Nick Holliday

A recently opened shop in Sutton, Surrey - Pound Store - currently has a small range of rattle can paints containing 250ml. Apart from matt and gloss black, and the usual bright colours, they also have a range called "Army Issue" with colour names such as Battle Ship Grey, Beige Grey (also called Jungle) and Grey Beige! (Also called Desert) which might be of interest for modelling, as per attached, regrettably rather poor, photo. The BSG might have some use for wagon liveries, although a bit on the blue side, while the others may have value for weathering or landscaping.

There is obviously a difference regarding this topic between inside and outside cylinder locos. With the latter, as discussed, the throw on the wheel will be around half the piston stroke length. Some engineers tried to keep the rods closer to the axle centre line, by forging crankpins with offset centres for the connecting rod and coupling rod, but the difference was only an inch or so. With inside cylinders, there was no direct correlation between the cylinder stroke and the coupling rod throw. Members of the Brighton Circle are currently discussing this very topic, and it appears that Stroudley preferred to have a 9" throw for the rods, even though the cylinder stroke was around 24". Apart from the consideration of the forces involved, an extended throw would also have required the splashers to be enlarged to accommodate the rods and their bosses, at least with those with flat running plates - not such a problem for a BR standard with the running plate well clear of the wheels!

Re-reading Harris, he notes that Lots 759/814, Diagrams E.44/52 were first- and third-class only, ..."which suggests that they may have been built for through working on to Cambrian or Midland metals, the only two railways to have abolished second-class accommodation at that date." He also notes that the earlier diagram had a side corridor to the third-class compartment, similar to the design I noted from Russell, whilst the later had lost one lavatory, and by inference the corridor. Hence E52 could have four third-class compartments seating seven, and two firsts seating 10, although Harris doesn't actually enumerate the number of each class. There are two flies in this particular ointment, however, since Harris describes them as having observation windows, which might compromise the seating numbers, and they were not, at least when built, gangwayed.

I would agree with Compound2632 that it sounds more like a non-corridor coach. I am no expert on GWR carriages, but what Russell describes as a Falmouth coach, page 118 in volume one, almost fits the bill. The type he illustrates is lot no. 697, with three first class compartments with individual toilets, reducing seating to 5, and four smaller compartments, three connected to a side corridor to two toilets, and the fourth, possibly intended for second class passengers, was arranged similarly to the firsts. I am not sure how the third class numbers work out, but if the layout was slightly different as Compound suggests, with pairs of thirds sandwiching toilets, then they might seat four on one side and just three on the other, to allow for the door, although that does seem somewhat luxurious for the time. I am not sure a new Toplight would have been allocated to such a service at the time, and there would be little point in having a corridor coach unless the Midland provided similar stock.

This publication from the O Gauge Guild might be inspirational. http://www.gauge0guildarchive.com/gazette_archive/other%20publications/Small-layouts-1/html5/index.html?page=1&server=

Without wishing to open up that particular can of worms, the current Kemilway website lists etchings for two GWR TPO's, one of which is described as clerestory, and shown as one of Peter K's special offers. I don't know if they are actually available, or which diagrams they are meant to represent, but maybe worth a phone call.

In the previous issue of the superb LBSCR Modellers Digest, http://www.lbscr.org/Models/Journal/LBSCR-Modellers-Digest-5.pdf#page120, edited by Burgundy of this parish, Chris Cox has an updated catalogue that would suggest that he is back in business.

Sorry - started writing this before anyone else had answered, and had the break off to entertain grandchildren, and I didn't check when I got back to it to see how the response had been! Much of what follows repeats what others have said so if. You are in a hurry, please ignore. To the best of my knowledge, the main sources of early pregrouping coaching stock are biased towards the LBSCR. The main supplier of very early versions you have already ruled out, as 5&9 Models only produce white metals kits, but, thanks to their small size, and fine mastering, they are not as heavy as, say, the clunky old K's kits. Their wagon kits similarly are quite light, as well. For etched kits Roxey Mouldings and London Road Models have some early Stroudley stock that would date from early 1870s, and http://ianmaccormacmodels.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/kitsetches-for-purchase.html lists some Craven types that might be available. There are some other makers that might fit your bill, LRM have some early LNWR stock, Bill Bedford lists various types, such as one from the Cleator and Egremont Railway, and Prickly Pear have some early GNoSR designs. I am not aware of any plastic kits that cover the earlier period, certainly regarding passenger stock, apart from perhaps the Ratio GWR Iron Mink which design turned up on the Bishops Castle Railway, so the only alternative is to trawl through the Shapeways catalogue to see if there is anything 3D printed that might suit.

