Nick Holliday

One of the problems with this coach is that there were very few three compartment coaches built. Most that appeared were during the transition from the stagecoach designs to the more familiar panelling, and had very flat roofs. The Triang and Great Locomotives Rocket carriages would be a better starting point. A typical one can be seen on the cover of Lightmoor Press's Great North of Scotland Coaches http://lightmoor.co.uk/books/great-north-of-scotland-railway-carriages/L9419 All seem to have been built before 1860, by which time underframes had already become longer, and at 24 to 28 feet long could take 4 first class or five (or more!) third class compartments. Some of the old stock, however, did manage to hang on until the twentieh century. The other problem is the overall profile is much too modern, more 1905 than 1855, and reminds me of some stock I have seen made by cutting four compartments off an old Farish suburban coach, with some lining to create the effect of panels. The only example that I can find that comes anywhere near the modernity of the Hornby thing comes from the LSWR. Some 1859 three compartment firsts were rebuilt with higher roofs which matched the 1879 stock being introduced, and might even have formed the inspiration for Hornby, as a photo of them shows two lines of fittings on the roof.

I know I am opening up a can of worms, but Peter K on the Kemilway website lists three GER four wheel coach etchings. I am aware of the problems with this supplier, but the website does seem to have been updated fairly recently, and the prices, if anything, have been reduced. It might be worth trying to contact him, I think phone is the preferred method. They are half the price of a full blown kit from the likes of Roxey, so, if you can actually get hold of one, it is a cheap introduction into brass kits, although you do have to source the other bits and pieces. Although some of their earlier products were a bit iffy in design, I was impressed by the quality of some of the later ones I bought, such as the GER wool wagon, which went together very easily, or would have, if I had ignored some of the minor errors that I wanted to cure, but which wouldn't have materially affected the finished model too much. Brass isn't really that much different from card, and small models can easily be built using a good adhesive, which I believe is the preferred method for the Shirescenes GWR kits.As for drawings of six wheeled stock, there are several that can be viewed on the NRM website, if you look in their research and archive section.

I am not sure about the position of the goods shed in the last configuration. Although in some places it was permitted for locos to pass through the shed, but in this case the loco would have to pass continually through to serve the cattle dock and coal siding, and probably stand and reverse inside it. Probably better back on the crane siding, with the crane to the left of the shed.

The current discussion on this forum regarding when guards changed over on through trains between different companies echoed vaguely similar thoughts I am having regarding braking systems. This was started when I spotted a photo on Mike Morant’s website, showing a Brighton Gladstone hauling a train comprising a motley collection of LNWR carriages on a special. While the LNWR was a vacuum brake line and the Brighton Westinghouse, the stock that can be identified are all probably dual-fitted. In normal circumstances I know that, if expecting a train of vacuum fitted stock, one of the few dual-braked Brighton locos would be sent to collect it. However, on this occasion the loco doesn’t appear to have been fitted with vacuum braking equipment, so it is running using the Westinghouse brakes. What I would like to know is whether the train has run its entire journey using the Westinghouse system, with the LNWR providing a dual-fitted loco from the outset, or was it run under vacuum up to London, and then changed at Willesden to suit the LBSC loco? If the latter, was this done by a shunter or porter going the length of the train, removing the vacuum hoses and connecting the Westinghouse, which seems fairly time-consuming, although practical if a little labour intensive, or was it possible to run the train with both sets of hoses connected, and simply swapping over the hoses when the loco was changed, which would be more efficient, but I am having difficulty believing if it would be permitted, or be physically practical. The same dilemma presumably would have occurred at Carlisle several times a day, when the LNWR and Caledonian changed locos on through WCJS services. I am assuming that, given the regularity of the trains, both companies had sufficient dual braked locomotives to deal with all the traffic. However, I wonder whether there was a protocol as to who supplied what? Did the Caledonian provide the lion’s share, and always use the vacuum, which would make the fitting of both brakes to WCJS carriages an unnecessary expense, or was it alternated, or did they change over systems, in one of the ways I have suggested at Carlisle?

