coline33

My apologises, Tim, but I should have typed 40" x 23 1/2" as my board size that extra few inches makes all the difference on curvature! As I found out yesterday!!! I too always take the radii on track centres. Good I recognise your E/1s! The enclosed version perfectly makes ex-Walthamstow 2nd series E/1 2054 for pre- or post-war eras. As the TLRS Sub-Seven Secretary at the time as was asked by David Boyle for help so I selected that number for the transfer sheet when he started his plastic kit tram range. Although as Secretary I was open to helping anyone producing kits, the fact that I had directly helped a 'competitor' caused Frank Vescoe to end the relationship with me. That was despite my pointing out that the detail of the BEC kits was superior to the Tower equivalents. If you have any open fronted kits then I recommend these to be best for major alteration - the enclosed fronted ones are best for just altering the windscreens to suit the ex-Croydon, East Ham and Walthamstow first series E/1s. Now I read that you are thinking of introducing H0 in the future. What using the same tracks? If you are and you go for the conduit track then your modern Euros will have to be for 'ground pick-up' (with pantograph down) which certainly on Recreation21 conduit track the conduit can be disguised for today's version of 'ground pick-up'. From what I see of second generation systems the space between tracks is wider than first generation as the 2.6m. wide is becoming the minimum norm. Hard to believe that the 1930's saw the introduction of the 100" wide PCCs! At Blackpool Mr. Luff had the foresight to widen the central space as tracks were relaid. Do not make lines too bendy for articulated trams - as I had to point out to Croydon Council's planners in 1990 their first draft of Sandilands junction would have increased maintenance costs on the increased wear and tear of the articulations. They took heed on that aspect in the revision but seemingly failed to draw attention to my request that "San Francisco Auto Control" should be demanded on the approach from the tunnel (my 1998 attempt got a response of investment capped and risk assessment shows a highly unlikely issue!!!). My concern was a repeat of the cause of the Moorgate tragedy, because of the high speed approach to all three sharp bends on line 3. Fortunately at Sandilands the overhead is span wire but H-girder posts around the other two would cause a 'bacon-slicer' effect to a tram derailing at speed there. Good driving techniques and signage will never overcome a staff suicide. I have had an operator drive a Boeing artic with the controls at 50mph through the San Francisco tunnel with this system. Attempting to pass the zero board at 10mph the on-board computer which had automatically reduced the speed to 35mph and then 10mph., applied the electro-magnetic brakes with full force and we stopped before entering a road junction. In 1948 I had the experience of the same emergency brake application on a Feltham, I was the only passenger but the car had to terminate at the next crossover as the conductress found herself in mid-air coming down the front stairs and needed treatment. The fully loarded Boeing had polished plywood seats so the passengers all slid forward but the standing passengers had no problem they were tightly packed!!! Today on Tramlink, once the emergency brake is applied and the car is stationary, the driver must leave his cab and go through the car so see if anyone has been affected. Next week, I will photo my conduit sections to give you an idea of the insulator hatch spacing and plough hatch locations. They are not too different to those found on cable tramways - if you want to go that far back!!! Wishing you all a happy hot Easter, Colin.

Lovely view of the typical Hull tram track rail with its centre groove for the centrally placed flanges on the wheels. Must have been more difficult to re-profile the wheels when they got flats unlike on conventional single flange tyred wheels. Trust someone has got a conservation order on them as they are unique in the UK.

Joseph, yes in scale 1:1 when there is no skirting but In 1:76 scale the problem is the total size of a motor bogie within the limited space and width in the lower saloon together with the width of the plastic or white-metal saloon waist panels preventing bogie swing. In reality even Leeds had a problem with "Bluebird" which had to have cut-outs before going into service. My original Hamo standard German four wheeler had a 40mm, wheel base and could grind round 6" curves which was good for cleaning the wheels!!! There is no way that my E/1s could do the same they would derail. One morning going to work on my regular 0804 (run 34) tram I detected a flat and noted it. At lunchtime I specifically caught the car for a run round the Croydon loop to feel if the flat had got worse. The flat had completely disappeared. As I had copy of the duty sheet for run 34, I was able to see that since my first journey it had done three round trips of line 3 with all its sharp bends. So three runs from Croydon to New Addington should save use of the wheel profiling lathe!!! To me the distance between bogie/truck centres on the CR4000s is the greatest they can go on that system's track - wheel squeal does become unacceptable on the driest of days!!! The Stadlers, which are literally three four-wheelers joined together, give a very jerky ride on our sharp bends and the unpleasant ride up front is typical of that I have experienced on all four wheelers that I have ridden around the world.

