71000

New Haven Neil. You obviously don't know the layout I constructed. It was called "Zweibrucken". Its first show was in 1980. It was the first layout seen at the National show built at 4ft 3in above the floor. At that time many layouts were still as low as 3ft. It was the FIRST Continental layout on the exhibition scene to utilise British style finescale handbuilt pointwork, including Dual gauge, as we had a narrow gauge modeller in my group. Advanced for the day Marine ply sandwich framework baseboards. Advanced architectural modelling products not the then poor quality British scenic rubbish. Scratch built buildings. Specialist etched brass "Railino" signalling, and a host of other products from various Continental specialist suppliers. Most of whom are still totally unknown in Britain today. The layout also introduced the "Kiddy box" to the exhibition scene. i.e Quality built sturdy wooden boxes with handrails, which included publicity material displays promoting the GRS. Of various heights for kids to stand on to get a better view. "Zweibrucken" was also the first non British layout on the exhibition scene to use "TCC" (Track Circuit Control). A wiring system developed by myself and the then BR Southern Region, Central Division, Chief Signalling Officier Mike Sargent. This takes the real life system using track circuits and adapts it to use commercial electrical products, to do exactly as its real life counterpart does. So for the first time viewers were entertained to fully operating German signalling that operated in exactly the same way as their real life counterparts. So for example sleepy operators who crash red signals find their trains brought to a halt. That being just one of the advantages of TCC. Although as the layout was operated by two BR signalmen and a couple of BR Train Drivers, along with the "Brinks Mat" robbery, Burglar alarm engineer. So "Signals Passed At Danger" wasn't actually a problem for us. The TCC system, I still use, which will be going on my current little layout "Basingstoke 1958-67" 85ft x 22ft 9in. Obviously as you were in the South Shields club at the time, you will remember the leading light of German modelling of those days "Bill Roberts". And of course the redoutable "Gerry Veit", another well known name and German modeller of that era, who was himself a German living in Britain. Bill Roberts who's layouts had already featured in certain modelling magazines, was also on the then committee of the German Railway Society. All of whom lived at that time up your way, in the Leeds, Huddersfield region. So when "Zweibrucken" made its first apppearance, and in just its first show, Quadrupled membership of the GRS, this rather stunned the committee. So they all came hotfoot down to Surrey to see what they had missed at the show. And as a result of what they discovered, I replaced Bill Roberts as the Editor of the GRS. This does NOT imply that Bill was in any way lacking in his abilities as Editor. But because he was in favour of me taking his position because of my layout. Knowledge of the real German Railways. And my skills working at that time for a London Newspaper in Marketing and Advertising. All of which benefitted the GRS. Gerry Veit, you must know, as everyone knew that larger than life hilarious character. He was of course also known for his complex N gauge German layouts. But he too was taken by "Zweibrucken" because of its abilities to meld the best of British Modelling with the best Germany had to offer. Oddly I don't seem to remember any German layouts from the South Shileds Club. Where you part of the GRS organisation? If you were, just check your old GRS magazines from that era, and you'll find my name against the post of Editor. Best regards 71000

Apollo Interesting. Note the A4 loco seen backing down, has the Buckeye in the lowered position and someone has thrown a "Screwlink" over the coupling hook. The implication of that is that the loco had previously been coupled possibly to another loco to come down from "Top shed" in multiple. That "Screwlink" would have had to be removed by the "shunter" (person not an engine) before the loco approached the coaches. The LNER were the only railway that applied "Buckeyes" to the corridor tenders of the relevant locos. However as Bulleid was Gresley's number two, and responsible for LNER coaching stock, fitted with Buckeyes and Pullman corridor connections (these items in Britain have to go together). I'm surprised Bulleid didn't add Buckeye's to his Southern Pacifics, as he seemed to love anything a bit mechanically unusual. SR Pacifics if fitted would also have required the "Pullman rubbing bar" to work in conjunction with the Buckeye (as seen on BR Class 33/1 and class 73's), but I'm sure that would have only added to Bulleids interest. 71000

