Dana Ashdown

You may well be right, but I want to work with what I have, even if the Hornby chassis is less than ideal. I think a budget conversion would just about say it all in my case.

I’ve made a few notes about the size of the pannier tanks, cab and bunker on the Hornby 2721 Class that might be useful. Referencing all heights from the top of the footplate, I get the following measurements in scale feet and inches: To bottom of tanks: 1 ft. 9 in. To beginning of turn-under: 2 ft. 9 in. To top of tanks: 5 ft. 6 in. Length of tanks: 18 ft. 1 in. Total extreme breadth of tanks (side to side): 8 ft. To bottom of outside cab roof: 6 ft. 10 in. To top of cab roof at the centre: 7 ft. 6 in. (approximately) To bottom of cab windows: 5 ft. 7 in. To centre of cab windows: 6 ft. Length of cab side sheet (excluding handrail): 3 ft. 3 in. Extreme breadth of cab: 8 ft. Distance between cab sheet and coal bunker (doorway): 2 ft. 3 in. To top of coal bunker: 5 ft. 2 in. Length of coal bunker at bottom: 3 ft. 5 in. Length of coal bunker at top (including extension): 4 ft. Breadth of coal bunker: 8 ft. Total length of body along footplate (from front of smokebox to rear of bunker, but does not include smokebox door and bunker extension): 27 ft. Total length of footplate: 27 ft. 9 in. I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a picture of No.2742 from Jim Champ’s “A Beginner’s Guide to Pannier Tanks” at gwr.org, which shows the engine as built. As the photo of No.2755 posted by Miss Prism, above, and this show, the bottom of the saddle tank is set back about six inches from the sides of the cab (unlike panniers, which were flush). By my reckoning, it should be possible to fit a saddle tank to No.2744 by cutting the engine/boiler section down between the front of the smokebox and the front of the cab, to the point where the panniers start to turn under. A tube of the proper diameter, cut to a half-circle, glued onto the top of the remaining panniers would essentially make the saddle tank. To get it right, the remaining bottom of the panniers would have to be filed away so they’re slightly set back from the side of the cab. If I’m correct, the top of the saddle tank should come to about 6 ft. 9 in. above the footplate, which would leave about 9 in. to the top of the cab roof. The resulting gaps in the front of the cab would have to be filled-in (or a new cab front made). Similarly, the front of the tank, where it meets the front of the smokebox would also need filling/replacing. The smokebox door would have to be altered as well. To replicate the plates making up the saddle tank, I could glue thin plastic card onto the tank. (Please don’t ask me to do the rivets!) I’m not sure if the coal bunker should just be re-worked, or replaced entirely with plastic card. As the bunker is a separate component to the body of the engine, a plastic card replacement might be simpler to do. The steam dome and valve cover could probably be adapted to fit the top of the saddle tank. I’m not so sure about the chimney — it looks thinner than the one on 2742. The buffers will also need to be reworked/replaced; a new filler cap and steps made; and the handrails replaced. The tool box will, I think, have to stay where it is because it is moulded into the centre splasher, which means removing it successfully would be rather difficult, owing to the overhang of the bottom of the tanks. Two days later… I’ve managed to take the body of 2744 apart without breaking anything! Pictures are attached of the individual components, including the die-cast weight. As you can see, the cab roof (not shown) does come off, only to reveal another roof underneath. The good news is that the front of the cab is pretty much solid, so no special work would be needed if the panniers were cut down, apart from the usual filing and sanding. The windows might need enlarging, though. The back of the firebox is part of the main body moulding, as is the smokebox door. The separate coal bunker moulding includes the cab floor, so the bottom part may/will have to be kept. I could probably reuse the die-cast weight if I reshaped it to clear the saddle tank. There is also room inside the bunker for additional weight. Now I have to check the tube for the saddle tank. The pill bottle I was thinking about using is slightly tapered, so it won’t work. However, some shorter bottles don’t seem to be tapered, and I could glue two of them together if necessary. They are slightly less than a scale 8 ft. in diameter, so that should be fine. With regards to the set-back of the tank from the edge of the cab, there doesn’t appear to be a lot of thickness in the wall of the pannier, so any removal of plastic will have to be modest — just so long as its visible. Dana

I haven't seen these before, but they are very nice indeed! I do like what you've done with the new bunker.