Tim, when years ago Simon was researching the dimensions for his Recreation21 system, a concensus was held with David Voice, myself and others in the Sub-Seven Modelling section of T&LRS in respect of minimum standards for 4mm. scale British operation. Not only did we look at what happened in reality but also what were the limits of the mechanisms on offer in relation to bogie swing. We concentrated on getting the inner curve right for bogie operation. (Four wheelers of course can grind round much sharper curves!) If that was right then given the end overhangs the outer curve would be OK. Overhangs on Swansea & Mumbles, Blackpool Coronations and Felthams were seen as probably the worst a modeller would encounter. Also the easier ability of a derailment with a maximum-traction bogie was taken into account. Hence the 204 for inner and 250 for outer has become acceptable. One thing I am not sure of about your E/1 kits, are they plastic or white-metal please? I have E/1s in both materials and naturally weight becomes a factor in providing tractive-effort against resistance which increases as the curve gets sharper - which comes down to what I know as the 'angle of attack'!!! If you have to have really sharp bends and steep gradients that bogie mechs will not take, then John Howe's London tram models successfully used four wheel mechs behind the dummy bogie sides. Colin.

Tim, I have decided to build a 40" x 20" circular double track conduit layout. The track on the lengthwise display side will be code 100 rail within Recreation21 sections going into Peco Streamline with Peco's smallest radius points in the other half which will be the fiddle yard. I want a simple life so no overhead, no paved point work, simple electric circuits to have 4 trams at a time in the display area and a 'manual' fiddle yard!!! Probably the easiest design of layout for your E/1s. Simon, order placed - wished the conduit tracks stood out better in your shop! Nigel, I will be posting more on modelling Feltham experimentals on the "Brixton Hill tram depot" thread if Felthams inspire you. "Bluebird" will follow once I have saved up for the 3D print!!! Kind regards, Colin.

No confusion, Nigel, when you put it into timing of events - in fact you have two chosen designs both of which never reached the 1000 "Bluebirds" foreseen by LCC and 350 Felthams foreseen by LUT/MET and possibly a dozen shorter ones for a proposed joint MET/ Walthamstow tram service (LPTB introduced this service with trolleybuses). The regulations for the Subway from the start were that only metal bodied trams were to be used. The LCC did get authority to permit wooden bodied trams to pass through provided they were not in passenger service when the Subway was enlarged for double-deckers. The Felthams were introduced by the Underground Group of companies, who did not have any services through their competitor's Subway, and that was their chosen design for their future. In fact the first experimental Feltham although conduit equipped had a wheel-base longer that the LCC standard which in the end was its downfall in 1936/37. The second experimental had its overall wheel-base reduced to LCC standard to permit regular use on the LCC/MET joint services 21/29 - this was fortunate also in that this and the production Felthams could be accommodated on an LCC depot traverser but in the transfer to Streatham depot from 1936, the roof supports of the traverser hall had to be re-positioned to accept the extra length of a Feltham. At the same time the Felthams were being developed by LUT/MET, the LCC enlarged the Subway for double-deckers so metal bodied cars were then introduced as a standard LCC car to meet their system's dimensions. Hence the width of the E/3 and HR/2 classes continued to give 2+1 transverse seating in the lower saloon compared with the wider Feltham with its 2+2 seating - the extra 6" allowing this. The LCC aware of the impact the revolutionary Feltham was having in attracting passengers, decided to build a more modern looking design of metal bodied car with similar features,but not all, that they could get into a car length slightly more that the E/3 and HR/2 to still make it able to traverse the whole LCC system and introduce air braking as with the Felthams. "Bluebird" was the forerunner of a replacement fleet for the aging E/1s and we know that Sinclair had discussed with manufacturers an initial order for 100 cars as the chosen design for operating initially the 16/18, and Subway services 31,33,35 and 35A . So the LCC's chosen design in 1932 for the future Subway cars was "Bluebird". It was not until LPTB was formed and Thomas (from LCC) took full control of London's tramways that putting Felthams through the Subway was going to become a necessity but the clearances were so tight that safety issues restricted them to running 'light'. By 1934, the LPTB had decided to develope the trolleybus as a tram replacement leaving Sinclair to cease the "Bluebird" project. During 1934 one possibly two ex-MET Felthams were tested for clearances in the Subway and to find the most suitable routing to Charlton CRD. We know that one Feltham still in the company livery was seen in Streatham confirming the date of the trials. Needless-to-say London Transport never had a chosen design of tram, only attempts to make E/1s look more attractive or resemble "Bluebird"!!! I have elaborated my response to help others unaware of the background, Colin.