Tony, Quote "I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels?" Unquote. Because I'm not sure that you are aware of the interaction between the two coupling types, and their two unique Gangway systems. As each coupling is dependant on the design of the gangway connection when such are required, for basic safety reasons. Which have implications on the model. Quote "I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings." Unquote. I have absolutely no idea what you run on your layout, but I will add that I wouldn't dream of using MJT cast bogies. They seriously increase drag, which has serious implications for British outline steam models. Which I'm sad to say, are well known on the International scene as gutless. And was one reason why I didn't model British outline for over 40 years. I went into German modelling back in the 1980's and became the Editor for the German Railway Society. Having produced the first German exhibition layout in Britain using British construction techniques. Its first exhibition was at the then National show in London. It included handbuilt track and signalling that worked exactly as per the German norm. A fact that rapidly increased membership to almost 2000. I then moved to the more techniquely advanced Japanese ranges. Which 30 years ago were more technically advanced than anything yet made for the British market. For example Japanese 1:80 scale steam locos, reversing gear, actually moved to the forward or the reverse position, whenever you changed the direction on your controller. So I started the Japanese Railway Society and became their Editor. Having used the same formula, of building an exhibition layout, with handbuilt track, and fully functional and correctly operating Japanese signalling. And like its German predecessor got the layout straight into the next National show, again in London at that time. Which of course generated around 1500 members in about two years for my new Society. So yes I have been around the block. Further its probably worth pointing out that I am also an ex BR driver, on all forms of traction. And I've also driven trains all over the world, including the island of Fiji in the Pacific. More relevant here is that I'm curently playing with Spanish Broadgauge. Inbetween building the Museum I work with, a large British outline layout to help increase the attractions here. So obviously I am quite familiar with the intracacies of couplings and their interactions with gangway connections on corridor type stock. Which brings us back to the case in point. I am not trying to criticise your modelling skills which appear to be well advanced. What I'm trying to point out is that adding cartridge paper type "Concertina" connections between the correctly sized Pullman connections provided on the model. Makes the gap between vehicles overscale and therefore unrealistic. Quote "It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it." Your problems relating to the Bachmann "brake hose" coupling are understood. I also note that as a result you have avoided using the NEM pockets because they are mounted on a "Flexi-coupling" shafts. Which is where the real problem lies, as this item becomes flexible vertically under heavy load. However if you have over 350 loco hauled coaches as I do for a large exhibition layout. I am always looking for simpler and quicker solutions to problems. The reason I don't have problems with the Bachmann brake hose coupling, are numerous. Firstly I set the minimum radii for the layout at 5ft, as I am aware of the Laws of Physics. Which in this scenario states that: The power required from a locomotive increases by the square root, with every degree of curvature. (A serious problem for British outline steam models). Also going below real life scale minimums, is going to afflict many models in many irritating ways. Particulalry with increased derailmants. So I also handbuild all visible pointwork, and alter all the facing point blades on all the Fiddle Yard large radius Peco points, I have used. As they have known issues. Finally the problem of the Bachmann coaches themselves and their brake hose coupling can be quickly cured by a drop of superglue placed on the inside angle just inboard of the NEM pocket, which increases this weak angles strength. This stops the NEM pocket from bending upwards or downwards under haulage or propelling loads. This saves a lot of time, and allows me to just clip in the Bachmann brake hose coupling. As to the nasty ribs on Bachmann Mk1's. I'll agree they look just a tad to prominent. Curing them realisitcally also requires new roof vents. But the time required for that remedy, as I have over a 100 Mk1's, will have to wait until after the layout is up and running. As you also mentioned the problems of coupling and uncoupling long trains of coaches coupled with the "Brake hose" coupling. Again I don't have a problem there either. All my stock runs in SR "Sets". My Inter-regional formations do likelwise. So only "Loose" vehicles and the ends of sets have Kadee Buckeye couplings. Allowing hands free invisible uncoupling. As the layout will be on virtual permanent display. I'll probably only need to uncouple vehicles within "Sets"/Formations" for maintenance purposes. Its a shame the British manufacturers never attended the NEM conference in Europe 30 odd years ago. Or they could have put their "twopennyworth" into the technology that came out of that conference. Indeed the NEM system for modelling standards is still something the British seem only vaguely aware of. NEM was intended to improve sales for all manufacturing particpants by its standardisation principles, which extend to a lot more than coupling pockets ! I would also add that as I have an increasing number of kit and scratch built coaches, I faced the same problem that you refer too. In that heavier coaches increase the number of problems. One of the worst offending items are the metal bogies, brass axle bearings and axles usually provided by different manufacturers. Which of course increases the interface friction problems. I simply don't use them as a result. All my Kit and scratch built stock run on RTR bogies, which means that although they tend to be heavier (by not very much actually). They run freely like RTR stock, which is just as well as my layout "Basingstoke" has long (25ft odd) 1 in 100 gradients. So good luck with your layout. Possibly some of what I have explained may reduce the problems you face....... Best regards The Duke 71000

