The Johnster

Reno, eh? No, I never signed the road as far as that... It’s somewhere down line from Carmarthen, which is the furthest I signed, isn’t it?

You can almost smell the creosote boiling off the sleepers!

Fascinating. The longest 'conventional rail' load that I ever came across was some 700 feet long, a train of rail sections for a CWR installation that I worked as a guard back in the 70s. I took the train from Cardiff Central, where we relieved a Hereford crew, to Carmarthen Jc. where it was stabled pending the relaying; this was the only occasion I worked over the Swansea District line in a brake van. I can't recall the name of the CWR depot from which it originated, but it was in Cheshire somewhere; I'm sure somebody here will come up with it. The wagons were long wheelbase 4 wheelers with bolsters on which the rails 900-odd tons of them were laid and chained. Speed was 20mph, and we were booked stops for examination every 15 miles. It was a pleasant summer evening and night and it was all very relaxed and enjoyable; I think we took about 9 hours in all before coming home light engine, a 37. Booked in for full C & W exam at Briton Ferry. The van had been on the road for over 24 hours when I relieved the Hereford guard and I had to raid Miskin Crossing Box's supplies for stove coal and lamp oil! The sight of the load flexing and matching the track curvature, particularly entering and leaving loops (5mph) was amazing

IIRC there was an article about this conversion in the late lamented MRC. I did it as well, and it looked as much like a Black 5 as it had a princess; ah, the foolishness of youth... I had 3 Rovex Black Princesses, all Elizabeth and none with valve gear. I did the poorest runner up in LMS livery as restored to use as a shed lurker with static Airfix construction kit valve gear, and, encouraged by my Black 5, the other one as a Jubilee in rather crude BR lined green, but this never really looked as good as the 5, not that I’m claiming that that looked good! It was all a bit rough and ready, typical of the knockabout of those days

Sorry about that, there really is no excuse for this sort of behaviour. For a putative layout based on the Llantrisant area in 1952, you are a little released from the tyranny of having to rely exclusively on GW stock for general merchandise, but the unfortunate fact is that there are insufficient RTR or kits for a representative selection, especially of opens. I reckon about a quarter of your general merchandise fleet should be GW prototypes, about half of which should probably be opens. But NOT china clay opens. My my own layout, based in a similar period and not far from Llantrisant, has not achieved this.

Were these spread across the system...