I see that Worsley Works already produce etched side for Emigrant stock, including 2 after conversion to pull-push use. Curiously, for someone who promotes 2mm and 3mm, currently they are only offered in their 4mm range. However, knowing their willingness to produce items to different scales, I am sure a request to them would be answered, assuming this might be what you are after.

Without being able to check, I would think that Mike King's "An Illustrated History of Southern Pull-Push Stock" will give you everything you want to know, as it provides a very comprehensive coverage of the subject. Unfortunately Amazon is currently showing it at nearly £55, but it should be possible to track one down at a price nearer to its original cost. The relevant volume of Gordon Weddell's LSWR coach series would give you details, certainly of them in original condition, but that might be even harder to track down.

This month's Railway Modeller (May 2017) has an article on Deansmoor, Jon Dean's N gauge layout, which has been constructed on a standard door, influenced by the N Gauge Society's "Layout on a Door" competition. Jon talks happily about exhibiting the layout, so it must be possible to handle the single panel, but I wouldn't, personally, want to try it, but it does work.

Surely the absence of doors would allow the wagon to be fairly well sealed. You wouldn't want this precious load leaking out along the tracks. And who would volunteer to open the door, to be confronted by a wall of slurry?

The Stroudley tanks as described by Bradley - "Although appearing to rest on the running plate and the upper edge of the frames, they were in fact suspended by a massive iron cleading plate passing over the boiler top and might more correctly be called wing-tanks. This meant there was little distortion of the running plate and no heavy bracketing was necessary." I believe Billinton continued this with his tanks. It looks as if the E4X could use a similar support, but this wouldn't work with the higher pitched E5X and E6X boilers. Presumably these chunky brackets were the connection between the boiler and the tank tops, to restrain them from moving outwards.

Looking at the various images, the London tram, with four lower Windows, is the earlier Matchbox release, from way back, which was closer to N gauge than anything else, and one image is of one of these converted to run on N gauge track. The later version, which looks nearer 4mm, is shown as being a Preston tram, presumably the builder, and has three lower windows, and I am not sure if anything like that ran on London tramways, but given the number of individual tramway companies, anything might happen.

Your Option 2 is probably the best, although I would change a few things. I would extend the siding through the goods shed, and perhaps even move it further up onto the siding at the end of the loop, which doesn't serve any purpose, and then you could remove one of the other tracks.. I would also rationalise the loading bay area. The shed would probably have a crane inside, and I suspect that the idea of a crane on a loading bank may be more of a modeller's concept. The yard cranes I can think of, without resorting to the library, were generally mounted at ground level, although not every yard would have one anyway, as a rail mounted crane could easily be provided when necessary, but obviously this would depend on the type and scale of the traffic to the yard. I would have a combined end and side loading bank, with the cattle dock attached. This is my model of the arrangement at Fittleworth in Sussex. This also features the typical LBSC lock up goods shed, rather than the larger type, which, again, reflects the anticipated traffic. There is also a ramp to get vehicles etc. down from the end loading point. It is worth considering how road vehicles can get around your yard, and where your yard gates are, for maximum realism. Finally, my bête noir, the location of your coal pens. Try not to have them back to back with the tracks, as that arrangement is surprisingly rare in the real thing, unless you are modelling BR Southern Region. If you must have them, put them a short distance from the tracks, facing them, so that other traders can get to their wagons on that siding. However, I would concede that you might be able to include some sort of coaling platform for your loco shed, allowing the wagon supplying the coal to be unloaded without impeding access to the shed.

I've always thought that the E6X was a rather handsome brute, the smaller wheels looking much better than the E5's larger ones. There were some other less attractive rebuilds, the D1X and D3X were desperately ungainly, yet the E1X looked surprisingly modern and a precursor for the E2 tanks, whilst the C2X, which perhaps should have been a visual disaster, was much loved by many, and the original somewhat weedy C2 rather overlooked.

