Nick Holliday

There are a few other suppliers around. Scalelink do three rather nice etched brass kits, whilst Osborns sell a range of laser cut wagons etc, very similar to the Ancerton ones noted earlier. It is also useful to know that, within the Dart Castings’ range, Shire Scenes have a number of etched brass road vehicles, some matching the Dart white metal casting versions.

If you go on their website and then sort by using Price - Low to High you will find the various available 4mm options listed from about £14 to £25. Just pages 2 and 3 at the moment. I suspect Wizard, amongst others, can supply the missing axleboxes and brake gear, and other required bits and pieces.

Regarding missing wagons, although slightly off-topic, I came across an interesting story in a strange book entitled "My Fifty-One Years at Euston", an auto-hagiography of R Carrington Willis, in which, in his story of rising from a humble clerk checking used tickets in the audit office, to becoming Registrar of the LNWR and the nascent LMSR, he comes across as having the wisdom of King Solomon, the empathy of Mother Teresa and the powers of Superman to put right evils, so the following may be slightly apocryphal:- A large iron works in the North owed the LNWR a lot of money, and it was rumoured that it was about to fail. As clerk in charge of Bad Debts, RCW was instructed to sort the matter out. There was a trainload of iron in the railway's "possession" which they could seize in compensation, but the necessary agreement had gone missing. The company solicitor advised that they could not seize the iron without this document, and would suffer a great loss as a result. RCW then suggested "That is so, unless you lose the iron." He then went on, "If it is lost, a claim will be made and under the bankruptcy practice I am bound to set off claims in contra." Apparently the hint was taken, and a whole train of wagons mysteriously disappeared, and many months afterwards was found some hundreds of miles away. A colleague later remembered talk about a missing train, which may have confirmed the veracity of this tale. It all sounds a little improbable to me, and slightly fraudulent, but they were different days I suppose. I wonder if a descendant of RCW gave Jimmy Carr tax advice too!

That’s the name I was searching for. I recalled the initials BH and Brian Harrap’s name insinuated into my brain, to the exclusion of all others, although I was pretty sure it wasn’t him.

@DCB mentioned sugar beet, and that seems to be an ideal subject. In the UK the Wissington plant in East Anglia brought in around 2,000,000 tons of sugar beet, in a short harvesting season, and produced 300,000 tons of sugar each year, and had its own light railway to serve the factory. It also required an unspecified amount (lots) of coal to process the sugar, and there would have been a vast amount of spent pulp that would be sent away as animal feed. All this mostly travelled by rail, although now it is carried by road. These days the NFU emphasise other byproducts The USA, being one of the largest producers of sugar from beet in the world, must have similar complexes, and the variety of potential byproducts would suggest a number of different loading points within the plant for each commodity.

I seem to recall the MRN featuring a Swiss locomotive or two built to 1:76 scale. That was in the late sixties or early seventies.

I think you may be mixing up dates here. No. 101 was built in 1902. The first inkling of railmotors on the GWR came in April 1903, and the trial of the LSWR/LBSCR Joint Steam Railcar took place in May 1903, and the first GWR pure railmotor appeared in October 1903. According to John Lewis (Great Western Autotrailers) the first un-powered trailer appeared in September 1904. Meanwhile, on the LSWR, after producing more steam railmotors, the "Motor Tanks" of C14 class entered service in September 1906, including the purpose-built trailer coaches. The C14 concept was strongly grounded on the steam railmotor design, hardly a "concept". The coincidentally numbered 101 was an S14 0-4-0 tank, and appeared even later - in September 1910. I cannot find any reference to GWR steam railmotors running a service on the WVLR in Lewis (GW Steam Rail Motors and their Services) although it is possible that trials were run on the line, although the level of traffic on it was hardly worth the effort, and, AFAIK, no additional halts were introduced to help improve the traffic levels. The line seemed to manage with small orthodox tank locos until the passenger service ended in 1931.