Thanks everyone for your very helpful replies! I can live with 2764 being given panniers in 1910 - that would work for the time from 1910 to 1914 - and would just require a change to the coal bunker to get something reasonable. That just leaves 2744, so I either have to leave it as is, perhaps with the bunker altered, for 1930. Or do something more drastic to adapt it to circa 1907. As Miss Prism says, the profile of the panniers and saddle tanks were different. But I do think that by taking the top off the engine and replacing it with something similar in shape to a saddle tank, it might work. I does mean replacing all or part of the cab front, &c. At the moment, though, I won't be doing anything until I'm sure it will work. Essentially, I can live with the Hornby's many inaccuracies, so long as it looks the part generally. I have seen the Shapeways top, but I it has flaws as well. The tank seems are grooves, rather than overlapping joints. this is from the website: All in all, I agree with The Johnston in wishing for an up-to-date, accurate Great Western saddle tank. I don't think that's asking too much of the manufacturers In the meantime, I'll consider my next step and let you know how I make out. Dana

I measured it at 1-1/4 inches.

I have two Hornby 2721 Class Pannier tanks: i) No. 2744 - Hornby R.059, an original Margate model I’ve had for forty years ii) No. 2764 - Hornby R.2739, a Chinese produced version I bought second-hand a few years back As you can see from the picture, the newer 2764 (right) includes separate hand rails and coupling hooks where the original 2744 (left) has moulded ones. The chassis of 2764 is also slightly better so far as detail is concerned. And the centre driving wheels are the same diameter as the others, unlike the original Margate model, which has slightly smaller flanged wheels to accommodate set track curves (I don’t know why, there is plenty of side-play). For its part, No. 2744 has a nicely plated “brass” safety valve cover and a more “coppery” chimney cap. I acquired No. 2764 with the intention of backdating it to pre-Great War condition, as part of my growing interest in the Edwardian Great Western. At the time I was thinking about just altering the coal bunker, but leaving the rest largely as is, following knobhead’s conversion back in November 2012 (<http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64814-backdating-the-Hornby-pannier/>). However, my impression is that most of the 2721 Class did not receive panniers until after the war, and as I wanted to keep the existing number plates, there would be little point in just altering the bunker. On due consideration, I was wondering if something more drastic might be in order? I looked at the panniers and concluded that it might be possible to convert the engine to a saddle tank by cutting the tanks off at the bottom, just before they turn under, and replacing the upper part with a curved section of plastic. As it happens, I have a couple of prescription pill bottles that are just about the perfect (assuming the plastic isn’t too brittle), being just under a scale 8 feet in diameter. (I should double-check with callipers.) Before I do anything that I might regret, could someone with a copy of the RCTS’ Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Part Five: Six-Coupled Tank Engines kindly check the entries for the 2721 Class and tell me when Nos. 2744 and 2764 received their pannier tanks. Also, which 2721 acquired the first full-length panniers? I know that No. 2796 was converted in 1904, but it was given short panniers tanks along with a B4 boiler. For various reasons, I would rather not alter No.2744 more than necessary. Still, I can see that it might actually be a better candidate for a saddle tank conversion, in which case, I would re-paint/re-letter 2764 to 1930 condition. Has anyone else turned a Hornby 2721 into a saddle tank? How did you manage building the tank? Dana