There are some practices that will dissuade me from wasting my time watching a layout at a show, and foremost among these are overbright flashing lights. I already know the standard of modelling I will see (OOB RTR stock, continuous running, oversharp curvature visible at the ends, period mismatching and incorrect operation such as vac braked locos pulling air braked stock, signals that don't make sense, brick wall stops from 90mph and scalded cat starts, locos pulling trains with the loco tail lights lit, twin tail lights on pre 1980s dmus. There's always a fire or road accident so we can have more flashing lights, roadworks so we can have even more, and usually a funeral and a fairground), and, while I refuse to condemn it and accept that people who model like this get a lot of fun out of it as do those who watch it at shows, it is not to my personal taste and I am not interested in it. Sound is less of problem for me, though I can see how irritating it is for the operators of the layout next door. I also tend to sigh and raise my eyebrows at 'TMD/MPD' layouts, though I have seen them done superbly well and operated properly. All too often, though, they seem to be trainspotters' wet dreams, 'look how many locos I've got, in all the collectable liveries'. There is nothing wrong in my view with exhibiting a layout entirely with RTR OOB stock and RTP buildings, so long as the operation is prototypical and takes place at some semblance of realistic speeds, with smooth starting and stopping. And as long as you take it easy with the lights! I will spend time watching such a layout and enjoy it. I prefer it if the RTR is at least weathered, though, and if a timetable is worked. In fact, I would rather see this than some fine scale scratchbuilt masterpieces, often but not exclusively 7mm, which seem to specialise in snail's pace running (presumably to allow the driver to examine each handcrafted rail chair), immaculate ex-works stock with shiny buffers, and the use of industrial locos on main line track. You know who you are... With 'foreign' layouts, I am less aware of the correct methods of operation, but will respond favourably to something that looks right and runs well My absolute layouts are those that have what I would describe as a personality. We are in very subjective territory here, but a believable location, back story, sense of geography/geology, an 'atmosphere' cuts the mustard for me every time, and trancends the prototype modelled and the discipline it is modelled in. Tolerably accurate modelling of actual locations has this built in, of course. It is not dependent on size of layout, but on a consistent modelling standard and believable operation. Nobody would have described Frank Dyer's Borchester as fine scale modelling (though it was pretty good for it's day) or up to modern standards; it had near-trainset curves and ugly couplings. But I've seen it and it is still a masterpeice, not a model at all in some ways, but a real railway that happens to be small and stuck in the 1950s. Operation is absolutely superb, and I am happy to watch it all day long. It is, IMHO, significant, that the operators of this railway are trained and experienced in it's operation, and have the expertise to put on a good show. If I can operate a layout after just being shown where the knobs and switches are, this is not a measure of how intuitive and effective your operating is, but how unrealistic. I think this is significant. It would be no doubt possible to recreate Borchester with modern RTR and DCC operation, though the curvature required would probably mean you'd have to ease the space a little. But it would be just as complex to operate properly and you'd need the same number of skilled and experienced operators to pull off those multiple simultaneous moves and maintain the timetable. For me, and I accept I'm only me and not even anyone else never mind everyone else, it is not about the prototype, scale, discipline, or even the standard of modelling of the layout, it is about the overall believability of the situation and it's operation. Timetables, working to real rules and regulations, and correct train formations help this. I would rather see a Hornby tinplate railway properly operated than a perfect rendition of Clapham Junction badly operated; my imagination can fill in the gaps with the tinplate but is prevented from doing so on Clapham Junction the second time I see the same Brighton Belle set pass through within 2 minutes while nothing is happening in the carriage sidings because there aren't enough operators to run them. So, to refer to the OP's original point, I am biased, but not towards or away from the UK, although that is what I know about and hence what I model, but towards a certain philosophical approach to modelling railways. Significantly, I think of it as modelling railways, not building model railways; my own layout, which will never be exhibited because that's not what it's for, is run as prototypically as I can manage to serve the needs of a small South Wales mining village isolated at the head of it's narrow valley in the 1950s, providing a service for it's passengers, it's shops and small factories and farms, and of course it's colliery to an advertised timetable. It is a real railway that serves an imaginary community in a real location where one never existed. I do not wish to suggest that this is the 'correct' way to go about things; Rule 1 is paramount here, but is an indication of what I like to look at if I go to an exhibition. Whatever floats your boat is what floats your boat. Seminal layouts for me, apart from Borchester, are Chris Pemberton's 'North Shields', and some of Iain Rice's micro layouts, both of which have influenced my own feeble effort. My 'standard' is RTR/RTP improved with weathering, but I'm not averse to the odd kit to get what I want if I can't source it ready made. I enjoy modelling, but enjoy operating more!

Fyffe's at Avonmouth, and Geest at Barry during the 60s and 70s; they afterwards moved to Avonmouth.

