Edwardian

To be fair to yourself, Coach, this was before Mel Brooks's explanatory treatment of the legend:

Just what The Doctor ordered!

Bravo! Looks spot on.

A life not bad for a hardy lad, though surely not a high lot, Though I'm a nurse, you might do worse than make your boy a pilot.

Cornamuse - I suspect the Small Controller might quite like a wagon load of lime drops, though, as I believe they are a species of what used to be called "Acid Drops", perhaps you need to use carboys packed in straw!

Fascinating line of enquiry has opened up on nomenclature. Clearly these misnomers are more widespread than I had ever imagined. It would be intriguing to learn when and how some of this incorrect usage came about. If, for example, "piloting" isn't the right term for assisting locomotives at the front of a train, how and why and when did that usage come about? There may be at least 3 degrees of correctness/incorrectness: (i) officially sanctioned terminology, as found in the rule book; (ii) what contemporaries actually called things, trickier to pin down as everyone alive in the periods that interest me were either not old enough to know or are gone; (iii) modern misapplications. A consensus seems to be building in favour of (iii) with regard to piloting, which, if correct, shows how pervasive and influential incorrect usage can be.

And yet, Mike, for many years people have been happy to apply the terms "piloting" and "banking" to the two modes of assisting trains over the South Devon banks. They were useful terms in that they were illustrative of the practices to which they referred, and everyone understood what they meant. It does not necessarily follow that, just because they are not to be found in your various contemporary official documents, the terms had no currency prior to their use by numerous worthy caption writers to GW albums. It may be that the usage is modern and wrong, but it is a non sequitur to say so based merely on its absence in the official sources you cite. So, for me, as I said, the case remains open and the point is moot. I await evidence that would decide the point. The point I originally sought to make is that double heading was not the most appropriate usage. I fear that you have suffered an attack of the MRJs and I wish you a speedy recovery!

I have learnt 2 things today. First, that at Goatland they seem to have concluded that you do nothing special with the lime, just leave it in a pile, and, second, that it is important to use the search term "lime cells", as opposed to "lime drops".

Ah, my understanding was that locomotives assisted only over the S Devon banks, not, as you say, over long distances, and that: Passenger services were assisted at the front, either ahead of the train locomotive, or, confusingly, between the train engine and the train. Bulldogs were retained for this purpose at Newton and Laira, though by the mid-thirties they were generally running with the larger Churchward 3,500 gallon tender. I have seen Halls used to assist in this period. The majority of references that I have come across describe this as "piloting". Goods services generally assisted from the rear. In the thirties the 3150 class large prairies did this work. They tended to hang around Totnes goods shed between turns. One incident, occurring in 1934 I believe, saw the assisting engine reverse bank to the level section at Totnes Station only to be caught and smashed into by the runaway rear portion of the goods train it had just been assisting. I believe this, ahem, rear end assistance was referred to as "banking" I would imagine that the general use of the term "piloting", as in "station pilot", was quite different. The interesting question, now, is whether the term "piloting" was applied by the GW to banking assistance at the front of a train, or whether this is a later mis-application of the term. I had always thought that the way you distinguished between assisting engines pushing from the rear and those assisting by pulling from the front was to use the terms "banking" and "piloting". I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can resolve the issue.

"piloting", surely? I had understood that piloting was what the GW did over the S Devon banks, while "double heading" was some form of inappropriate euphemism, or, possibly, an habitual Midland practice necessitated by its bizarre small engine policy.

Mr Bagby looks fine to me, and certainly more presentable than the rich attorney's elderly, ugly daughter. Lovely bushy beard and very fine hat! What substance did you use for the modifications?