This whole saga is very reminiscent of the later "Leader" story, in that, although ostensibly intended for the Wrington Vale, I suspect it was always intended as an experimental loco. If it was meant for service, it seems likely that at least two would have been built at the same time, and the WVLR had already been open and running at least a year with existing locos, although the interesting gradients made the line a good test of a loco. I don't know which Holden was responsible for the design of the original oil-fired boiler. The one who became the GER CME was James Holden, who left Swindon in 1885, and was using oil in GER locos in the nineties. I cannot recall his schemes involving such radical designs as in 101, and any influence in Swindon would seem tenuous after such a long break. The only William Holden I can find was the actor, which is not very helpful, although stranger things have happened in a profession where they often have plenty of time on their hands. The original boiler was considerably altered and reduced in size in July 1902, and another unusual design of boiler, based on Gustav Lentz's ideas, was fitted in 1903. It was this last boiler, with a corrugated firebox, that, in 1905, was converted into coal firing. As for @Steamport Southport's connection with railmotors, this seems unlikely as the first memorandum regarding them appeared in April 1903, and resulted in a pair of units being built, for actual service on the Stroud Valley line. The suggestion in an earlier thread on this same topic, that No. 101 was numbered as part of the railmotor scheme, seems purely coincidental, as although there were 99 railmotor bodies, the last wasn't built until 1908, and there were actually 112 "motor" units available to power them!

A fellow member of the model railway club I belong to is trying to track down a couple of rare and unusual photographs that he used to have in his possession. Unfortunately, he lent them to someone working on a project for him some time ago, and he hasn't been able to recover them, or find them anywhere else. The two photos are of: One of the few West Coast Joint Stock GOODS brake vans, in WCLS livery, believed taken at Camden. Only a handful were built, and in 1895 they were split between the LNW and Caledonian Railways, so a picture in the original livery is very rare. An LSWR A12 Jubilee 0-4-2 taken at Rugby station in August(?) 1914. An LSWR loco this far north on a train is another rarity, and it would be nice to know the circumstances that lead to its appearance here. If anyone has any pointers as to where these picture could be located, we both would be grateful. He has contacted the LNWR Society and the South Western Circle but had no joy there.

This picture may help https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch/catalog/ETHBIB.Bildarchiv/r/101334/viewmode=previewview/qsr=rhymney Sadly, it's of No 64, again.

I'm surprised you haven't consulted Part Ten of the RCTS Locos of GWR series, as it contains a very clear photograph of No. 64 in its final days, with the K boiler and shorter chimney from one of the more modern side tanks. To clarify the story, Nos 62 and 63 were converted to 0-6-2 in 1908, and a boiler to the K Class design fitted. This boiler was 3 inches longer than the original, and an inch or so larger, and the firebox was 2 inches longer as well. As the boiler and firebox combination was longer than the original, I am not sure why you needed to be truncated the frames. No 64, which is the loco that appears in both the WRR photo and in RCTS, was given a revised boiler design in 1906, which was the same dimensions as the original, before its conversion to an 0-6-2 in 1911, so it appears to have retained the original smokebox design and pitch, at 6' 6" after the initial rebuild. In this form it appears in the WRR photo. However, sometime after 1917 it received a repaired, larger, K class boiler and became "almost standard with Nos. 62 and 63", although it was fitted with a short chimney, which it carried to scrapping in 1923. In this form No. 64 is seen in the RCTS photo, and it is clear that the larger boiler has been raised, presumably to clear the larger wheels/splashers, as the smokebox door is now fully circular, unlike the original, and the tank handrails are much higher than those on the cab side, which, presumably, were not altered, and there is a wider gap between the springs and the underside of the saddle tank. This is not withstanding the RCTS book quoting the GWR Diagram J pitch as remaining at 6' 6". Without pictures it is impossible to say whether Nos. 62 and 63 actually conformed to this, but with the increased boiler diameter and other factors, it seems likely. As for the inside motion, I wonder if there is anything to be seen, taking into account the larger splashers fitted, and the amount of equipment on the footplate between them.