I think this is a little unfair. The original invoice dates back 25 years, and the increase seems less than the prices of the original items would have risen, not to mention labour costs, VAT etc. The original cost was pretty steep, but as far as I can tell the LBSC ones are not just Mallard kits superbly made and painted, but at least one is a bespoke vehicle, since, AFAIK, Mallard never produced a brake first, so the price represents the extra work involved.The four coach set is obviously LSWR as lettered, and again I suspect that they are not made from off the shelf kits, but why he labelled them LBSC is a mystery. At least they are genuine Lawrence products. His constant use of D&S is confusing, but perhaps Danny Pinnock did produce the special etchings for them

The LBSC occasionally used the Economic Facing Point Lock, which somehow integrated the FPL with the actual point actuation mechanism in one lever. One example was immediately in front of the signal box at Fittleworth. This could mean that, if there isn't enough space in the frame for separate FPL levers, use of the Economic one might be cited. Regarding the interior, I believe that the box at Isfield has been suitably restored and can be easily viewed, to get a proper idea of the layout and equipment used, as I think it is roughly the same size as your model.

Sir Douglas As you guessed there were others in the UK. The Midland and South Western Junction Railway, or more precisely, the Swindon, Marlborugh and Andover Railway, had one, which had a fairly short life. It was a more traditional looking side tank, but I seem to recall it was also the first UK locos to be fitted with Walschaerts valve gear, the unfamiliarity of this probably compounding its running problems. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SM&AR_Single_Fairlie_1878.jpg

Signalbox.org might be the answer to most of your queries. Under Lever Frames they have got pictures of both Saxby & Farmer and LBSC home-brew lever frames, and their gallery section has lots of Brighton boxes, many of which have several internal views, showing not just the frames but all the other paraphernalia involved. As for order of levers, the general rule seems to have been to start with No. 1 being usually the distant signal furthest to the left of the box, the numbering in the box also starting at the left. Numbering would generally then follow the route of a train as it travels through the station, from the left. If we call this direction "Up" then the signals and points for the "Down" line would then be numbered in reverse order, with the furthest distant being the highest number. Points and other levers would be included in a similar way, so levers associated with Up movements would generally be at one end of the frame, Down at the other, an early example of ergonomics in practice. The signalbox site has a number of layouts to show how others have done it, although sadly no LBSC examples. Brighton enthusiasts have the benefit of a complete set of signalling diagrams available, so if you can say which Brighton station Oak Hill most resembles, I can supply the appropriate diagram which might assist you. Spare levers might have been inserted, in a ffairly random way, particularly if there was an anticipation of expansion in the future, or if the number of levers required didn't fill the "standard" frame sizes available, if there were such standards.

I wasn't aware of much gunpowder manufacturing in Surrey, although there were a few firework factories around Sutton. The main sources in the south seem to have been at Faversham and Corringham, and the Government sites at Woolwich and Waltham Abbey. Just to add to the mix, in the recent book on SE PO Wagons, there is a photo of a pair of gunpowder vans owned by the Cotton Powder Company Ltd. of Faversham.

Jonathan You have opened up a bit of a can of worms. I have had a quick trawl through various albums, and I would like to make the following initial observations: As per Southern Style, cattle docks and level crossings were painted white, with black iron work on the level crossing gates. Fencing directly adjacent to level crossings was also white. For the rest of fencing, there seem to be no hard and fast rules, so for anything I may say, there is probably at least one exception that can be found. General timber fencing, similar to Ratio. This seems to be white where close to paying customers, such as on platforms, occasionally with dark (black or maroon) painted posts. The white is some views looks a bit darker, and has either weathered or was painted in the pale cream colour used on buildings. Further away from passengers, such as in goods yards, the timber is dark, probably only treated and not painted. In a few places the LBSC built a trellis fence, similar to the familiar Midland style. I suspect that, due to the difficulty of actually painting the timber, they were made of treated wood. They always look dark, and I used black on my Fittleworth layout. I don't know when creosote came into use, so perhaps there was some other treatment that was used which resulted in a dark colour. Iron spear fencing was, mainly, painted in a dark colour. I can only guess that it would have been black, or perhaps municipal dark green in places such as crossing Wandsworth Common. Building maroon is always another possibility, and all would appear similar shade in black and white photos. Cast iron posts, with a single metal rail, such as on bridge parapets, seems to have been white. The four bar lineside fencing was probably plain timber, as was close boarded feather-edge fencing, although sometimes, close to stations, they might be painted white. The timber fence that involves a heavy top rail, at 45°, in a notch in the top of the post, often used on the side of roads on the incline to road overbridges in otherwise flat areas, seem to have been white, with perhaps black ironwork. Staircase handrails on signalboxes seem to have come in almost any colour, between black and white, presumably at the whim of the painter! Hedges were a common feature of the LBSC lineside, and they would have been in Improved Engine Green or Goods Green, depending on season. (Photos of Ratio examples taken from the Gaugemaster website)

