Compound2632

I'm actually quite surprised. My money was on Mr Northroader giving us a French bicycle advert*. Not really sure of the advisability of this, whatever the epoch. *The different viewpoint may assist sem's researches?

As one who is too familiar with the lure of the dark side, I say: keep struggling to resist! Surround yourself with pictures of red, green, yellow or even blue engines!

I spent more time watching London Road than anything else at the last exhibition I saw it at - a marvelous variety of LNWR (and other) stock. I hope Jol won't be offended if I say I am a little reminded of the remark made about another superb layout, Kier Hardy's Wibdenshaw, by a friend who was an avid spotter in the 70s - he wished he'd been able to find somewhere with such a variety of locomotives. In short, "not enough 47s".

... the reason being the lateral forces due to an oscillating rail vehicle (as discussed in a recent Brunel-bashing thread). Outside keys give some springiness whereas for inside-keyed track, the rail is hard up against the unyielding cast iron of the chair. Which leads me to wonder, were chair breakages more common with inside-keyed track?

According to Fig. 1 of Dow, Midland Style (HMRS, 1975), the Midland was using 100lb rail in 54lb chairs from 1896 - but that will be for main line renewals. From the 1860s, 83lb rail (or thereabouts) was in use with 40lb chairs with inside keys. Outside keys were adopted in 1884, with 85lb rail in 50lb chairs. Dow also cites The Railway Year Book for 1922: Midland: 45ft rails at 100lb/yard and 54lb chairs - the 1896 spec, so presumably 1896 is also the date for the adoption of 45ft rail; LT&S section: 90lb rail and 52lb chairs; M&GN: 85lb rail and 48lb chairs; S&DJR: 90lb and 83lb rail and 48lb and 40lb chairs; CLC: 95lb rails and 51lb chairs. John Addyman's chapter on civil engineering in North Eastern Record Vol. 1 (HMRS, 1988) includes a table of rail standards used. In brief, 24ft 80lb double-headed rail to 1880, increasing to 30ft 82lb to 1889, then 30ft or 45ft 90lb bullhead to 1906, when British Standard 95lb bullhead rail in 45ft lengths became standard. The LNWR's dustless tracks were laid with 60ft rails, 90lb/yard in 45lb chairs, from 1894. 90lb rail for main lines and 80lb for secondary routes had been the standard since 1887, in 30ft lengths. When Crewe started rolling steel rails in 1875, the weights were 84lb for main lines and 75lb for branches [Talbot et al., LNWR Liveries (HMRS, 1985)]. I have no doubt that the Midland's continued use of 45ft rail compared to the LNWR's 60ft was to make their expresses sound faster! I'll repeat, these will be the standards for running line renewals. There will have been plenty of older, lighter track still in use. I think this all points to a lightly-laid line of the 1880s, such as the WNR, being laid with rails no longer than 30ft, certainly no more than 85lb/yard.

Groan, and groan again. Feeling very dim-witted for not seeing that first time round.

No indeed - the YHA was founded in 1930. Edwardian lady cyclists? - quite properly not cycling on the station platform.

D##n! I had assumed both sides were the same! Looking at the cut-away drawing it seems to make sense that they should both be at the brake end of the van. I know no more than is in Noel Coates' book - in fact less, it turns out. I'll just have to be careful which way round I put mine.

Numinous, surely. Having made the pilgrimage to this barren spot, you await the appearance of the steaming genius loci and adore.

It has to be admitted that the whole business of having to lower the droplight* and lean out to open the door is positively antique. At least the Mk1s had a catch on the inside - but of course no central locking! *and the Mk3s don't even have a stout leather strap to help with that operation. I well remember my first experience of the SNCF, at Calais c. 1980 - yes, a stiff climb up into the carriage but then the announcement: attention à la fermeture automatique des portes. (Up to date version here.) "They order, said I, this matter better in France" - Laurence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey (1768).

Do the daylight strips come in "overcast grey"? Rain has been mentioned as an occasional feature of this part of the world. No "helpful" suggestion for that but could the effect of diminishing visibility on a wet day be achieved by hanging gauze curtains along the layout - one between the railway and the houses, one along the front, maybe?

... which is really the wrong way round. Find a long straight section of the Paris Metro, e.g. the line 4 under Ave. Jean Jaures, and you'll notice that there's a gradient up into the platforms, designed in to help with rapid stops and starts.

There seem to be different arrangements for the side lamps - the fixed housings, like the ones I made following the photo, or more conventional brackets just to the left of each door. I presume you are working from the drawings in Noel Coates, Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 2006), especially the rather nice cut-away drawing of the interior? I have to say, I'm not bothering with the interior in 4 mm scale!

Black with illiterate symbols, per the photo on the L&Y Soc website. I've just this evening done the lettering with HMRS pressfix transfers and home-made numberplates, though I don't have the "G. BRAKE FIRE EXTR" lettering. As to the footboards (and wooden footboards in general) I think it's impossible to tell. Other modellers seem to be happy to go with black (google "l&y brake vans"). Preserved carriages by and large have black footboards but would they have remained so in regular use?

One way forward is to make and print one's own brick paper using a suitable drawing package and good quality laser printer - essentially printing the elevation of the building, with wrap-rounds for window and door reveals etc. Alternatively, scribing plastic or good quality card sheet... Once upon a time, many years ago, there was a 4mm scale individual brick system - possibly from the original C&L? As I recall, bricks had to be threaded on to plastic rod uprights. Unlike the track system, it didn't catch on.

.. a common problem with plastic models and even some printed card kits, to say nothing of full-sized modern pseudo-Victorian buildings! Trouble is, once one starts worrying about the bond, there's all sorts of details that can't be kept at bay: quarter-bricks at corners and window recesses to begin with... Then there's the question of course heights. Modern brick and most brick papers and embossed plastic sheets give course heights of 3" but quite a lot of Victorian brickwork - especially for civil engineering applications such as bridges - seem to be nearer 3.25" - which does make quite a visual difference and is also a trap if trying to scale a building from photographs.

With the 'six foot' being 6'0" for both standard and broad gauge in practice (in general) and assuming the switches themselves are of the same geometry, a broad gauge 1:8 crossover will be (7'0.25" - 4'8.5") x 8 = 18'8" longer than a standard gauge one.

The carriage nearest the camera is presumably one of the NSR 4-compartment 4-wheeled composite carriages that arrived on the line sometime between 1915 and 1919, which may help date the photo. From the shape of the ducket, the third carriage could well be one of the two ex-Midland D529 4-wheeled brake vans, which Col. Stephens bought along with some elderly Midland bogie carriages when he re-opened the S&M in 1911.

Neat. Not only are incoming engines turned, they also end up 'right line' for working back!

Shrewsbury Abbey was an early victim of road development - Thomas Telford had much of the surviving Norman abbey buildings demolished to make way for the Holyhead Road in the 1830s - between the abbey and the station, in the photograph.

Brunel's seems taller because he was so short!

Have you fitted brass pin-point bearing cups inside the axleboxes? And... how does it go round curves?

He was 5'0" and the hat is estimated at 8". Allowing for crown overlap, say 5'6" - certainly short enough to lie down safely in the four-foot* in the path of an oncoming BG train. *or should that be seven-foot?

Joseph Locke et al. didn't have a copy of these to hand...

That would be nice but probably simpler to start from scratch. (Like many a 4mm scale RTR conversion project...)