Tony, Very nice work. Unfortunately fitting such equipment to BR Mk1 coaches (or LNER/SR/Pullman stock) is totally superfluous. The reason is the difference between the equipment used by the various railways. You need to understand the difference between corridor coaching stock. From 1923 basically two seperate systems became apparant. Firstly the SR and LNER took up the Pullman system using Buckeye rigid couplings and semi-rigid Pullman type gangways. While the GWR and LMS stuck with the classic British Standard Suspension (BSS) gangway and flexible Screwlink couplings. Using the Buckeye type coupling because it was much stronger, and proven in derailments to help steady stock and resist vehicles turning over (so BR took it up as standard later). In conjunction with the semi-rigid Pullman corridor connection, which itself has buffing gear hidden in the floor section (known as the Pullman rubbing bar). This system therefore required coaching stock so fitted, to have bow ends where the bodyshell extends over the coupling fitted to the chassis below by around 1ft. The older BSS and screwink coupling was fitted to traditionally flat/square ended stock. That in itself required longer buffers to accomodate the flexible BSS gangway. Which as its name implies required "Suspension" brackets from above in some form, to help steady its flexibility. THe BSS type corridor also required latches that connected the outer ends of each BSS gangway together. On the Pullman type connection NO physical connection was required, as this type being shorter and more rigid, simply rubbed and slid across the wider rubbing facia of its counterpart. The use of the Buckeye also required retractable buffers to be fitted. Firstly because the coupling is rigid and therefore the gap between vehicles is fixed. So in curves and pointwork buffers in their traditional side positions become a dangerous menace, likely to cause "Buffer overide" or Buffer lock" which causes derailments. But if you move the buffing to the centre of the vehicle (in the base of the Pullman gangway connection) you obviate the problems of side buffers. Hence traditonal buffers fitted to Buckeye stock had to be in the retracted position so they could NOT touch when the Buckeye was in use. The Southern it should be noted even removed buffers within a number of its "Sets", as they were effectively superfluous. When coupling the two types of stock together, which was avoided where possible, the Buckeye fitted vehicle must have the Buckeye lowered to reveal a standard coupling hook, and the Buffers must be extended. The BSS/screwlink fitted vehicle can then be coupled. But if the Gangways are to be used, an adaptor plate must first be fitted to the outer edge of the BSS gangway, to provide it with clamps to grab the Pullman type connection. These technical attributes of the two types affect modelling when understood. For example it is realistically superfluous to provided sprung buffers on Buckeye stock, as these items should normally be in the retracted unused position. Which also helps in allowing models to be brought closer together with less danger of jamming in curves. The shortness of the Pullman connection is also a modelling benefit, as although short it, stands proud of the buffers. In the case of Bachmann their Mk1's are provided with an alternative "brake hose" type coupling. When this is utilised it brings the coaches virtually together, and because the Bachmann Mk1's are also fitted with "Flexi-coupling mounts" for the NEM pocket, such closeness should not be a problem until you get down to "trainset" radii curves ! The use of "Concertina" type gangway inserts as you have shown, is therefore superfluous. As is your handiwork on providing a very nice but time consuming brass coupling hook and brakehoses. However what you have made would be a lot better suited to LMS/GWR stock as these types in reality used the BSS/Screwlink system. Which by its nature provided larger gaps between coupled corridor stock. Above: Bachmann Mk1 stock on my large 85ft x 22ft 9in layout "Basingstoke 1958-67", in "Modelling real locations". This reveals the quick fix provided by Bachmann simply using their own "brake hose" type couplings. No concertina additions necessary, and a much closer and more realistic result. 71000