I agree it's unlikely things were moved, but maybe the difference is down to the scanning process, and/or the way the material appears on screen. I suspect that matching the original printed maps would show less change.

Would black heat shrink tubing work? It comes in lots of sizes, in steps of 0.8 mm from 1.6mm.

RT Models carry the former Albert Goodall range of Bulleid Pacific detailing parts http://www.rtmodels.co.uk/rt_models_026.htm which may include what you are after.

There is a photo in the Southern Way special of the Bulleid diesels, essential reading I would have thought, that shows one of the refuelling methods used. There is a luggable IC powered pump, sitting on the ground next to a rail tank, with the inlet pipe looped up and dropped down in o the tank through the manhole, with the delivery pipe waiting to be put into the tank filler on the diesel

Ambis Engineering do a simple etch for the chassis for the Hudswell Clark loco, but it lacks certain bits which have to be supplied from the K's kit, such as cylinders and motion parts.

This link has a lot of useful information on the Bournemouth Belle - https://www.kentrail.org.uk/bournemouth_belle.htm As others have said, Hornby has a wide range of suitable Pullmans, although probably not all are currently available, and the non-Railroad ones have lighting and a high level of detail that would be hard to achieve from a kit, if suitable ones were actually available. There are a number of books covering Pullman history, most are fairly wide ranging, but there is a series of more specialised books, covering specific types, such as the twelve wheeled ones, and the K types.

You've opened a can of worms here. There are four parallel problems. First of all, older products from some firms, including Rivarossi, Fleischmann and Trix, dating from the 1960's, were sometimes made to a larger scale than strict HO, which is 1:87. Typically they might be around 1:80, which will make them appear larger. Secondly, the standard international coaches and silverfish were long beasties, and some companies such as Fleischmann and Marklin decided that a scale model would be too long for table top layouts, so they made them to 1:100 scale in length, whilst retaining HO scale for everything else. This either involved removing windows/bays entirely, or squashing them in to fit. These coaches will look much shorter than those to the correct length, such as, I think, ADE or Lilliput products. Thirdly, compounding the confusion, some firms, such as Roco, have produced the same coaches in both reduced formats and true scale lengths, so you need to check descriptions or code numbers very carefully. Finally, not all German coaches were built to this length, older styles being shorter, so correctly scaled versions of these types may look shorter than a correct scale modern one, but longer than the "shorty" versions! Lastly, can I suggest you contact the moderators to remove your duplicate thread, otherwise those trying to help you a bit more than I can will get very frustrated if things are running in parallel?

Scale? Ready made or built from etchings?

Another excellent book on the Caterham line is that written by my god-father Jeoffry Spence, and published by Oakwood Press. (Last few copies remaining!) He was a well known railway historian and author, and helped to organise the centenary celebrations in 1956 and lived in a house in the town with a Southern style nameboards outside, Tuborg Halt, which reflected his other interest in, then, obscure lagers.

Have you thought of the Watercress Line? They publish details of walks around their area, and apparently once a year you can actually have a sponsored walk along the track bed, next one is November 2018.

It doesn't help your width problem, but have you looked at the old-maps site? They offer a wider range of dates for the large scale maps, and have one dated around 1922 that shows the access to the north yard as you have amended it, with the point near the signal box, which does increase the head shunt there, and matches the photos of that area in pregrouping days. One point you have missed is the rather pointless headshunt where the line climbing from the south yard meets the main line. This does require a double slip which may be why you omitted it, but it does seem an unusual characteristic of the station, although probably essential under safety regulations. One problem with OS maps is that they seldom show anything within other structures, and at Buxton the overall roof is hiding what might lurk within. Given the general paucity of crossovers, I wonder if there was an engine release crossover tucked away inside, although with the proximity of the local shed perhaps there was always a spare loco to help release the train engine.