I use Humbrol Service Brown and Cream for Great Western carriages. While the brown is, I think, a good match for Hornby's, the cream is not so far as Hornby's cream is concerned. To my eye's, Hornby's cream looks like it has a tinge of green. They look fine, but you can see the difference between Humbrol's and Hornby's interpretation of cream quite readily. When I was adding some extra cream to my long clerestories (Margate products acquired second-hand some years ago), I used Humbrol Cream, but as there was a difference in shading, I tried some Precision Pullman Cream I had, and found that the Precision Cream was a better match. However, the Margate cream is different from the cream used on the Chinese-made Hornby carriages. All in all, I prefer Humbrol's Cream; but Precision's Pullman Cream is also good, though a somewhat different shade. Dana

Cunard liners Mauritania, Lusitania, and Acquitania called at Fishguard from 30 August 1909 (when Mauritania first called) up to the outbreak of the First World War, when they were withdrawn and refitted as merchant cruisers/transports. Special boat trains carried passengers to London, but as many were Americans going on to the continent, the GWR and SE&CR introduced a new train by October 1910 to meet the channel ferries at Dover. This six car train (mainly clerestories) went by way of Reading and Redhill over the SE&CR. If there was not enough traffic for the full train, then a first class carriage was dropped at Reading and taken on from there with a dining car and brake added.

Could the name Little John have any bearing on its identity?

Interesting. Is that a Wrenn R1 body fitted to a Tri-ang Hornby 4-4-0 chassis?

In case anyone's interested, this is what ABM offered for the SER/SE&CR: Product list - 4mm - ABM Railcraft - SE&CR.pdf

