csiedmo

Regarding the insulated vans with recessed doors in the OP, is it the case the the ones with external framework are dia 800/801 and those without external framework are dia 134? Or were there other types? Thanks, Ed

Hello Petri, I assume you've already seen this: https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Leeds_Railway_Plant_Co Not much, I know! Best wishes Ed

Hello, I don't personally have photos of any of these sheds, but there are definately photos of Cullingworth shed in Great Northern Outpost Vol 2. (IMHO a "must read" for anyone interested in the Queensbury lines). Link below. http://kwvr.co.uk/shop/great-northe-outpost-vol2/ Cheers, Ed

Hello everyone, Does anyone know of any books available that show clear photographs and/or a track plan of the good yard at Taunton pre-1970s? (I see that there is a track plan on the tauntontrains website, but it makes my eyes bleed, so I could do with the clearer/larger one) Thanks! Ed

I was there in 2007 but I don't recall it being particularly green back then.

Bradford Forster Square in the late 80s, was perhaps more spooky than despressing. And access to the Manchester bound platform at Mytholmroyd in the late 80s was genuinely frightening!

Hello, I can confirm that D6315 ran with warning panel and no headcode boxes. There is a commercially available slide of it with D6311 at St Blazey dated August 1964. Cheers, Ed

Hello Phil, If you look closely at the second photo that you posted in your reply showing 6331 from "the other end" you can see that the line of the bottom of the bodywork continues round across the nose at the same level until it reaches the nose end doors. This was the source of my conjecture about riveting the body to the chassis. However, scrap that idea! I hadn't noticed in my photos (as is clear on your third photo) the rivets going up the side. That makes it look more like they are actual patches of new bodywork. I can't think where that might be necessary in symmetry? Could she have been fitted with a pair of ultra low head code boxes at some point? Or somebody made a mistake and cut the head code appertures in the wrong place during the conversion? For your info, all the photos I have of 6331 in GSYP show that end of the loco and the rivets are there in all of them. We may never know! I look forward to seeing your model riveted 6331 Cheers Ed

Hello Phil, I've been having a look through my photos and think I can have a reasonable stab at answering your questions, although I don't know for sure. The riveted patches: If you compare the position of the horizontal line of rivets with any other member of the class, it is where there a seam all the way around the loco where presumably the bodywork joins the chassis. So my assumption is that someone decided to attach the bodywork to the chassis and to the end doors with rivets on this occasion. The corner fittings: These are in the same position where the headcode discs used to be. If you can find the colour photo of D6319 inside Swindon post 1971 overhaul it shows the shape very clearly. There is a vertical element which seems to be where the hinge for the disc was (maybe it is that same hinge?) and a oval element to the inside of that, which covers the hole where the disc market light used to be. Hope that makes sense! Best wishes, Ed

I see that the announced... 377-625B 12 Ton BR Plywood Fruit Van in BR Bauxite early livery ...has gone missing from the Farish product list on the last couple of updates. I wonder if that's a clerical error, or if its been axed?

Oh, I thought he was going to bowl a few off-breaks.

You don't state the gauge of your loco but I assume they're all built the same way. Mine are N gauge and are attached with clips at the top of the sides of the bogie frame. The frames aren't flexible as such so it's not really a question of squeezing the frame sides, but holding the frame by its sides parallel with the chassis and pulling gently but firmly seems to do the trick for mine.

As a Leeds resident, I'd be very interested to see your findings

Hello all, I've been looking at photos of facilities for handling milk tanks in the 1960s and many (e.g. Torrington, Hemyok) have tanks both in the loading/unloading area and some others stored in a siding. Do we know of a prototype with a single road to handle its tanks? i.e. only one train of tanks can be accommodated at any one time, no siding available, or would a siding always be required for operational reasons? It appears that Moreton-in-Marsh might be such an example, but it's not obvious from the photos that I have seen. Thanks, Ed

Ideal only if you want your rain sieving into finer rain

It has been advertised as M16153

If the 21s turned out to have added fire, at least it would be prototypical

If only there was a D6xx in N, us WR modellers could order a 21 have D6122 at Barry

To qualify my previous post, the issue I have with failing to get the Dapol couplers to couple up involved the loco traveling at the slowest possible speed. At this speed I get the same problem when using rapido couplers. If I give the loco bit more juice then the coupling works fine with both the dapols and the rapidos. I'm not sure if this is down to the couplers being new or my inexperience at train driving?! On reflection, I think that I can get the dapols to work well enough for me to use them on the passenger and NPCS side of the layout where I won't have to shunt individual vehicles. By the time I get around to building the goods yard I will have had enough experience with them to determine whether they're a goer on that side of the layout or if the Seep EMs will be a bit easier to use. Cheers, Ed

Hello Simon, I meant that I would try the seep electromatic system as a complete alternative to the Dapol system, not combining the two in any way. I believe you are correct that they are incompatable. Cheers, Ed

Further to my post above, I have now tested the Dapol couplers with the Dapol magnets under peco code-55 track that has been sand ballasted. The effect seems to be slightly dulled, insofaras if I am only shunting one wagon the uncoupling with not work. If I add another three wagons then the uncoupling works perfectly every time and the loco will shunt the the wagons without recoupling (it is a straight track, maybe a curve would affect this). The problem remains as before that I cannot then get the loco and wagon to couple up again without the hand the god - sometimes this is because the knuckes stay open and sometimes because because they remain closed. Personally I'm finding it a bit too hit and miss, so I'm going to try out the gaugemaster/seep electromagnetic uncouplers and see if they're a bit more reliable.

On the Farish website they have now linked in photos of the models of their Southern PLVs and Bogie Bs. Looking at the era-5 versions, the PLV (374-417) and the Bogie B (374-631) appear to be very different shades of green. Should that be the case? I expected them to be the same. Cheers, Ed

Thanks for pointing that out. I've had another go with a piece of peco code-55 flexitrack and the uncoupling now seems to work fairly reliably. (In fact the shunting is working well for me too - the difficulty is recoupling, which requires a fairly violent clash of couplers). The question now is whether the magnet will still do its job if I ballast over it? I see that you ballasted with chinchilla dust. Did you ballast over your (working) magnets? Cheers, Ed

I had been wondering if the Dapol supplied magnets would work under the sleepers. As the magnets are a similar thickness to the woodland scenes underlay, it would be fairly simple to cut a slot in the underlay, fit the magnet, and place the track on top. I conducted some experiments to that effect yesterday, and am sad to say that the couplers do not move when the magnet is underneath the (peco set-track) sleepers. So if anyone else was thinking along those lines, hopefully I've saved you a job. Cheers, Ed

Hello Nige, The double arrows on those 22s painted in blue with the small yellow panels were positioned centrally rather than on the cab sides, so it was unnecessary to move the works plates. Thusly D6300/D6303/D6314/D6327 can be removed from your list, and FYE D6339/D6343 can be added. Cheers, Ed