My world goes round in circles!!! Time now to return to London tram modelling so I have had to review what I am doing. I have decided not to proceed further with the "Rotherhithe New Road" concept but to revert to a previous concept of the "High Road". This is a single sided display of a double track conduit London high street with the other side of the circuit being the fiddle yard. So anyone is welcome to use my RNR concept! I need a layout to just run my fleet and be simplistic in track work and electrics so that I can put time to rolling stock building as I have so much London stock in the wings. First off will be LPTB Breakdown Car 045. Yes, an inhabitant of Brixton Hill. I do occasionally buy in from Ebay and bought a demi-car for my 'four-foot' line which required repainting into the 1900s BET livery. I finally produced the best Munich Lake and Primrose I had ever made and of course this was the original LCC livery and the one that 045 kept for its life. I normally go for a complete BEC kit No.12 as per attached view which can be built as a 'plug-in' body with the kit bolsters scrapped and the motor bogies rebuilt for a 'plug-in' mech. However, I did find on Ebay some built up bodies badly painted. One was a BEC/ABS B class in horrible chocolate and bright yellow!!! The body was in good nick so I have painted white (as per the view) as the base to paint the original LCC livery. So as it developes I will add photos and hope this inspires interest in four-wheelers for which Brixton Hill became the scrap yard for many different classes/types. Colin.

I forgot to add that the Kingsway Subway track widths were of course laid by the LCC based on Edwardian dimensions. The width problem in the Subway really showed up in the 1934 trialling the passage of Felthams through it for them to reach south-side initially for their overhauls being transferred from Hendon to Charlton in the summer of 1936 and then in the following autumn the start of transferring them all to Streatham depot. Their greater end overhangs meant very careful driving through the curved single tunnel sections under Aldwych!!! Although of metal construction, Felthams were not permitted through the Subway in passenger service - not even for chartering to LRTL members!!! This helps to understand why "Bluebird" became the accepted standard future car for London and not the Feltham design. I cannot recall anyone commenting on whether the shorter Feltham design for Walthamstow would have passed easily through the Subway.

Tim, do NOT use the dimensions by the tracks in the Kingsway Subway. The Subway was on private land with the only public access being pedestrian at the two stations. Therefore you must work on photos of public thoroughfares where tracks would have been laid subject to the provisions set out in the relevant Acts of Parliament. The provisions usually referred to the Board of Trade later Ministry of Transport general specifications much of which went back to the Tramways Act, 1870 - hence the 18" margin either side of the track to cater for the wear to the roadway of the hooves of a two-horse tram. You and Simon are quite right about "narrowness". 16.5mm. gauge is of course 4' 1 1/2" and that is why I model the British 'four-footers' (and H0 for my continental ones) outside of my London cars - they look better from the ends!!! I have just sent my plinth with 18.83mm. track to the T&LRS's National Model Tram Collection,for posterity. I built it from PC Models grooved track and their adhesive backed granite sett sheet to prove to myself that when BEC kit 14 was released the revised model Feltham width looked correct over it compared with 16.5mm. Even with the then help of members of the fledging P4 Society, I ran into the thickness of the white metal saloon sides and truck sides needing so much filing thinner if the car was not to ride too high to allow bogie swing. So I have tolerated 16.5mm, ever since purely for my London cars. By the way, I am just adding more posts on constructing kits of London cars on the RMweb "Brixton Hill Tram Depot" thread. Colin.

Alex, the skirt modifications were straight forward sawn cuts just as Chris has explained. Yes, MR did a superb job with the spark arrestor, one that I could not have done!!! Colin.

A plea for help to finish detailing the A to B side of 68222 as in the photo. I am particularly concerned as to whether there are any 2-3 bolt head strips that have to be applied as well as if a 'patch' or panel has to be applied on the body above the cylinder as was the case on the other side. Has anyone have a view of this side in its final condition when working W&U or in the docks, please? Colin.