I think Ambis Engineering do an etched compensation unit for small diameter wheels, but it is very difficult to navigate their website to confirm this. I think it is their product ISwo-3 - small wheel inside bearings, but you may need to check this with them first.

To save you a bit of trouble and expense, possibly, there is a GA type drawing of the L&YR loco in Barry Lane's book on L&YR Locomotives. Key dimensions are wheelbase, 7' 3" + 7' 9", boiler pitch 6' 5" and boiler diameter 4' 1" to which has to be added cladding thickness. Russell's book on GWR Absorbed locos has an outline drawing of the later rebuilt TVR version, with a higher pitched boiler. However, when the TVR design was adopted by the L&YR, the latter substituted the rectangular cab splashers which look like the M&CR loco, at least in original form, so this variant isn't particularly helpful. Unfortunately,I have not been able to find any photos of the M&CR locos after their rebuilding, as pictures of their locos, especially goods types, are as rare as hens' teeth, and the two books on the line I have only cover the early passenger locos, and even then rather scantily, so I cannot comment whether the later incarnations are more, or less, like the L&YR ones.

The Wantage Tramway only had four coupled locos yet provided a passenger service until the nineteen twenties, as did the Wisbech and Upwell line, where the original tram locos were four wheelers, so it seems unlikely that the Easingwold was actually forbidden to use similar locos. As Oldudders has implied, almost every steam railmotor had a four wheeled propulsion unit, some of them 0-2-2 or 2-2-0, and they dated from 1903 onwards.

When I did a similar exercise on LBSCR signal boxes it rapidly became apparent that there were no absolute modular dimensions, although there were similarities between different boxes. These days we seem to think that using standard sizes is the obvious economic way to go, but a hundred years ago this didn't commonly occur. Each job would be handled individually by the joinery company responsible, and it wouldn't make any difference to them whether it was a repeat of a previous job or not. The machinery would be set up to deal with the task in hand, to whatever dimensions required to accommodate the lever frame needed for the box, although the height of the windows was probably standard for a particular style of box.

I know that Mr Rush has a reputation for a degree of "unreliability" which is why I always include his name when quoting his information, so the reader can season it with a pinch of salt! However, thanks to his "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" approach, many of his books have dabbled in uncharted waters, and the hobby would be a little poorer without his efforts. However, with regard to the FR railmotor, in Michael Andrews' 2012 book on the line he quotes minutes to the effect: "The Board approved the construction of a steam powered railmotor to carry fifty passengers. It was to be built in the Company's own workshops, at Barrow, at a cost of £2,000 and was to run on either the Lakeside or Coniston branches. The prototype was examined by the Board, in the workshops, on 14th October 1904 ....."

Looking at a photo of M&CR No 28 and comparing it with pictures of the LRM L&YR loco and the rendition of Mercian's Carlisle, I would venture to suggest that neither will provide you with an easy route to your goal, if you are hoping to capture the essential character of the M&C loco. Apart from the basic shape of the cab, with a rectangular splashers at the bottom and a curved cut out above, neither has the right profile, and at least the front splashers will need to be scratch built, and the distinctive Beyer Peacock splashers will need to be sourced somewhere, an etching perhaps. The LRM boiler looks too large and too high pitched, whilst the BCR boiler features a raised firebox, which 28 didn't. I can't comment on the BC chassis, but the LY one looks to have unequal wheelbase and fluted coupling rods, whereas 28 seems to have almost equal spacing, and plain rods. By the time you have corrected all these things there will be precious little left of use - perhaps the safety valves from the LRM kit! I did think that perhaps the Branchlines kit of the BP / LSWR Ilfracombe Goods might offer an easier route, but being some thirty years earlier in design, it too has little in common with the M&C loco. I realise I have been rather negative, but unless the M&C rebuilt the locos later, then I fear scratch building may be your best course. But if you can provide a drawing of what you are after, including the tender which doesn't appear in the photo I found on the Internet, then there might be scope for identifying other suitable donor kits that might give you a head start.