All relevant points. America is bigger than the UK, a point borne out by the comparative emptiness when you fly over it. Distances between towns and cities are greater, and AFAIK with the exception of the NYC water troughs, pans as they called them, were not used. Trains were longer and heavier, and there was little work for tank engines outside of industrial work and the logging railroads; even yard switchers had tenders. Larger boilers were made possible by the larger loading gauge, and massive cylinders were fed by them; even in the large US loading gauge and with bigger axle loads allowable, there was little room on board some of the really big engines that emerged after the WW1 to put water tanks of a useful size. Enormous tenders resulted, the Pennsy being particularly spectacular in this respect. So, there is I think much to be said for the concept of the American equivalent of any given British type being a loco with an added driving axle and trailing wheel. But while much can be said for it, there seems little point, as we are not comparing like for like. British locos that visited the US, KGV and the Royal Scot and Coronation ringers, attracted much interest and admiration, but made no impact on practice; they represented, albeit in an advanced form of efficiency, what had been cutting edge in the States before WW1, and were not powerful enough to do any useful work over there. The influences were much more west to east, with Swindon building large numbers of what the Americans would have called 10 wheelers and moguls, and Gresley being influenced by the Pennsy K4 for his pacifics. I would consider that more is to be learned from comparing 20th century British practice to what was going on on the Continent, especially France, where operating conditions and traffic were more similar. Belgian innovations in the later 19th century were widely adopted, and the French de Glehns informed British compound practice and engine layout in the case of Churchward's 4 cylinder locos and their LMS pacific derivates under Stanier. European trains were more akin to ours in length and weight, distances between stops more comparable, and it is possible to suggest that some European practice represented what we would like to have done had we had their somewhat larger loading gauge, still tiny be American standards. 4-8-2s appeared in France, Germany, and Spain; the French Chapelon ones were about as good as it got anywhere! The USATC S160 2-8-0s show the American reaction to building locos for the British loading gauge. They built what was to their view a branch line goods engine, a modernised 10 wheeler with a fat short boiler, which was taken into use here on heavy main line freight work where it was badly needed during the traffic peak of the build up to D-Day and the supply operation for the Normandy invasion before being shipped over to join most of the supplies it had been hauling. Comparable British locos are the 28xx, Stanier 8F, 04, and the later 01 and Riddles Austerity, the largest considered necessary to haul a 60 wagon goods or mineral train on a British main line where the length was limited by signalling and the length of loops and layby sidings; there was no point in having anything bigger. This is a point that comes up repeatedly on this topic; we imagine 2-10-0s or 2-8-4s derived from pacifics, KIngs enlarged into 4-8-0s or 4-8-2s, and pacifics fattened out to be 4-8-4s, and sometimes even model them, but none of them would have been capable of earning their keep on a British railway as there were no loads suitable for them. We imagine Stanier 4-8-4s with roller bearings and mechanical stokers cruising easily up Shap or Beattock unassisted at 80+, safety valves feathering and 20 coaches hanging on the hook of their 12 wheel bogie tenders , but no peacetime traffic requirement justified such a train, which would have run half empty and uneconomically most of the time. It's enormous fun and I'm not knocking it, but the main point is that we can learn lessons about the practical issues involved in running a steam railway on a daily basis from the exercise. How about an additional slightly different topic, locos and stock designed from scratch for a UK equivalent of the Ruhnian State Railway, in which we could indulge our fantasies and have them criticised and analysed. Suggested rules; British loading gauge, 25 ton axle load limit, maximum 20 coach/60 standard wagon length trains, drawhooks and couplings compatible with normal British practice of the period the stock is designed for (i.e hook and screw or instanter with buffers except for fairly modern image).

I’d have to echo that sentiment, Star; excellent quality, good running with Hornby wheels that I’ve got in stock, and NEM pockets; value for money!

See, I want one now...

You are right, O Captain my Captain, as are all pasties, burgers, sausages, and any thigh else in which meat is mixed with lesser things to increase profit and spiced to hide the lack of taste. I only trust pies I make myself. Which is a shame because I’m rubbish at pastry...

This is true, but any rotating mass on a wheel any size can be balanced, perfectly in theory. The problem of balancing reciprocating mass, hammer blow, is lessened by larger wheels to the extent that the reciprocating parts move more slowly; it isn't predicated on the size of the balance weights on the wheels. These weights look bigger on smaller wheels as the occupy more percentage of the wheel area inside the tyre, and are larger where long piston travel and large crank throws are used, an American trait copied on the GW by Churchward. Look at the balance weights on a 28xx, 42xx, or 56xx. It is probably true that the size of weights required on some of the bigger American locos precluded the use of driving wheels below a certain size! Again, heavy freight operation in the US, with the benefit of Janney couplers that could take the loads, bogie vehicles and air brakes throughout, generally took place at much higher speeds, typically 2 or 3 times faster than ours, especially where long single track sections required heavy loads to be cleared quickly to supply paths for the required traffic. The 'Highball' freight never really happened in the UK in steam days, so the big boilered 2-8-4s with 6 foot wheels were never needed here. American axle loads and loading gauge facilitated this; 100lb rail is considered light there.

Sorry, but I can’t accept that 1st generation dmus ever purred. Idling in platforms or on depots, they sort of grumbled in irritation to themselves, while the windows rattled. Once under way, you got the impression that they were even more irritated and had to catch their breath during the gear changes. Their lack of enthusiasm for anything was palpable, it all seemed to be too much bother... Some of the higher powered ones, like the 110s, Trans Pennines, and the later 123 Swindon InterCities, could produce a pleasing rasp from the exhausts at high revs, though.

I have something similar in moulded plastic on an old Mainline Siphon H, John , and am now thinking that this is what 247 are offering. Worth having as an upgrade for the old Siphon, about to be rejuvenated with Shapeways American bogies, but no further forward on the A31 front unfortunately. I’ll try getting hold of Comet tomoz, and if that draws a blank it’s back to plan A, looking for a donor. Comet might be able to do a bell as well; there must be one for their A38 and A44.