Welcome "Engineer", please remove the 'veil' as your post is so pertinent and I would love to know who you are and in which location you reside? Yes, please follow up with your concept on mechs. Please let us see views of your rolling stock. In fact, it might now be time to start the return of the cars to service! My apologies to your father with his experiences of the early BEC motor bogies. The original kits had Tri-ang motors on end pivoted bogies but the next upgrade of the E/1 used K's motor parts which I used to build up on Saturdays, finish curing in the heat of the oven after the roast mid-day on Sunday, test them and deliver to Frank that PM! The failure rate even at that stage was high so the better ones delivered did not even meet the demand for the kits! In the attempt to improve the motors, Frank went to South Africa where a very small motor ideal for going under the floor was in development. Alas the cost to put into production defeated its designer but of course the Japanese came to the rescue! Like your concept, mine too permitted removing the bottom half of people for their tops to be affixed to the top of the unit, something David Voice had already done on his cars. With the introduction of the OOC/Atlas Felthams, I required nine motored for production Felthams/Experimental Car No.2 and one for the first experimental 'Blossom' for the "West Croydon" layout. Alan Kirkman built the mechs from PC Models parts and these went under the lower saloon seats. During the decade and a half that "West Croydon" went the exhibition rounds with its intensive tram service operation, the motors stood up well - the only motor failure being one of the two under an E-class car. Both my ex-LUT cars came 'off-the-peg' with motor bogies in place, such was the immediate need to get a full complement of cars to work the service 7 to Sutton. (It was in Tamworth Road that a change of operator caused the only major accident we ever had. A reversing short working service 7, K's E type single-decker to Wallington, was shot across West Croydon into Station Road by a speeding Tramlink car bound for New Addington! Lesson learnt that an on-coming Duty Controller must first familarise themselves with the location of every car before any movement!) So please maintain a permanent link with us and present us with as much as you can. We look forward to your future posts. Kind regards, Colin.

Simon, you had an insert that went between double tracks did you not? That was sufficient for the fattest not only of policemen but also the regulators!!! I say regulators because I have fond memories of the regular regulator at Kennington Horns junction. He was portly!!! He stood on the Elephant/Lambeth corner of the junction next to "The Horns" PH. He was so 'lubricated' that he could 'shoot' from talking to a driver in Kennington Park Road to another in the Kennington Road as he sorted out the 4s and 18s from Westminster to get them in order with the 2s and 16s from Blackfriars to continue south. And all this was done between moving road traffic with an eye on the traffic lights!!! At the start of the evening rush-hour, I used to return home from a day on the Embankment on the 18,up front in my favourite seat on a Feltham, join the queue for those lights and be entertained by him. The telephone bell would start to ring as he was in mid-flight and he had to juggle where he was and what to do next! I understand his job became virtually impossible when the trams were replaced by buses (now in two lanes to the lights!) and the volume of road traffic immediately increased. All the best, Colin.

Tim, probably the minimum for conduit tracks can be determined by taking the width of a LCC E/1 class car at 6'9" on each parallel track plus the width of a 'fat' policeman between! I do say the absolute minimum!!! Laying of tracks had to take into account the utility pipes beneath the deeper 'slab' required for conduit track so in some places without islands tracks were seen to be slightly further apart. So beware introducing Felthams on to your line. When these were transferred to Streatham depot, the Met Police issued instructions as to which streets policemen could not perform traffic control duties between tram tracks as the Felthams were 7'3" wide. There were instructions as to where Felthams were not to go except for special individual runs such as transfer from their north and south London depots to Charlton CRD. Their greater end overhang being a further limitation. I use both Simon Dawson's 'Recreation21' conduit and overhead track as the sides of the sections incorporate the compulsory 18" tramway margin. Then you can allow for the policemen/islands/utility manhole covers in between to suit your space. For the production of BEC and/or Tower E/1s you may be interested in the 'plug-in' mechanism/body swap concept I used for John Clarke's "West Croydon" layout. This is illustrated on the forum "Brixton Hill Tram Depot". You are very welcome to display any photos you take of them on that forum whether or not their prototypes operated from Streatham depot and its annex at Brixton Hill. Hope all goes well, Colin.