Okay, so you are thinking about the cost of possibly loosing a chip here and there, if there are "DCC fitted" and "No DCC" options. What about the cost to all those people who do not use or want DCC because they know how to wire a layout in a way that is realistic. How do you think they feel, having to pay more for every model loco and now certain carriages, because it has expensive DCC electrical items included. Whether they like it or not? You see as I am both a qualified railwayman, and a professional modeller, I rather begrudge having an unrealistic electrical system that cannot hope to operate a model railway in a real life manner, being shoved down my throat. I use something much more sophisticated I call "TCC", as it copies the real railway with the addition of track circuits in the rails. Which just as in real life control my signals in exactly the same way as the real life railway. It even as on the real railway, stops sleepy operators from crashing signals and my overpriced "DCC ready" model locos......... And as for "sound systems" I have already walked out of two model railway exhibitions in Germany (within just a few minutes) because too many layouts, had too many sound fitted locos. And the overall result, was that there was just a constant background "Buzzing" from all directions. The result was like being in a bar with background music. Everyone just begins to talk louder. So the barman turns up the volume, and before you know it, everyone is nearly shouting. Sound fitted locos are in my opinion the thin edge of the wedge, and eventually I can see them detering potential customers from even attending shows. As is already happening in Germany, as I wasn't the only one to leave either show, due to the incesant background buzzing ! 71000

BASINGSTOKE 1958-67

IanLMS,

A

O

D

G

IanLMS,

George Thankyou very much for your appreciation. Loco to tender couplings. I'll take a few pics, and add an explanation to my next Post for you, and any others interested in this sort of modification. Probably next Sunday or Monday, as I'm slaving over a very hot saw today.... 71000

Bryan, Yes indeed Peter King, he was a neighbour and very good friend for many years. So the layout I built him was in his large "Coaching House" in his garden. His missus however had a fit when she found out how much the layout was costing, and divorced him.... I then found him down at Didcot living in the Duke of Gloucester's support coach. Although he retrieved his house (and the layout), as her ladyship had buzzed off with the local Farmers son. It was actually all quite hilarious, kept the village buzzing for months, and all because of a model railway ! 71000

Dave, Thank you very much, that's an honour coming from you. I'm intentionally doing 58-67 so I can get the Bournemouth electrification in. Just have to stretch a point with the 58-65 part of my era. Loads of BIL's and HAL's. And all the parts for a 4REP, just got to build it..... 71000

Bryan, Indeed I like your Postcode 21C142 ! Yes, this "Monstrous Opus" as someone else called it. But then I've always been into large layouts. The last one I built in Britain was for the then "Duke of Gloucester" Ops manager, sadly no longer with us. But that layout was 60 ft x 30ft, and based on Berkeley Road on the Bristol to Gloucester line in steam days. The trick with large layouts, if you can't afford to buy Buckingham Palace. Is to find a nice Spanish Millionaire who's built himself a Railway Museum, and make him an offer he can't refuse. Basically he gets another tourist attraction, and I get the space for the layout. So I can play trains (full size and model), and he picks up the running costs. See my other page "Mora la Nova Railway Museum" under preservation here on RMweb. 71000

BASINGSTOKE 1958-67

Jack, There are pro's and con's when you jump into P4 or to a lesser extent EM. I have nothing against either, although I wouldn't do either personally. SImply because I have always built medium to large size layouts desiring full length trains, and I only have one lifetime ! My layout Basingstoke being 85ft by 22ft 9in, with 201 points, would probably take me literally 20 years to complete in P4. 71000