L Class No.779 is finished. I may revisit the odd detail later, but otherwise its done! I saved the lining for a rainy day, or two, or three…, which was just as well. The slightly used discount waterslide lining I bought last year before the shutdowns didn’t want to come off the paper, no matter how long it was soaked. Careful prodding with a knife usually worked, but sometimes the transfer would break before the whole line had been freed. Fortunately, reconnecting the broken bits, or patching with another piece wasn’t too difficult. And once in place, the lining usually stayed put with an application or two of Micro Sol. Fitting the lining around the curves was a challenge, which is why clever people use a bow pen! Still, I did discover that with a bit of patience it was possible to to make it conform to most of the curves, though it still isn’t perfect. The most noticeable consequence was where the transfer folded upon itself, leaving visible little corners here and there. This couldn’t be avoided, and a few of the more obvious spots were eased with a bit of paint. Several applications of Micro Sol helped settle the lining into place. The boiler bands are black with yellow lines on either side. I was planning to make these from paper strips, only the yellow paint pen that I had proved to be too bright. Luckily, I had some old yellow waterslide lining close to the right width, so I used it instead. I drew the black line down the middle of each line with a black ball point pen. The black probably should have been a bit wider, but it worked, and the ink wasn’t affected by the water, Micro Sol, or the varnish. On the plus side, this lining soak off easily. Negatively, it didn’t want to stay in place, and would break if I wasn’t careful. Micro Sol helped, and it eventually settled enough to be varnished. The lettering came from two sources. The SE&CR on the tender came from a sheet of gold rub-on letters (again, bought on a clearance). I was thinking about applying them directly to the sides of the tender, but I thought I could get a better result putting them onto waterslide paper first (using the empty margins of the paper from my old set of transfers). With the exception of an ampersand (which released, so I put it on the tender as is), the rub-on transfers refused to budge; but if I put some Micro Sol on the paper, they would actually release and stick. (I think I lost a few letters in the process, though, because only pert of the letters released.) Once on the paper, I cut them out and applied them as usual. These letters are not shaded, but they look fine. The numbers on the cab sides and buffer beam are not correct, but close enough (for me anyway). These are from the HMRS Great Western sheet. I did try to do the cab side numbers with an extra-fine Posca paint pen, but the pen wasn’t fine enough, hence the resort to the GWR sheet. Obviously, Fox Transfers would have been easier, but they are not available in Canada, so I made do with what I could get. In fact, it is becoming harder to find transfers of any kind, generally. The yellow lining I got last year was actually for model aircraft. One thing the lining does show up is the lack of symmetry in the splasher curves — Hercules Poirot would be shocked! I should’ve been more careful in cutting the sides, but I think anyone trying this themselves should get better results using a Silhouette Cutter. Also, the right side of the tender is actually higher than the left side. I put it down to not getting an even cut of the plastic tube used to make the flare at the top of the tank. (That’s my excuse, anyway.) As its only really noticeable if you look at the rear of the tender, I’ve decided to live with the wonkiness. You will also notice that I’ve fitted a Tri-ang coupler on the tender. As I found the engine, the original Tri-ang couplers had been removed, and a previous owner had screwed a Hornby-Doublo coupler to the tender. The attachment for the Tri-ang coupler was still in place, and as lengthening the frame meant that the coupler didn’t protrude as much, I thought I’d make do for now. Bachmann Mk2 Mini Couplings would probably fit without any modifications to the tender. Likewise, I’ve reused the Tri-ang safety valves, but these are easily replaced with something more appropriate. The coal in the tender is vintage Canadian National Railways locomotive coal, by the way. Its probably from Pennsylvania, but whose to know. By the way, I made the number plate on the rear of the tender using a picture of the one on my Bachmann C Class. I “cut out” the plate from the photo on the computer, and then “painted” over the number. Using an appropriate font, I added “779.” To get the size right, I just used the part in the printer information box that says how many pages per sheet, and set it to 16 (the maximum setting) and created a PDF from that. Then I made a second PDF the same way but only doing 2 pages per sheet. This gave me 32 on a letter size sheet. I printed this out on the colour laser printer/copier at the Staples store. As it happened, the resulting plates were about a third larger than the scale size, so I reduced the image size by 25 per cent and reprinted. This worked, so I carefully cut out a plate with a sharp knife and used a glue stick to fix it to the tender. The small “South Eastern & Chatham Railway” lettering is almost readable, so not a bad result. Overall, I’m very pleased with the result. Its not perfect by any means, but from “normal viewing distances” it looks the part, and I think that’s what counts with this type of conversion. Its also fairly heavy, so pulling power shouldn’t be an issue — it pulled 19 wagons (not the most free-rolling) on a test track with no slippage. What it needs is some proper running in, but that will have to wait until I have an actual layout again. Although I have the Bachmann Birdcage Set, my plan is to eventually assemble a boat train for the L Class, and leave the Birdcage Set to the D Class. Given the L Class’ origins, I can imagine altering some Tri-ang clerestories into SE&CR bogie stock, with a Pullman added. About six carriages in all should do. However, before I can do that I have to fill out my Great Western stock. Either that, or hope that one of the manufacturers develops some suitable pre-Great War SE&CR and Pullman carriages. Alternately, I could do a through train. Or, moving the 1914 cut-off date for my SE&CR plans a year or two into the Great War, perhaps a troop train, or a train for the general staff. That would be ironic, given I’ve modelled one of the Borsig engines, but that was because the Borsigs entered service before the war started, unlike the Beyer, Peacocks. It has occurred to me that the E1 Class was similar to the L1, so if you can live with a few discrepancies in dimensions, the Tri-ang engine could also be made into an SE&CR E1. E Class No.179 was the first to be rebuilt in 1919, with ten more following in 1920, so all were in plain grey from the start. Dana

Thank you Annie! A great video. (I wonder if Hornby will take notice?)

Do you really need a sofa?

Two thoughts about the new layout. One: Will there be any problems with heat from radiator being trapped under the baseboard? Two: Could you make a provision for a removable track extension from the goods shed track out into the room? Perhaps a cart with track that could be rolled into place when needed?

The dark red/brown on the left. The red is too bright!

With Jonathan's (Corneliuslundie) help, I've finished my look at Llantwit. (See attached PDF.) My comments regarding Kentish Man and Man of Kent in the previous post should now be disregarded! They had larger cylinders than Llantwit and the other two engines Rennie advertised in 1842. DanaThomas Powell, Llantwit, and the Taff Vale Railway.pdf

Two pictures of the L-Class in its current state. I can see I'll need to reinforce the front steps — the one on the right side is about to break off!

