 85F respectively: ?Gloucester and Bromsgrove? I don't think it was ever the Weymouth shed code (?82F?). Presumably, no Weymouth shed code, no bell? But I do notice that Rails only claimed that the locos were "on their way" and "due in stock on 20th December. So perhaps these aren't actual pictures of their stock on the website? Questions, questions.

Indeed it should. And in the side view of the model in Post #115 things look OK. But in Andy Y's picture in Post #121, the slidebars in particular look very close to the horizontal. In the picture I posted in #124 the slant of cylinder and slidebar is very apparent. This may all be down to photo angle! I was not judging but there was that question in my mind.

Yesterday we went to Chinnor and found this on loan. I can't resist posting these pictures, although they don't really answer the queries on here. I suppose the suggestion is that, if the shape of the chimney offends, attach a suitable headboard? My only real query was whether or not the angle of the cylinders was quite right on the model, but this is something that can't be answered from photographs, which inevitably tend to distort such things unless taken from absolutely side on. The seams on the tanks are definitely there, although probably not quite as prominent as on the model? As previously noted, I remember these tanks from my very early years visiting Weymouth. As an inveterate "box-opener", I seem mostly to be attracted to those models that represent types that I saw/cabbed/rode on. I'm afraid that I think the Heljan model captures the general look of the locomotive sufficiently for me to want to buy one!

I am looking forward to actual delivery of my own pre-order. The missing ashpan is a pity as it features quite prominently on the initial graphics provided by Hattons. See this link. https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/H1413_3117985_Qty1_2.jpg Seems that it went missing sometime during development. I am bound to wonder if there was some reason for this beyond oversight?

Thanks for an interesting photo. I suppose it is a matter of taste, but I really find the Duchesses in this form frankly ugly and consider the re-streamlining of Hamilton by the NRM as an act of vandalism! I take some comfort from the fact that Stanier himself was unimpressed by the streamlining demands of the marketing men. Richard

Yes, of course, you're right. However, The Caledonian (as a named train with that schedule) was, I think, only introduced in 1957. I should perhaps have specified that the Bristolian incident in question took place earlier than that and the driver in question had by then been off the footplate for a few years. Nevertheless, it is comforting that I can run my 7 coaches with a relatively clear conscience behind Sir William Stanier, which will be in its later, red, incarnation. Not that I have any photographic proof of 46256 being so rostered. The "It's my railway...." theory will have to apply!

What no bell? Will one be in the accessories to add? Now seriously..... Andy Y those are, as usual, excellent pictures. Thank you. Particularly as I found it difficult to get a good view of such a small model. But, just because it is so small, it emphasises just how much larger the picture is on my computer screen than the model itself. Just look at the size of some of the inevitable dust particles! We are so cruel to " tear models apart" on the basis of such enlargements don't you think? Although I must concede that the weld lines on the tanks are really not visible on the only picture I have of 1368 on Weymouth boat train duty. This is one of my father's earliest shots (from July 1951) and is far from perfect. It is a better photograph of the first coach than 1368, which has almost escaped! But good atmosphere?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "good hauler". My own (very) basic layout can accommodate a maximum train length equivalent to seven Mk1 coaches and has a minimum radius of 3ft. It is all on the level and the Hornby Britannia, recent King and Castle can all manage such a load, So, I will be happy if this new model can achieve the same. However, I have one reservation over my pre-order for a "Duchess". Whilst I can excuse the train length on my BR(W) mainline trains on the basis that The Bristolian was only a little longer than my maximum, I really associate the Stanier pacifics with trains of fourteen or fifteen up. I remember, as a child, watching The Bristolian fly through Reading in the company of an ex-Camden top link driver. As the train approached just ticking along at about 80mph, Harry whistled softly and remarked, "That's the way to run 'em". Then, as the train passed, he went, "two, four, six, eight.....Blimey, it's only half a train"! In my mind, a "Duchess" running round with four or so coaches looks faintly ridiculous, although I realise that many large locos are found on small layouts. This is another of those scale compromise issues (like the OO gauge itself) which I sometimes think actually dwarf all the arguments we get into over the detail in each RTR locomotive model.

I apologise as I think I have posted versions of these family snaps before! They were taken in August 1956 when 46256 was still in green with the early BR totem. That's me in the school cap aged rising 9 years old, with two family friends! I note that, at that time, electric headlights were fitted and it looks as though there were fittings for the speedometer on both the front bogie and rear driving wheel? I am guessing that some (or all) of this was sorted out when the red livery overhaul took place. Incidentally, would any manufacturer dare to model the tender with such a large (potentially lethal) load of coal? After seeing the 3-D print at Warley yesterday I couldn't resist a "pre-order".

These are the best "crops" I can offer. One 61XX seems to be trying to escape the side of the picture! I am not sure the images help much. To add to the general confusion, it seems to me that the stays up from the buffer beam don't go high enough up the saddle. Does there seem some variety in the chimneys?

