Holmside

Sorry to drag this out yet further, but at the Pontypool and Blaenavon railway gala last weekend (my first ever visit, enjoyed it immensely: the sight and sound of locos working that hard up to Furnace Sidings is simply spectacular. And I'm a volunteer at the MHR where they know a thing or two about locos having to work hard ! ) I came across a facinating photograph in the entrance to the station at Furnace Sidings. It was of an Ivatt tank (41201/2 or 3, I think), connected to WR autocoach (sorry ! I must break the habit of a lifetime and refer to them as autotrailers in future) the end opposite to the driving end of which had a large window in it. I well remember observing and travelling on autotrains on the Trowbridge-Swindon service in the mid 1950s, but cannot recall seeing vehicles with such end widows (though, of course, the memory does play tricks). Thus, my question to the experts is can they please supply reference sources for pertinent diagram numbers and other photos depicting such vehicles ? This because Johnster's suggestion of auto services might help resolve my dilemma regarding carriages !

As most of us are, I suppose, in the business of creating illusions of some kind or another in railway modelling (not enough space, no realistic exhaust steam emanating from chimneys, lack of automatic three-link coupling etc) , perhaps the provision of some of the clutter that was not infrequently seen on the running boards of industrials (such as cans of steam oil, or even extra coal) might help to disguise any lack of daylight under the boiler of the final version.

Johnster wrote: ' whether they are acceptable to you is down to your interpretation of Rule 1. ' Er, at the risk of making myself look even more ignorant, what is Rule 1 ? Again, thanks to all who have taken the time and trouble to reply. As a consequence of the replies, however, it is beginning to look like the layout will, perforce, now have to depict a colliery located on a line whose passenger services have been recently withdrawn. Gloom. Now, where did I put all those 7-plank and coke wagon kits that I bought ?

1) Many thanks to those who have taken the time and trouble to reply to my initiation of this thread. In truth, I confess to being not a little embarassed at my living for so long in the fool's paradise of surmising that it was mostly B-sets on the shorter valleys passenger sevices: I should have known that nothing could possibly be that simple ...... 2) At the risk of portraying my ignorance further, however, there are one or two matters that I still don't understand or don't know and on which would appreciate some further advice and guidance. These are as follows: A) I have never come across the term 'strengthener' before in this context. I can hazard a guess at what it means but, as I hope all will understand, I am a bit averse to making assumptions on these matters at the moment ! B) Concerning chrisf's post of 05 September in which the diagram numbers of the carriages depicted in the cited BRILL article are listed, I cannot find all of these in the index of Russel's book 'Great Western Coaches' part 2 (pp 271-273). In particular : C66 No drawing or photo of E147 appears on p 192 C63 D132 D109 D110 E166 does not seem to appear in Russell's index or in the list given at gwr.org.uk (available kits are listed where available at this website) C I must emphasise that this is not in any way a criticism of anyone: it may well be that there are omissions or typos in Russell's book and I only raise the matter because, as I mentioned in my initial (ie non-bungled) post, I would like to ascertain whether or not any RTR or kit examples of appropriate vehicles do or have existed. Moreover, if similar examples are available then these might be suitable for modification given access to photos/GAs of the required vehicle.

Sorry about the bungle in making the first post. It was caused by finger trouble coupled with my obvious inability to understand how to launch a new post. So, here goes my second attempt: At the excellent North Norfolk Railway gala of last weekend, I bought some old magazines. Among these was the December 1996 edition of 'British Railways Illustrated' (vol. 6 no. 3). I bought this because it contained a (to me ) fascinating article on the introduction of regular-interval passenger services in the Cardiff valeys (pp 130-143). My 4mm-scale layout is set in this area in the early-mid 1950s. My request for information concerns the three photographs on pages 134 - 135 of the said magazine. In particular, the coaching stock. These photographs clearly show coaches with END windows: one at each side. I had always assumed ( obviously wrongly) that most of the trains in this area at this time (early 1950s and steam-hauled) comprised B-set coaches which did not have end windows. My question is, therefore: (a) What were the officially-designated names/drawing numbers of the coaches in use on these valleys services (apart from B-sets and autocoaches) ? (b) Has any manufacturer made 4mm-scale models of of these coaches (either complete or in kit form) and if so, what is/was the name of the manufacturer ? © If there were/are no complete or kit-form models of these coaches, where can I find detailed drawings of them ? I advance, I would like to thank anyone for any response that they are able to make.

The reflection was not intended to be any sort of criticism and I was careful to use the word 'perceived'. It's just that when it comes to current collection, it would seem to me that whatever steps are taken (eg, live crossings, fully compensated chassis) more wheels are likely to be more advantageous than fewer. As someone who is currently contemplating an industrial extension to the layout (4mm), it would be most useful to have an exhaustive list of the precautions that are needed to guarantee good performance over pointwork. I am building a Kerr Stuart 'Victory' for use on the extension but it has to be said that 0-4-0's to have a very strong attraction if for no other reason ( and there are,of course, many others) that, as I think Bob Essery once pointed out, smaller vehicles and locos help to create the visual illusion that the layout is more spacious that it actually is.