Hello Laecathedrale. Yes, I've actually got it painted. Just a few touch ups and the buffer beams and handrails to do when I get back into the mood. The cab interior is black, because it helps hide the motor, but I might paint some of it cream. I had some problems with the new tin of Humbrol Brunswick Green. It was very thin and transparent — probably too much thinner or to enough pigment. So I went back to my ancient tin (forty plus years old!) and managed to salvage it. Also, I experimented with a yellow paint pen (not a Posca) to do some lining with, but not only was it not fine enough, it was very hard to paint over, even though its supposed to be oil-based. The red oxide I'm using for the frames is probably a little too light, but it will tone down bit when I put the satin varnish over it. I'll post a picture of it when I get the painting done. After that, it'll be time for lining and transfers. I have some waterslide lining decals that should work, but for the boiler bands I'm going to try some paper ones I've made. I have some gold rub-on transfers for lettering. Dana

Hello again everyone! As a result of further enquiries, I can now state that the Rennie engine acquired by Thomas Powell did not come from the London & Croydon Railway, but may actually have been purchased new from the factory in 1842. The entry in James W. Lowe’s British Steam Locomotive Builders, pages 545-6, for G.&J. Rennie shows that the factory produced sixteen locomotives in all, including two exported to Germany. English railways took the rest: the London & Southampton bought five; the London & Croydon, two; London & Brighton, three; the Great Western, two; and the Joint Committee of the London & Croydon and South Eastern railways, two. Lowe also related that the two London & Croydon engines (erroneously identified as 0-4-2 types) were sold in 1845, one of which went to Thomas Powell, which in turn was sold to the Taff Vale Railway as Llantwit. Given Peter Carney’s proposition that the railway engines fitted to Erebus and Terror were Croydon and Archimedes, and that Lowe listed that they had been sold in 1845 — including one to Powell — I considered that this, along with a number other factors, raised serious doubts about any connection between the London & Croydon and the two ships. As Thomas Powell was a major Welsh colliery owner and investor in the Taff Vale Railway, I concluded that Powell acquired either Croydon or Archimedes, or both, earlier in 1845 to work his tramroad opened in late 1843 between his colliery at Llantwit Fadre to the Glamorganshire Canal, and which was connected to the Taff Vale on 25 April 1844 (The Railway Chronicle, London, Saturday 4 May 1844, page 69). Further evidence supplied by Basil Stephens of the Welsh Railway Research Circle, extracted from The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway: Part 10, Absorbed Engines, 1922-1947 (The Railway Correspondence and Travel Society, 1966, page K139), indicated that Powell did indeed own a Rennie-built engine named Llantwit, which was sold to to the Taff Vale Railway in 1845. Llantwit had 12 x 18-inch cylinders, unlike Croydon and Archimedes, which were larger, at 13 x 18 inches. As this discrepancy might be explained by a later rebuilding (by 1855 it was an 0-4-2 with 4ft. 6in. drivers), I accepted that Llantwit was most likely one of the two London & Croydon engines. As there was still uncertainty about Llantwit’s origins, I continued looking. Recently I decided to contact the Early Railways Group of the Railway & Canal Historical Society for help. Through their co-ordinator Andy Guy, Stephen Rowson provided this extract from Colin Chapman’s Oakwood Press book The Llantisant Branches of the Taff Vale Railway, page 117: “Traffic over Thomas Powell’s Lantwit Vardre Railway was worked by horses, apart from a short period when a locomotive was used. About May 1842 Powell acquired an engine which he hoped to use over the TVR, and on 30th June, 1842 he sought the permission of its Directors to do so. His request was met with outright opposition, the Board being of the opinion ‘that it would be highly dangerous and inexpedient for other parties than the Company to work engines on the road.’ Powell then made use of his engine, appropriately named Llantwit, on his Lantwit Vardre Railway for a time before reverting to horse power. In June 1844 the TVR agreed to Powell’s application for the hire of wagons to bring down coal from Dihewyd Colliery. A further request for 50 wagons was made the following September, Powell offering the TVR the use of Llantwit in return. This arrangement was followed, in December 1845, by the outright purchase by the TVR of Llantwit for £580. Llantwit was of [G.]