Thanks to all who have provided thoughts on my small issue. I only undid the retaining screws a small amount and, as far as I can see, the body is still well seated on the chassis. Everything seems OK for now and I am also well pleased with the look of the thing! I had another small issue with the Hornby King, where the insulation on the wires connecting the decoder socket was cut through and causing a short. Again, easy to cure, so I am not complaining. I opted for 30584 and acquired a couple of Maunsells to recreate this train (picture seen before on RMWeb): I hope I have got that right, although I have NOT gone to the lengths of renumbering the coaches as, in any event, I don't know what the correct numbers would be! Age 13, I got to ride on the footplate from Axminster to Lyme Regis after we came upon the crew taking their lunch in the first compartment of the train during the stopover in Axminster. This shot was taken after our return to Axminster. So this really is "nostalgia modelling": although purely straight out of the box! In all, we made three visits to the branch, on one of which we had one of those "it's a small world" moments. We were approached whilst we were taking photos by someone we hadn't met before who remarked by way of introduction that he was Derek Cross. As it happened, we hadn't heard of him, although my father was a member of the Railway Photographic Society at the time. I recall that Dad was rather unimpressed for some reason I never fully understood. But then, that's railway photographers for you! Of course, Derek Cross's output is indeed now (and still) well-known and remarkable for its range and quantity. It remains a small world.

Interesting. Mine ran well from the box on DC. Having taken the body off and fitted a decoder (TCS), I made a really good job of tightening up the two body retaining screws underneath. The loco refused to move! I untightened the two screws a little and "Hey presto", everything seems fine. Is there some tight clearance somewhere underneath?

To be fair to the "preservationists", I think the prime motive was to find somewhere to house the rapidly growing collection of trams: The fact of the quarry narrow gauge railway was secondary. There is now an exhibit which commemorates George Stephenson's association with the site and the metre gauge railway. I have visited Crich only twice: once back in the 1970s and once only a week or two ago. I think it is well worth a visit. However, next time I will try for better weather. As it was, the thunder storm and rain were the most spectacular exhibits!! Perhaps it serves me right for supporting what some clearly see as an act of vandalism!

Thank you for the most interesting photos, Stationmaster and HillsideDepot. Goring is my local station and I am reminded once again how plug ugly overhead equipment is!! Just as when I see pictures and videos of steam specials under the wires. I cannot imagine ever getting my camera out to photograph anything against such a background! Local residents with a view over the line through the countryside west of Goring, of which fortunately I am not one, are up in arms at the vandalism rendered to their landscape by these horrors. There is nothing admirable in the look of OHLE but it does match quite well the ugly, even brutal, appearance of the new Reading General and its associated civil engineering structures (flyovers and flyunders everywhere). Of course, it is progress: passing through as a passenger, the new Reading station seems to work effectively and it is, for the present, clean and tidy. It is just a pity one has to look at it! Equally, I expect the newly-electrified line, when it eventually arrives, to offer benefits to the users. Although I appreciate the sterling service done by the DMUs (the 125s in particular), I have always disliked diesel traction and shall be glad to see the back of any part of it. For the moment, I just wish they would get on with finishing the job! "A grumpy old man".

This may not be a lot of help but 1444 was an 81D Reading engine in (I think) lined green with (definitely) early crest when it hauled the last train on the Wallingford branch in June 1959.

Sometimes I wonder if manufacturers go slightly mad trying to deal with all possible variations! And matching a particular photo on a particular day/location for each individual modeller's wish list would be a nightmare? As it happens, I have two photographs which show the toolbox located to the forward end of the front wheel splasher on the right hand side (looking forwards) of a 14XX. One is of 1466 at a GW Society Open Day on the Wallingford branch in 1968 and the other is of 1444 on the last day of the Wallingford service. Perhaps the location was always pretty random?? I am glad to have the opportunity to access an up-to-date version of a 14XX and hope such questions don't delay things even further. But, of course, to be purely selfish (!) since I have ordered the Hattons version of 1444 I would prefer the manufacturer to leave the tool boxes as they are shown in the CADs!!!! Edited to acknowledge that this "crossed in the post" with Dave's reply above!

Given the level of poverty of the agricultural labouring classes in the 1860s/70s (post enclosure of the land, and with increasing mechanisation, there was much less need for manpower), the agricultural communities through which the railways passed were somewhat privileged. The railways had a great demand for labour (including gangers and platelayers) and blessed indeed was the family that managed to get employment on the GWR. In my own family of that period based in Chilson, Oxfordshire, several individuals joined the railway in one form or another: a guard based in Worcester, one to the wagon works in Worcester and still another to the local PW in Chilson. This was a fifty year career in many cases. And this employment opportunity lasted into the next generation. One member of the extended family was a signalman at Challow in 1911! The social impact of the railway cannot be under-estimated.

Do I need a Peckett in H&P livery? Definitely NOT. But maybe I have to? My great-uncle worked for H&P man and boy! Somewhat off topic. Stationmaster has a habit of coming up with interesting snippets. Some years ago, I think, it was a picture of the small porter's office on Tilehurst station shortly before demolition. I spent many hours there a youngster with my father and the porter, Jack Stockton. Now it's the H&P railway system. My great grandfather worked for the GWR for 55 years, retiring from X shop Swindon in 1926. He worked in the Reading PW "factory" for 28 years: approx. 1876 to 1904. In the 1881 census, he is shown as working at the Biscuit Factory. This is either a census error (not unknown!) or he was working on something for the GWR down at H&P. I don't suppose Stationmaster could throw any light on the probability of this? PS I guess any (reasonably dark) blue will do for me, uncritical as I am. Although Reading Museum has a significant collection of H&P artefacts, including a gallery devoted to the company, which is, I think supported by an archive. Maybe they would have something definitive on corporate colours for the firm that was such a major part of Reading's history. A quick Google brings up plenty of images of the classic H&P biscuit tin blue from the 1930s. It is certainly darker than the blue background of the Reading Borough Coat of Arms.