And don't get me started on the possible need to design and build a suitable means of transporting larger locos (from the workshop/place of storage to the means of transport in order to take it to the intended running track) if a pump-up truck of suitable size/capacity cannot be procured. Please be aware that even the smallest 7 1/4" gauge locos are a two-man lift when completed. And have you got the necessary space to store such a means of transportation ? That has implications for the infra .. Oh, pipe down Holmside and give us a break !!!

Giles wrote: 'building a large loco (I mean a 7,25 or 10.25, not a Pacific or anything!) is not necessarily harder or massively expensive that a 5" loco' Despite the risk of being labelled 'negative' (see previous post concerning the importance of getting the infrastructure properly established before starting to commence loco construction), I feel it necessary to point out that this statement is misleading for the beginner. The reason I think this is because locomotives in the larger scales are, self evidently, lager and heavier. Thus, during construction it is no trivial matter to move larger locomotives about and then hold them in the required position so as to fit additional components or modify existing ones 'in situ' (also, being able to 'fit to job' is almost always a necessary requirement during construction. The beginner will need to factor-in to his decisions the by no means insignificant task of designing and building a rotatable carrying cradle in which the partially constructed loco can be securely located. And the whole to be carried on a substantial bench to permit working at a comfortable height for prolonged periods. Though tempting as an 'ad-hoc' solution to this problem, jacking the loco up on blocks of wood will not do and is potentially dangerous for the bulder as well as for the loco under construction should the whole become unstable when forces are being applied to the loco in order to move it a little or simply to tighten bolts. This matter also has implications for the infrastructure question: would you have space necessary for the cradle and bench ? Sorry to be an old misery guts about this.

Is It possible that there may be some reluctance to vote for any in a list comprising 0-4-0s because of a persisting perceived difficulty in being able to attain reliable running over pointwork even with live crossings ? Perhaps some words of reassurance on this matter might alter the response.

My experience is that by far the hardest part of building a loco is producing the necessary infastructure. That is, preparing the ground, breaking up the hardcore upon which to lay the concrete base ( with proper damp-proof membrane), on which the ( suitably damp-proofed and electrified) shed stands and in which the machine tools required to actually build the loco are to be housed. Please, please, please do not underestimate the effort and planning required for this aspect: to skimp on it is to invite recurring difficulty later.

This event was brought to my attention by reading the above thread and, never having visited this railway before, my son and I decided to give it a try (alright, I concede that it was prompted in no small measure by my interest in industrial locomotives and collieries).We were both absolutely captivated by the line itself, the locos and the rolling stock. The sight and sound of the trains ascending the 1 in 19 gradient out of Foxfield colliery is simply spectacular. Both of us, as volunteers at the MHR, were struck by an overheard comment by another visitors that the Foxfield railway offers an opportunity to observe steam locomotives doing what they were specifically designed to do. It was an absolutely brilliant day and, we thought, well worth the journey up from Hampshire.

I would like to express my thanks to those who took the time and trouble to reply to my original post, answered my questions so comprehensively and were kind enough not to point out that, inexplicably, I typed ( three times ! ) 'loose coupled' where I meant 'non-fitted'. From these responses, it is embarrassingly clear to me that in my youth I should have spent more time studying railway operation and practice rather than merely gawping at the locomotives. Incidentally, is anyone able to suggest books to consult on the above alluded-to matters of goods-train composition and operation in the days of steam ? In this context I should mention that my modelling interest is coal traffic in the valleys of South Wales in the early-mid 1950's Thanks in anticipation of any further responses.

I should know this but am ashamed to say that I don't, so can someone please elucidate ? I had always assumed that wagons were painted 'bauxite' to indicate that they were vacuum-braked stock and to distingush them from loose-coupled vehicles which were painted grey. Is this the case ? In my spotting days (early 1950's until the end of steam on the western region) virtually all the freights that I saw (or, more accurately, recall seeing) were comprised of loose-coupled wagons. My reason for asking is that I recently noticed model wagons being advertised for sale bearing the livery description along the lines of : 'bauxite early'. Does this simply indicate that there was a change in the shade of bauxite with which wagons were painted ? If so, when did the change occur ? And were non-fitted vehicles ever painted bauxite ? And, if so, from what date did this occur ? In addition I also assume (Ah, that dangerous 'A' word again ! ) that bauxite-painted (ie fitted) wagons were not able to be included in goods trains along with loose-coupled vehicles unless located immediately behind the locomotive? Or am I (Again ! I hear you cry) talking rubbish ?