Just a small point, most LBSC cattle pens were painted white, and kept scrupulously clean, with fresh applications of lime wash as required. This is the one at Horsham, which seems to be of a similar design, However, the temporary barriers across the opening do seem to be unpainted or creosoted timber.

Just in case Father Brown turns up on his way from Midsomershire, or that gunpowder van arrives, you may need one of these: A Glasgow and South Western corpse van, courtesy of the Model Wagon Company in 4mm.

I would think it is the FPL answer. A similar situation existed leading into Helston engine shed, as I recall, and was common on a lot of single line branches. I wouldn't be surprised if the Moretonhampstead connection was slightly smoother than the map maker has shown it.

I don't know if it is on any help, but an on-line trawl through a West Riding directory of 1881 came up with a number of coal merchants based in Skipton, although there is no way of knowing whether they had wagons or even an office at the station. J & RW Bower, Mill Lane (Agent Thos. Sandall, Victoria Wharf), Skipton Henry Robinson and Son, 94 High Street, Newmarket, Skipton William Robinson, Cross Street and Railway Station, Skipton Skipton Gas Light and Coke Co. Mr T Hawkswell Joseph Smith, New Town, Skipton Thomas Tryer, Belmont Bridge, Skipton

I know this isn't eBay, but I think it shows that others can be just as mad - a choice from Amazon A fairly bog-standard English Heritage castle guide - yours for only £5,079 + £2.80 postage, or, if you dare use another supplier 1p + £2.80 postage. Difficult decision to make if you are keen on Farleigh Hungerford Castle!

Ambis Engineering can supply most, if not all, you need. They offer six different coupling hooks, can supply three link couplings including magnetic links, and they do a screw coupling etching although I haven't seen it and cannot comment on its effectiveness. I personally prefer the Masokits screw coupling etch, as I find it more robust than the other etches I have tried, and more workable than fancy ones like Exactoscale.

The good news is that, as far as I can tell, the Marsh I1 boilers that were fitted were the same diameter and pitch as the original Billinton ones. The first of these boilers were fitted using the original smokebox, for which I suspect the Bachmann dome and valves could stay, but this version would have appeared in umber. There was quite a variety in the domes, chimneys and safety valves, so it is possible that the moulded ones might pass muster, unless someone is actually clutching a photo of Partridge Green in green when commenting! I have looked at what might have to be done, and it looks more feasible than I initially thought, especially for someone who has created a Gladstone from a T9! The main job is obviously shortening the smokebox. The required line seems to coincide with the vertical front of the cylinder cover plate, so there is a guide there. The chimney looks as if it will remain in the right place, as, on the extended version it is not central, as it has to be directly above the pipe from the cylinders. As I noted, there were several types of chimney fitted to the E4, and the Bachmann one might be suitable. The other modification to do is to remove the top lip of the smokebox saddle, and create a smooth curve instead. The lubricators on the side can stay, although I suspect they will suffer during the smoothing process. A line of rivets, perhaps from Archers, will be needed on the front edge of the smokebox, or perhaps a thin metal wrapper, suitably embossed, might be a better solution. A new smokebox front will be required, but it may be possible to re-use the smokebox door, depending on what comes on your donor model. There are some other minor cosmetic changes I have noted, SEFinecast or 5&9 Models might be persuaded to supply replacement boiler fittings, some pipework will need removing from a later version, and the nuts or bolt heads should be removed from the buffer beam and cylinder cover plate.