Jack, Okay, eye boggling time. Check your messages ! I've sent you a few scale drawings of Bulleid coaches, underframe parts and other helpful details. Drawing 18 shows the (Ian Kirk CK model) underframe and all the equiment and its exact positions. As you are now muttering about shiny yellow metal (brass) you shouldn't have any problems with Bulleid coaches, as the other drawings in your message box will reveal. Above: Closer view of "Shortie" BSK S2856S, revealing the brass handrails I used. The door handles are the original plastic moulding simply painted gold to represent the brass handles then in general use. BR had to eventually start replacing brass handles and handrails with chromed steel, when theft became a problem in the 1960's. I originally got my Ian Kirk kits through "DC Kits", as he actually lives around the corner from Ian Kirk. So he has in the past actually persuaded Ian to produce a few more kits....... Above: The other "shortie" BSK in my 3-car Set 970 S2855S, after it had received a little chassis weathering. As seen on my Mk1 Basingstoke layout. Great, So a "Z" class will be joining your fleet. So maybe you will have to model Feltham shed. Then you can legitimately have "Z" "W" and "H16" class tank locos, along with a whole load of other types. 71000

Well done that man. I wasted 20 minutes on Wikipedia and didn't turn up a thing. The one in the photo being the first one I have seen, and the first time I have come across this operator. So the Museum "boss" was approximately correct when he said 4,000hp and a GM EMD clone. It's obviously a bit to new for our collection, so well just have to let it pass...... 71000

SPACE

Jack, First, to help with the Southern Railway geography I have sent you via the RMweb "Message" service, a copy of the 1956 British Railways Southern Region map, (both mainline and suburban section maps). Which is virtually identical to the rail map in 1947. (You should have a red flag at the top of you RMweb page on the "Message" service). Just click on that to reveal Southern map spaghetti ! Next, the Ian Kirk kit you have shown, is NOT of a type Bachmann have or plan to introduce. From your photo it appears you have a Bulleid 59ft "shortie" 7 compartment Composite Korridor (CK). In 1945-6 the first Bulleid coach designs appeared. But these very first Bulleid vehicles utilised 57ft chassis that had been completed in 1939-40 at Lancing Carriage Works, and stored during the war. They were therefore shorter than all the following Bulleid coaches built. The 59ft "shorties" consisted of only two types of vehicle. The 7 compartment Composite (as per your kit), and a Brake Second Kompartment (BSK). ALL these vehicles were marshalled into three coach sets 963-980. These three coach sets began entering service from February 1946, in Southern Malachite green, with sunshine lettering. They were the last mainline type coaches built by the Southern with individual compartment doors (apart from 4 three car "Multi-door" sets that followed, to the same basic design, but on the longer 63ft chassis, with an extra compartment each). Above: My Ian Kirk "shortie" 3-car set 970 revealing two of the comaprtment sides. This shows the set as it was in 1959 BR SR green. And seen here on the first scenic section of my layout Basingstoke 1958-67. The Bulleid "shortie" sets were immediately put into express service on Waterloo-Basingstoke-Salisbury, and Waterloo-Bournemouth-Wemouth trains. They initially ran mixed with Maunsell sets in trains of 9-14 cars in length. They remained in front line use until 1959, when sets 963-972 were reallocated to local services on the Somerset & Dorset (Bournemouth-Bath services). Sets 973-980 were also downgraded to secondary services at this time, some going to the Central Division Oxted line services. From about 1961 some sets were disbanded and the vehicles put into the "Loose" pool. But these early Bulleid coaches were also the first to start being withdrawn, a process which began in December 1963, mainly due to their, by then, non-standard short length. Above: The 59ft "shortie" set seen from the other side. The Southern system of set formations obviously presents a minefield of problems, when you do not have all the information on what happened to all the various types of stock. This case being a particular problem, as the "CK" Ian Kirk kit you have. Only ran in these 3-car sets until around 1961. Not sure if you can find a couple of matching Ian Kirk 59ft "shortie" BSK's to go with your CK. 59ft BSK coach numbers = 2841-76 59ft CK coach numbers = 5709-26 The coaches were allocated in numerical order to the sets. So BSK's 2841 and 2842 along with CK 5709 formed Set 963. BSK's 2843 and 2844 along with CK 5710 formed Set 964. etc..etc..etc.. As far as construction goes, these Ian Kirk kits are fundamentally correct in their overall dimensions, but lack many of the small detail parts, which was intentionally done as a way of producing cheap kits. I didn't bother with the Ian Kirk bogies, and put my coaches on the Bachmann Bulleid ones, as these run much more freely. If you blow up my pictures you will also find a number of the missing details I added, such as the lower Guards footsteps on the BSK's. Also sprung corridor gangway inserts, hook and eye internal couplings and Kadee Buckeye's on the outer set ends. Lastly the 8F chassis, you obtained in this condition ? In which case it looks as though someone was trying to convert it for use in a Southern Railway Z class 0-8-0T. I think Wills used to make a kit for these locos which were intended as Marshalling Yard shunters. But some also were used as Banking engines between Exeter St. Davids and Exeter Central up the nasty 1 in 38 gradient. 71000