BU 11 is their part number for oval head buffers with square shanks, but I will contact Mr Mosby to confirm that these are the long shank angled base ones required for bow ended auto trailers. Can't off hand think of oval buffers on any other GW passenger stock. But Comet do an A38 trailer, so presumably must also be able to supply suitable buffers for it; I can't find them mentioned in their catalogue, though. This gives me two lines of enquiry before giving up and going down the secondhand donor coach route. OTOH the 247 buffers are only £2.50 a set and it might be worth ordering anyway! There is still plenty to do to the bodyshell before this matter becomes pressing, and I must source a bell as well; Peter's Spares I think. Probably better to leave this til tomorrow now as people are entitled to a Sunday off! Thanks again for the heads up, Gordon!

For 1952, you can and should have liveries ranging from wartime GW austerity to BR 'unicycling lion' and crimson coaches, including late GW and the GW/BR transition liveries. Another book recommendation would be John Lewis' 'GW Auto Trailers', 2 parts of which I only have part 1. This contains several photos of Llantrisant and the Cowbridge branch with auto trailers in various liveries; you have plenty of scope to indulge your scratchbuilding needs with Llantrisants collection of antediluvian trailers! I'd go for about 20% all steel minerals, but they were in full production, and the rest 7 plankers in a mixture of faded XPO liveries with BR numbers, maybe one or two with original numbers, two or three plain wood 'livery' with BR numbers, and BR grey livery, some freshly painted. I wouldn't bothe with vacuum fitted ones. Coal hoppers or 21tonners would be mostly LNER types and a few 'Felix Pole' ex-GW. For general merchandise freight I'd go for about half and half vans and opens, with about 60% of the vans and 40% of the opens vacuum fitted; an open or two in unpainted wood livery is appropriate. They can come from all of the big 4 companies and by 1952 maybe 20%, but no more, will be new BR standards. Some late build big 4s can be new, as they were still being built. As you've mentioned elsewhere, RTR and kits do not cater well for ex GW types, but Baccy's Mogo, Fruit, Parto and Shock vans are not bad, nor is their Southern Railway built GW liveried 'Ashford' van. Apropos which, Ashford works had a large quantity of pre cut timber in stock to build vans with during the war, and the Ministry of Supply ordered all the railways to source their vans there, with large numbers of unfitted vans supplied to the LMS and GW, and several hundred to the LNER. Of the big 4, the LMS had the largest number of wagons to donate to the newly formed BR in 1948, so about a third should probably from there, followed by the LNER and GW with token appearances of Southern (apart from Ashford vans which were fairly common and still being built). Common user 'pool' vehicles got all over the system pretty quickly in 1948. BR very quickly in 1948 formed an 'Ideal Wagons Committee', to deal with the very large quantity of stock that was outdated and unsuitable for further use, much of which had been worked to death during the war, and to advise on the best features to include in the designs for the new standard stock. it sounds like a talking shop nightmare, but was very effective in getting to grips with the problem. In 1952, it's work was in full swing; wagons taken out of service due for overhaul or failed in service were taken through a sort of triage system. Those beyond saving were withdrawn immediately, and stored on disused sidings or closed lines until the scrappers could get around to them. Those that had a little life left in them were patched up and put back into service until they got too far gone; you sometimes saw vehicles with 'OJO' (one journey only) chalked on the side, which meant that the vehicle was withdrawn and put with the scrappers as soon as it had been unloaded, when it would acquire the 'cross in a circle' condemned mark, painted on so it couldn't be rubbed off. Those in good condition were refurbished, often with vacuum brakes and buffers to 'XP' standards, and put back into service. All this took about a decade to achieve in the case of general merchandise wagons, and another 5 years or so for 7 plank minerals, though by that time the process was being assisted by a fall in traffic. The IWC (not the Isle of Wight Central) had a major impact on freight stock during 'our' period. Brian R is a very good contact for information such as working timetables, local instructions, duty target numbers, and much of that sort of thing; he has spent years making his own records and keeping them, unlike most of us, and acquiring railway publications; his forte is the South Wales area particularly Cardiff, and he will be able to tell you much about Llantrisant. He is also an all round good bloke, but whatever you do don't tell him I said that..

Do they, by jiminy! Cover me in chocolate and throw me to the fat girls! Thank you for this, Gordon, you have dug me out of a hole! I shall order a set forthwith, toot sweet, or sooner...

I think I may have. Banana vans were also used as fitted heads on some Barry Docks-Corby/Scunthorpe iron ore trains up to the early 70s, run as class 8 with Halls or Hymeks. They were ballasted with sand bags I believe. They may have also appeared on Llanharry-Cardiff East Moors iron ore workings, which will be of interest to Amanda as they were Llantrisant jobs. The trains had brake vans each end because they reversed at Pengam Jc.