. & J. Rennie’s build with 12 in. by 18 in. cylinders, suggesting an engine of 1838 vintage. Surviving TVR records describe Llantwit as a six-wheeled four coupled locomotive with 4 ft. 6 in. diameter driving wheels, and it would appear that she spent most of her days in TVR ownership working coal traffic on the company’s Llancaiach branch. Llantwit was condemned in 1858.” Obviously, Llantwit could not have come from the London & Croydon if Powell acquired it in May 1842! Upon further investigation I found a reference to Powell’s locomotive in The Railway Times of Saturday 27 August 1842 (No.243, Vol. V, No.35, pages 279-880), in regards to the general half-yearly meeting of the Taff Vale Railway shareholders. During the meeting Mr. Green, speaking for Powell (who was deaf), stated that “Mr. Powell had gone to a large expense in the building of wagons… Mr. Powell had also purchased a locomotive for the purpose of conveying his own coal, but he was not allowed to use it on the line now.” Later in the meeting we read: “Mr. Price then adverted to the subject of Mr. Powell’s locomotive, and contended that it would not be safe on a single line. Many persons would not like to travel where the locomotives did not act harmoniously. “Mr. Powell intimated that he only wished to travel on the line at night. “To this it was replied, that it would be incompatible with the arrangements which the Directors had made for the working of the line, and the safety of the public.” At the next Taff Vale meeting, held in February 1843, The Railway Times of Saturday 4 March 1843 (No.270, Vol. VI, No.9, Part II, pages 292-3), wrote the chairman, responding to a comment regarding Powell shipping coal on the railway, said “no doubt when Mr. Powell found it to be for his interest he would come on the road. He was quite disposed to meet Mr. Powell in a spirit of fairness, but it was impossible to let Mr. Powell’s engines come on the line.” Whether “engines” meant that Powell owned more than one locomotive at this time is doubtful, because the other comments only refer to one engine. An “amicable” agreement between Powell and the company was reached by April, when Powell resumed shipping his coal by the railway rather than the Glamorganshire Canal (The Railway Times, Saturday 15 April 1843, No.276, Vol. VI, No.15, pages 247-8). Regarding the Taff Vale’s “safe” and “harmonious” working of the line, the explanation may be found in the report of Inspector-General of Railways Lt.-Col. Frederic Smith’s report from 20 April 1841 (Report of the Officers of the Railway Department, 1842), pending the public opening of the railway: “The trains will pass each other on the double line on the incline plane, and will be taken forward to their respective destinations by the engines which will have brought the other trains to the plane. “According to this system, no collision can result from there being only a single line, as there will be a three-hours’ interval between the first and second, and four hours between the second and third last trains. The mineral traffic will, I understand, be kept clear of the passenger-trains by starting generally after the last train in the afternoon. “With these precautions and arrangements I trust that this line may be worked with safety.” Companies like the Liverpool & Manchester permitted private trains, so Powell’s expectations were not unjustified. But as a single line of railway, the Taff Vale was unwilling to risk collisions by allowing private trains to operate in an ad hoc manner along its road. And it would seem that mineral trains only operated late in the day and into the night. (At this time, the railway only had three engines.) If Thomas Powell did purchase a Rennie engine early in 1842, where did it come from? The answer may be from the Rennie factory. In March 1842 G.&J. advertised locomotives for sale (The Railway Times, Saturday 5 March 1842, No.218, Vol. V, No.10, Part I, page 272; and Saturday 19 March 1842, No.220, Volume V, No.12, page 342), being: “THREE LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES and TENDERS. Cylinders 12 inches diameter; length of stroke 18 inches; diameter of driving-wheel 5 feet, adapted to the usual gauge. These Engines are most substantially made, highly finished, and will be sold considerably under the usual price.” It is known that two engines were later sold by Rennie to the Joint Committee of the South Eastern and London & Croydon railways: i) Joint Committee No.27, Man of Kent, 2-2-2, delivered December 1842; to SER No.27, 12 April 1845; withdrawn January 1861. ii) Joint Committee No.28, Kentish Man, 2-2-2, delivered February 1843; to L&B No.28, 12 April 1845; to LB&SCR No.16, October 1846; to LB&SCR No.11, 1848; withdrawn June 1855. I don’t know if these two engines matched the specifications in the Rennie advertisement, but D.L. Bradley’s Locomotives of the South Eastern Railway (RC&TS,1963) and Locomotives of the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway, Part 1 (RC&TS, 1969), might be able to shed some further light on the specifications of these two engines. If Powell’s engine and the two acquired by the Joint Committee are the same three as advertised in March 1842, they may be identical, and so the specifications for one should be matched by the others. Moreover, it means that the Rennie factory built seventeen locomotives, not sixteen as numerated by Lowe. So far as Erebus and Terror are concerned, the evidence is still against the London & Croydon engines Croydon and Archimedes. This does, however, reopen the question about how and why Croydon and Archimedes were disposed of in 1845. They apparently passed briefly to the South Eastern Railway, or at least part of them did. But there is no tangible proof that they were ever adapted for Franklin’s expedition. I've attached a revised version of the section of manuscript dealing with finding engines for Erebus and Terror. Dana Dana Ashdown, Engines for Erebus and Terror, Finding the Engines (rev. 2021.07.30).pdf