Jack, I thought I had better add something to your page, as its obviously summer down your way. And no doubt you are down at the beach enjoying yourself, while we poor Northern Hemisphere folks are freezing our n*** off. Hope your having fun. So here's some bedtime reading........ Obviously I am aware that as you're the other side of the planet, and trying to model a specific period and a railway that's not just down the road, where you can go to check out some detail or other. Hence some of the info I have stuck on your page previously, to try and help with operational details and other possible gaps in your library of Southern info. As I used to work on what was BR(SR) in a number of jobs including Train Driver, I have a pretty good idea of how the Southern Region worked. Much of the operational methods were based on the geographical railway map, and even in my day much was still based on the methods used since Southern Railway times. The Southern was in many ways even in 1947 still three railways operationally. That is ex SECR, LBSCR and LSWR. The route map especially for passenger traffic dictated this. Even BR post 1948, divided the Southern into South Eastern, Central and South Western Divisions, based on the old pre-1923 company boundaries. The major depots for Passenger traffic in 1947 were, on the South Western (ex LSWR section): Nine Elms near Waterloo, which worked steam expresses to Salisbury, and Bournemouth, and also knew the Portsmouth line. Basingstoke shed went to Waterloo, Salisbury, Portsmouth and Bournemouth. Eastleigh shed went to Waterloo, Salisbury, Portsmouth, Brighton, Bournemouth and Weymouth. Bournemouth shed went to Weymouth, Salisbury, Waterloo. Salisbury shed went to Waterloo, Exeter, Bournemouth. Exeter shed went to Salisbury, Ilfracombe, Torrington, Padstow and Plymouth by both the SR and GWR routes Plymouth shed did the North Devon lines, but only went as far as Exeter with London bound expresses. On the Central ex LBSCR lines: Stewarts Lane (LBSCR Link) covered routes too Brighton, Portsmouth, Hastings via Hawards Heath. Brighton shed went to London (Victoria and London Bridge), Hastings, Portsmouth and Eastleigh. Norwood Junction was realistically about 75% freight work. Their passenger work included the still unelectrified secondary routes via Oxted to places like Tunbridge Wells West and Brighton via Eridge. On the South Eastern: Stewarts Lane (SECR LInk) went to Hastings via Tonbridge, Dover, and Ramsgate via Dover. Bricklayers Arms went to Ramsgate via North Kent, Dover via Canterbury. Ramsgate shed did the reverse of Bricklayers Arms. Dover shed did the reverse of Stewarts Lane. Sheds not mentioned were either less important or more freight orientated. On the Central (ex LBSCR) lines much of the passenger work, express wise, was already provided by electric trains (from 1933). Seperate "Motormans" depots existed in all the areas where electric trains operated. In the pre-BR era "Motorman" were a grade lower than a "Steam loco" drivers, and paid slightly less as a result. Each shed or motormans depot, jealously guarded the routes they covered. In each shed you had what was known as "Links". The lowest link where you normally found the youngest drivers and "restricted" (medically) drivers, basically did all the shunting jobs. Depending on the size of the sheds establishment (number of drivers), there were more or less links. The Top Link at any shed, basically had the oldest drivers with the juicest (express) jobs. The method of moving up, was all based on your "Seniority date" which was the date you first started on the railway. So it was virtually impossible for a young driver to get onto expresses, unless there was major disruption, such as Germans dropping bombs everywhere..... 71000

BASINGSTOKE 1958-67