Chris, even you had previously acknowledged not all detail per individual loco could be accommodated for production/commercial reasons, so that is why I have 'covered' myself as well. The principal items included under that clause have been the door bangers and door hooks. All the additional separate parts provided have covered all the extra individual detail extremely well so congratulations to all concerned in the production. Colin.

The photos, I posted of the ends yesterday, come out darker than intended. Now that I have completed the side details and improved the photo quality, I submit the ends and the sides. The order of locos in each view left to right is 68222, 68223 and 68225. The performance of these are excellent just as I have found with my Sentinel and USA locos from Model Rail. The only detail seen that is not from the Model Rail box is the painted paper 'patch/panel' on the B to A side of 68222. I decided to keep the side windows closed and have 68223 for 'winter' service! I have accepted that for production/commercial reasons there are some wrongly positioned details. Regretfully, there is one complaint! Why did the ends of 68222 and 68225 not have the small door hooks as on the ends of 68223? The door hook assembly of these two appears to date back to GER and then subsequently replaced with the small hooks. Whilst I easily cut off the large curved metal hooks, there was no way that I was going to damage the ends by trying to remove the plastic mouldings beneath them. Hence you will see their remains in the end views! In the view A to B side I have not been able to add any detail to this side of 68222. Despite having 9 views of the prototype in its final condition, none are of the A to B side!!! I would be most grateful to see a view of this side in its final BR days if one exists, please? All I need now are the W&U's Top Link - drivers Albert South and Charles Rand with firemen Arthur Banyard and Tom Kirby - appearing from the open windows! Kind regards, Colin.

Yes, Paul, we both are referring to the same thing. It would have been nice if the cylinder could have been so modelled on the non-skirted ones. However, I appreciate that there would have been a space to fill some how on the skirted ones which probably could have been done in the skirt moulding. Another aspect I accept to keep production costs within reason. Mind you it I would have had a harder job in shortening the length of my 68222's skirts! Now back to finishing that body patch panel on it. Chris, pleased to read that you have done your intended number change to 68217. Look forward to seeing a view of it. Colin.

From the photos I have of the final conditions of 68222, 68223 and 68225 on the W&U, my three have their ends (A=chimney & B=firebox ends) finished as in the photos. As Chris has said before the door-bangers have had to be placed in a position commercially acceptable which I accept. Once the plate/s are added to the sides of 68222 I will photo the sides of all three and present here.

Paul, is not that 'plate' you mention above the cylinders part of the cylinder top? On the prototypes it is angled inwards and I have accepted this as one of those aspects that production-wise could have caused a problem in running. I am just finishing detailing (but not weathering) 68222 with the addition of the small plate affixed to the 'shed' above the cylinders on one side. From the only view I have of the other side of 68222 on W&U, which is unclear, this plate seems to be repeated. Can anyone please confirm that this plate exists on the chimney left to firebox right side of 68222? Colin.

Ray, most if not all of John L Smith's tram photos he sold were the copyright of others hence not in the LOSA collection. Today, some will be found in the National Tramway Museum photographic collection which is online but most probably with David. He offers an eight page list for the price of two second class stamps sent to A.D.Packer, 11 Clarence Road, Bickley, Bromley, BR1 2DD. Let him know that the recommendation came from Colin Withey and that you are interested in London trams, buses and trolleybuses. His archive is extensive and built up over 65 years covering UK and foreign systems. Alas I was involved in the sale of Ken Carr's house in Croydon in the late 80s. Ken's collection passed to a private owner for whom I cataloged all the views that were Ken's copyright - so please email your address to me direct and I will send you copy of my list. All the best, Colin.

Yes, stated as "1952 at Stratford Works" but as you rightly say Chris, that year was the dawn of the diesels. I have a suspicion that the body may have been for 68220.

I suspect many of us have seen this un-numbered 'shed' which appears to have come from repairs at the Carriage & Wagon Works en-route to the Loco Works for re-assembly. I have assumed so may be wrong that this may have been taken in BR days. If so, which loco was it?

Thanks, John, for your observation. Trust you did not have too much of a battering in Cornwall this winter. Chris, all my three have the factory fitted handles in both cabs. If what was in the photo said to be a coffee stirrer then I saw good use for it on my narrow gauge freight wagons! Colin.

Now if that is a piece of coffee stirrer that looks the part, where did that come from??? It is a feature that looks realistic on some on other things!

Love that handbrake assembly you have added. From what source did it come, please?