The basic problem here is that women always want us to clean up before we’ve finished making the mess, which is inefficient. Of course, we never finish making the mess... I got told off for doing the washing up yesterday; apparently I did it to make her feel guilty about not doing it. I just saw a sinkfull and thought I’ d ‘ave a go, honest! That’s another mistake women make; they really believe we are clever enough for this sort of subtlety. Retires to foxhole, wearing Chieftain Tank for protection...

I think the Southern used this term for the men who drove it's electric multiple units as well, Motormen I mean. Sounds a bit comic book; don't miss 'Dan Dare and the Motormen', perhaps an evil robotic army operating at the behest of the Mekon in order to spare the lives of otherwise expendable Treens. Perhaps we are drifting OT a bit now. It's been that sort of Saturday...

A better illustration of what I was getting at might be arrived at by comparing, say, a Hall and a 28xx, or, better because they used the same tenders, a Black 5 and an 8F. Given exactly the same job with the same crew and in general trying to ensure that other things are equal, the Black 5 will go further than the 8F before it runs out of water. It's an oversimplification, things are never that equal, and a gross generalisation, but still holds. In South Wales, 56xx 0-6-2s were used to replace pregrouping types, but only came in one wheel size, 4'7". This was the sort of size used by the Taff Vale, Rhymney, and Barry for 'goods' engines; something like 4'1" was favoured for 'mineral' and shunting work and 5'3" or thereabouts for passenger work. The 56xx (effectively a Rhymney R built out of Swindon standard bits and given vacuum brakes) proved capable of performing well in all 3 roles, helped by the fact that no great distances were involved and speeds were generally low (line speed on the Barry and on the Taff Vale north of Radyr was 50mph, which the 56xx could manage. But TVR 'A' class or Rhymney 'P'' class locos with 5'3" wheels were preferred for passenger work until their demise because of their greater range on a tank full of water, despite the As having smaller tanks (they had a smaller boiler as well, even as Swindon rebuilds). So, the replacement for these locos in the late 40s and early 50s were 41xx series large prairie and BR Standard 3MT 2-6-2Ts, which held the fort until the dmus took over. They were reckoned less powerful than the 56xx, and certainly couldn't accelerate from a stand like those locos, but were preferred for turns where longer distances were involved, such as Barry-Treherbert, or Cardiff (Clarence Road) to Bridgend via the Vale of Glamorgan line. The extra range of these locos, despite their lesser tankage compared to the 56xx which had the same boiler and similar sized cylinders to the GW large prairies and a very similar boiler to the 3MT, which in the interests of BR standardisation had smaller cylinders hence the drop in power rating compared to the 4MT of the GW prairies and 5MT of the 56xx, was the reason for their allocation to Barry, Cathays, Merthyr, and Rhymney in the late 40s and early 50s; all those sheds had plenty of 56xx but for some work they were out of their depth on in terms of water consumption. Bigger wheeled engines could go faster as well, but only the Rhymney main line below Ystrad Mynach was rated for any more than 50mph.

Should work. The A77 road has to be suggested running across the head of the loch at the shoreline wall, but it diverts inland for a few hundred yards behind a hill where it turns north along the shoreline directly opposite the pier (my memory isn't that good, I've been looking at the map!). Water would mostly be quite calm, sheltered from everything but northwesterlies, but was probably a bit lumpy if there was a strong northwesterly driving up the loch. Suggestion of wading birds picking at the edge of the waterline, perhaps; just dots for knot or sanderlings, maybe a few oystercatchers supervising things... And gulls of course. My memory suggests a line of telegraph poles along the road at the head of the loch back in the day, but I wouldn't swear to it and perhaps I just think there should be. Looking at street view not only validates your backscene (!), but suggests that housing had progressed along the A77 as far as Ladies Walk in the 60s; it looks a bit more modern east of that.

You can never have too much wood, and you can never have wood too often... I have a vague future plan to scratchbuild a GW matchboarded auto trailer with real wooden planks, it's one of those 'modelling for fun when I've done all the work for the layout' projects that'll prolly never see the light of what passes for day in my railway room. I like using wood as a modelling material and don't do enough of it. It is one of those things that scales down perfectly and takes paint, weathering, or varnish in exactly the same way as the wooden thing you are modelling. It is easily workable and adaptable, an underrated material.