Ah, but do you, in fact, have a white coat? I think we might want to be a bit careful here. Unless in the next few years we want 2 out of every 3 exhibition or magazine-featured layouts to be blue diesel era, we might want to help break the generational nostalgia cycle (I model what was around when I was a boy) by promoting diversity of period. It strikes me that we won't do that if we take the attitude that it's good that the hoi polloi don't have the skills, or the time, to model a given railway/period combination we might cherish. I think we need to balance the good that is the promotion of modelling and the acquisition of skills with the need to make ever more diverse subjects reasonably accessible so that people can feel they can at least have a go. Hence, I think, we come round to the OP; the need for a book that give much needed guidance regarding the older periods and prototype practice, but, I suggest, combined with something on how to model it from the start. If you read Iain Rice's seminal tome, he surveys what is available, and gently guides the reader (a potential beginner), in the direction of greater, yet reasonably realisable, realism.

Superb signal box (and it must say "box" on it, so the Heathen know what it is). There is, however, something grey and distinctly alien next to it. Here is another one:

Is that the famous Cockney-Valleys Rhymney slang?

Rocked up to the Tanfield. Closed on a day the brochure said it was open. They had needed to cut back and updated the website, but all the leaflets in circulation were advertising it as open. No web access as already on holiday. Pretty gutted, but what can you do? It's a volunteer organisation. Disappointing, especially for the little children ... seeing their upturned eager and expectant faces ... watching their little faces fall, and then the tears, as their dreams are ruthlessly crushed, and they take one more, bitter, step towards the disillusionment that is adulthood. But what can you do? It's a volunteer organisation. No sense in kicking the very people you need to support. I was more hacked off by the, frankly, exploitative prices charged for the "Thomas" day at the Embsay & Bolton Abbey. I suspect that most of the blame for that is on Thomas's Fat Cat Controller, but I am glad that the kids are getting old enough not to need, or necessarily want, Thomas at a steam event.

Very impressive. Mr Dean Sidings years ago kept saying he would do one in resin, but it all went quiet. He may have had issues fitting the tanks over the Hornby engine block. So, well done for getting a fit!

Excellent, and fast, work; 23 hours and 58 minutes!

"The only people we hate more than the Double Oers are the Effing EM Gauge Society" "Yeah, and the Scalefour Society, splitters!" "We're the Scalefour Society" "Oh, I thought we were the Protofour Society" "Scalefour!" "Whatever happened to the Protofour Society?" "He's over there" "Splitter!"

Naked wheels, it's indecent.

You need to get out less.

A book waiting to be written. Perhaps the various Line Societies could each devote a chapter.

Evidently not that unusual; another one, up the road from you at Andrews House, Tanfield Railway:

William the B*st*rd was touchier about being called William the Tanner. Which only goes to show....

But a Southern locomotive, hauling Southern stock on the South Devon mainline? The chances of the Southern's Plymouth-Exeter route closing due to natural disaster, as opposed to the GW's via the sea wall? And whole trains swopping routes? I would have thought that the most you would do is stick a GW loco on a SR train and, maybe, visa versa. I'm talking pre-Nationalisation and pre-war. All seems highly dubious to me. Only in a world where you can run a King over a timber viaduct that could not have supported it in reality and which, in any case, would have been replaced by masonry many years before such a locomotive was conceived.

They're only trying to help you to see the light. Frankly, I'm sceptical about the Pendon justification for running Southern stuff on the Dartmoor Scene, but I will certainly emulate their practice. I like a lot of the SR stuff, particularly the ex-LSWR stuff and I plan to run the following (no doubt displaying my Utter Ignorance of all matters Southern in the process): O2 with Gate Stock (Kernow) M7 (Hornby) with 4 1/2 set (Roxey) N Class (Bachmann) with 4-coach ex-LSWR cross country non-corridor set (PC) T9 (Hornby) with 4-coach ex-LSWR corridor set plus clerestory diner (PC - if I can find them!) Latterly thoughts have turned to an 'Arthur', perhaps with a strengthened Maunsell P Set (Hornby). Ironclads would be nice, but the same Southern enthusiasts who are refusing to produce the BSL Colletts (or even to have the courtesy to respond to emails) are also refusing to manufacture the Ironclads. Produce the range or sell it to someone who will, you sociopaths! Gosh, after all that unrelieved olive green, I need to go and look at some chocolate and cream.