Since @RateTheFreight is a fan of "older" EMU's, perhaps digging further back in time is permissible. The LBSCR's original electrification of the South London Line was originally provided with three coach trains, but, due to a miscalculation of demand, the arrangement of two motor thirds and a full first failed to match demand, so they rapidly removed the firsts, and provided single composite trailers, of a different style, to go with each motor car, creating a fleet of two car units, which ran singly during off-peak periods. On the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, one of their earlier schemes was to tie up with the Liverpool Overhead Railway, providing a number of two coach lightweight units, which often operated singly. They also carried out an experimental overhead DC scheme on the Holcombe Brook branch, using a single motor car with a driving trailer. Earlier, the Midland Railway had introduced AC overhead to the Heysham-Morecambe line, with three motor cars and four trailers. Normally (?) running with a motor car sandwiched between two trailers, depending on traffic they could run as one, two or three car units. @Jamie24 can probably provide more information. The NER and L&YR had a number of powerful parcel/pram cars that could run singly or with other stock.

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but I have tried searching before posting. In an interesting small book, The Great Western Railway in Wales, published by the National Museums and Galleries of Wales/Amgueddfeydd ac Orielau Cenedlaethol Cymru, there is this photo of Neath wagon works, taken in 1926. The wagon nearest the camera looks, to me, rather unusual. It has end doors at each end, with cupboard doors in the side, which are vertically planked. The diagonal "strapping" is internal, and the bottom plank is much wider than the rest, whilst the brake gear seems to consist of a single brake block. There is no visible lettering on the side, but a number, possibly 4019, is clear on the top end plank. I can't find any equivalent in the GWR book, nor in the limited selection of Welsh railway wagon diagrams at my disposal, and, despite pooling arrangements, it seems very unlikely that it would be a non-GWR wagon, or a Private Trader's. Any ideas? Is the steel open wagon a little further back a GWR ballast wagon? I couldn't find a picture showing one with the side down to confirm the central post. Asa an aside, GWR wagon fans might be interested to know that the Saltney Wagon Works book seems to be easily available from Lightmoor Press, as I have just received my copy, at a sensible price.

Common sign in certain areas. The alternative is to wash their feet in a hand basin, and not everyone has the agility to do that!

The SER and SECR classes tended to have square bases to their buffers, and a deeper buffer beam, with a substantial gap at the top, as per this picture from Mike Morant's collection The one in the picture is likely to be an ex-LCDR loco, most probably their R Class 0-4-4T, with an SECR number of 669. Shortly after the merger, this loco was posted to Orpington depot. Typical R 0-4-4T below:-

There’s an article by Robin Whittle in the much-missed RailModel Digest, Issue 3, which describes his efforts making the last survivor, 58092, from the London Road Models kit. He discusses the differences between the various drawings in Talbot, and includes a 4mm drawing by Mike Peascod of a chopper in its final condition.

There are two drawings of No 36 in Volume 1 of Russell (Page 150). The second is by J N Maskelyne, which is likely to be the MRN one, as he was a regular contributor to magazine.

What about the 0-4-0 101 https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2013/post-7075-0-55831600-1359046609.jpg, the Class 1100 tanks and all the steam railmotors?

There were several classes of 0-6-4 tanks that ran on the standard gauge in Britain. The Midland ones numbered around 40, and were primarily for passenger use, at least at first. The SECR had about 15 J Class tanks that were for passenger services, and the Mersey Railway had nine outside framed passenger locos, though many of them ended up on freight when sold off after electrification. The Barry Railway had ten rather elegant tanks, probably for goods, and the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway had nine goods tanks. The Highland had eight intended for banking duties, and the Metropolitan lagged behind with only four. As all these tanks were inside cylindered, it seems unlikely that the Met tanks inherited much from the elegant 4-4-4 tanks, apart from, perhaps, the boiler; of all these designs the Met tanks were, in my view, the ugliest, making the MR Flatirons quite pretty, at least before the extended smokeboxes arrived. I wonder if it was the extended ‘fixed’ wheelbase that was their downfall? The Met tanks developed a reputation for spreading the rails in some goods yards, and a 2-6-2 with more flexible pony trucks at each end might have been a better proposition. As for weight distribution, most of it would have been forward of the cab, and the consumption of coal would have progressively reduced the adhesion weight during the journey, so the 0-6-4 design would have had a theoretical advantage.