The Rails of Sheffield site says 18 pin.

Mikkel posted a transcription from Moore's Monthly Magazine (Volume 1, No.3, March 1896) some time ago, which Edwardian rightly identified. The full entry for GWR carriages reads: "The carriages are painted a light brown umber on the lower panels with black margins, a yellow line being run, round on the edge; the upper panels are cream colour with a fine brown line drawn round inside. The lettering on the lower panels, doors, &c., is in yellow, shaded black, whilst the numbers which appear along the upper portion are in yellow, shaded with brown. The underframe is painted black. Horse-boxes, carriages, trucks, &c., are painted a light brown umber all over, with lettering in yellow, shaded with black." As I said, some photographs do appear to show a lighter brown than we would normally expect. Dana

I believe that the GWR chocolate was lighter prior to 1904 (and looks it in some photographs), so this might be appropriate for these carriages, considering that they have oil lamps. Also, Hattons' grab handles are probably suitable for 1880s period GWR carriages. Dana

Work has finally resumed on the L-Class! I’ve fitted the handrails, clack valves, piping and other bits, but still a couple of things to add, though. Once thats done, I’ll clean up the rough edges (of which there are many) and the glue excess, then prime it. It won’t win any awards, but from normal viewing distances it actually doesn’t look too bad. (Lesson, never photograph anything your building with a digital camera!) At least I managed to unglue my fingers from the body. By the way, the tender was painted last year with a new tin of Humbrol Brunswick Green. The paint was rather anaemic, with too much solvent and not enough pigment, and so it came out a rather bright green. I’m hoping my ancient tin hasn’t dried up.

Time for an update. Thanks to a number of people here on RMWeb, I've more or less finished that part of my research on the source(s) of the engines fitted to Erebus and Terror, and have concluded that London & Greenwich and London & Birmingham engines were used in the respective ships. On this Peter Carney and I have agreed to disagree. However, I've attached a copy of the section on finding the engines for anyone interested. I still believe that the two London & Croydon engines that Peter champions wound up in Wales, courtesy of Thomas Powell, but I will leave any further search in that area to those better situated. Comments always welcome. Dana 1 - Dana Ashdown, Engines for Erebus and Terror v.2, Finding the Engines.pdf