Jump to content
 

BernardTPM

Members
  • Posts

    5,661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by BernardTPM

  1. 1 hour ago, whart57 said:

    In the Netherlands bikes from at least the 1930s on had something called terug-trap which translates as back-pedal for braking. You can free wheel but if you pedal backwards you apply a small drum brake inside the backwheel axle. There are still bikes around with that today and it was certainly still standard on the ordinary go-to-the-shops sort of push bike in the 1990s. Never seen them in England though, which made the bikes my mum and dad brought over with them in 1955 somewhat unique.

    The tandem we* had in the '60s had a back pedal brake. Did a lot of touring on that before getting my own 'proper' bike. Fixed wheel braking is the same as engine braking in cars; holding back the revolutions against gravity.

     

    * my Dad's, of course, but my Mum, myself and later my younger brother all had turns on the back over the years until it was sold circa 1970.

    • Like 2
  2. I suspect a dying skill; mostly they just seem to be laid/chucked down on the ground unless there's a stand. I've done this style of parking before (though not for quite a while), but sometimes you get a kerb too low for it to work.

    • Like 1
  3. On 23/11/2023 at 09:21, mcowgill said:

    The James Spooner of this period is of course not the same as the recent new loco.  By 1907 it had been rebuilt to be visually similar to Merddin Emrys & Livingston Thompson but was shorter and had bogies with a smaller wheelbase.

    Martin

    Yes, the bogies had 4' 6" w.b. against 4' 8" and a total wheelbase of 18' 8" against 20'.

  4. 2 hours ago, cypherman said:

    2/ This was the old Hornby box van with sliding doors at the top of the picture. I had to source a new chassis as for some reason this was on and old Triang chassis. I scratch built new doors for both sides. I think they turned out nicely.

    Ah, the 1968 Tri-ang Hornby Vanwide. The real vans were 17' 6" whereas the Tri-ang chassis was just 16', but they took the all the length out of the doors. The two ends and fixed side panels were well modelled though; theoretically you could just build scale sized doors, mount on a new underframe (oddly enough with LMS style fitted brake gear) and new longer roof to make it a scale model. Of course, they chose the oddball version with vents in the doors but not on the ends. Or buy the Parkside kit or an R-T-R one now, but back in the '70s those options weren't around. Hornby did a new Vanwide in the '80s, this time 16' 6" long but with everything shortened in proportion so the end panels were too narrow on that one.

  5. 17 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

    Anyway - that's irrelevant to this thread about a Christmas TOY from the TOY MAKING DEPT. ! 🎅

    The livery is a special Christmas one, but the model to which it is applied is a new one and will undoubtedly be available in 'sensible' prototype liveries in due course.

    The construction methods appear to be the same as the new 5 and 7 plank wagons, but this one is a scale 17' 6" over headstocks rather than 16' 6".

  6. 1 hour ago, papagolfjuliet said:

    Speaking of Lima, the reason why its N gauge BR 16t mineral wagon and  brake van were so overscale was that the Lima toolmakers were given the (already too tall) Tri-ang OO models and told to copy them, assumed that they were HO, and scaled them down accordingly. Really true. 

    Yes and no: their mineral wagon is a scale 17' 6" long (1:148 - 36mm) whereas the Triang one is a scale 16' long (1:76 - 64mm), so neither is right, but the buffers are set too high like the Tri-ang 1960s plastic chassis. Back in the early 1980s I removed the surplus 2mm from quite a few of the Lima mineral bodies, taking it out either side of the door. Here's the strange thing: the small strengthening fillets under the turned over top were then correctly aligned at 1/3rd & 2/3rd positions whereas with the extra length they were offset to the outside. That suggests they did their stretch by just adding in two 'slices' rather than stretching every dimension evenly.

    They did do a BR van later on the same chassis which was, of course, the correct length, though just a little wide.

    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 2
  7. In the first picture the wagon attached to the shunter was originally a Conflat A, but probably just a runner wagon by then. The air-braked plate wagons date that photo to the 1980s.

    In the second picture the wagons in the shed looks to be lows of some sort. The angle it is taken means it's not clear enough to determine if it has drop sides. Two plank wagons are quite rare, but I did find one here in use as a match truck, but that may not be the right type.

    In the next siding that looks like 16 ton minerals either side of a (longer) 21t mineral with a further 16t mineral in the distance.

    Behind the two ex-GWR vans probably a couple of 21t hoppers then an open wagon (yet another 16t mineral?) and a bogie bolster.

    I would guess the second picture was taken at a rather earlier date, possibly even late '60s as pre-Nationalisation vans went out of normal service in the early '70s.

    • Informative/Useful 1
  8. 5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

    I wonder if it's a ply-bodied GW-designed Shoc-Van? It seems have vertical white stripes on the side.

    If it were a shock van it would also have markings on the ends. I suspect they are simply the post 1963 'boxed' markings. It does look to be plywood rather than planked.

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...