I’ve tried to contact them several times this year. No answer to emails and no response to messages left on their answerphone. I was hopeful, as they have updated their website in 2022, but to no avail. I haven’t tried snail mail yet, but that might be the only answer, assuming they are still at the address given.

The instructions for the 7mm version http://www.jimmcgeown.com/Wagon Kit Pages/LNER Tube Wagon Instructions pdf.pdf suggest using twisted wire (page 8 thereof). Is that the bit that’s gone awol?

From viewing Neighbours and Australian Police reality shows, I've got the impression that not only was it illegal to not indicate when starting to overtake, it was also an offence to fail to indicate when returning to the inside lane after the overtake. It's certainly in the Western Australian - A Handbook for Road Users. There seem to be similar rules in Spain, and probably elsewhere, although I don't know if they are enforceable.

Caley Coaches do the cylinder lubricators https://caley.com/fitting.php part CF26 and some CR brake parts, and NBR 4mm Developments do etched brake gear https://www.nbr4mm.co.uk/locoparts/9202.php

But it didn't work that way. The only time you would save on demurrage payments was if your wagons were on your own premises (or someone else's private siding), If they were in any railway owned goods depot or yard for any longer than the allowed period (usually two working days) then Siding Rent would be charged and if they also had to be shunted aside to move other wagons in or out when Siding Rent was being charged there was also a Shunting Charge (6d per occasion in the late 1920s). The Railways were also legally entitled to add to the normal rates an additional sum for a privately owned vehicle occupying and being sorted in railway owned yard during transit and when the LNWR was challenged in court in respect of such charges it won the case. And you need to add on the Commuted Charge for movement to a location where repairs could be carried out if they were needed plus the cost of movement after repair. Many private owner wagons were effectively owned by what we would nowadays call 'finance companies' and even when they were purchased a common method of purchase was called 'hire purchase' where the company buying the wagon paid the builder or an associated company, or a separate 'finance company', a hire charge as they paid off the purchase price in instalments. At least in the thirties and earlier, demurrage was completely separate from any Siding Rent. Demurrage was paid if a wagon took longer to unload than the agreed period, usually two days, I think, and was paid to the owner of the wagon, which could be a railway company. Thus a wagon, if owned by the private trader, or hired to him, would not be subject to any payments on this account, although demurrage worked both ways, and the railway company might be liable to pay the wagon owner/hirer if it unduly delays the wagon. I'd not heard of Shunting Charges if a wagon has to be shunted aside to move other wagons. I would have thought that it was the railway company's responsibility to place wagons in suitable locations in the yard, and any shunting required would be down to them. It might be different if the wagon had spent too long in the siding. A 1937 book on Modern Railway Practice does note a charge of 1s to shunt a crippled wagon into or out of sidings, and 6d a day for siding rent after three days. This is where the Commuted Charge (for Shunting and Siding Rent), from the twenties, comes in. For an annual charge of 1s per wagon, these charges were waived. The other annual charge, indicated by the yellow star, was introduced in the thirties. In 1930 the RCH gave notice of changes in the way empty running to repair locations. Previously, there were no charges for returning an empty wagon to the original loading point, or for forwarding an empty wagon to the point of loading, providing the journeys each way were over the same route. There was also provision that there would be no charges if the wagon was diverted, perhaps for repairs, providing the distance travelled over a particular line was less than the original. The RCH proposed to charge for the last, which caused an uproar, and this was resolved by means of a modest annual payment, around 1s 10d, covering most situations.

Virtually all pre-grouping railway companies only used lower quadrant signals. Upper quadrant signals only came into vogue in the 1920s. The GWR stubbornly refused to change, but the other three would use UQ signals for all new work, converting LQ to UQ as necessary, but in many locations across the UK, lower quadrant signals survived until closure or the arrival of colour lights.