The Johnster

I’ve stuffed mine full of ‘liquid gravity’ as well as the original Lima ballast, but it still struggles a bit with loaded coal trains; so does one of my much heavier Baccy 56xx. It romps away with anything else I can hang behind it, though.

Ah, yes, I can see now that the inner end compartment is spaced differently and is obviously the first class. Mr Ganderton’s fully lined coaches are awesome, and mine, in 1956 unlined maroon, will not be fit to be in the same topic! Many thanks for this vital help, Ms P; I now know a lot more about E116s than I did only a couple days ago. There were flatended B sets during my period at Tondu, but I believe they were E147s, and a pair of Comets are on the ‘to do’ list. Having finished the bodyshell, more awkward than difficult and I could have done with a third hand (or perhaps a prehensile tail; why did we get rid of those?), I’m putting it aside for now to concentrate on the A31, which with luck could be all over bar the shouting by the end of the week. I’ll then return to this project.

And very smart she looks, too. I opted for the Baccy 57xx chassis because it has GW type fishbelly coupling rods whereas the Hornby generic 0-6-0 has parallel fluted ones. I have a pannier with this chassis, a Hornby 2721 half cab. It’s a good slow runner, but not quite in the Baccy class! But it’s a massive improvement on the horror that originally sat beneath that perfectly good Lima body. 8448 continues to give excellent service, but will be withdrawn when the new Baccy appears; the chassis will then be looking for an eBay 57xx body to live beneath. The number plates will be transferred to the new Baccy 94xx.

Don’t think I’ve seen this, perhaps it’s a Wiltshire thing. I’ve seen thinking about an end wall of a terrace across the road for it, but a brick pillar might do the job very well.

Sorry to hear you and Mrs Les have been in the wars; hope you’re both out of them soon.

We’ll be glad to have you, Tim. I have pleasant memories myself of Glasbury.

Thank you for this very useful guide , Ms P. Now I’ve got some E numbers I might be able to find out a bit more. The buffer situation suggests that E116 could never have worked split as singles, having no inner buffers, but there are 4 rather nice turned brass buffers with the kit (I’ve just found!). Looks like my idea of having it as a single coach on my layout relies on Rule 1 even more than I’d thought! At least I now know that it’s an E number and therefore a brake composite. Once I’ve identified the first class compartment I can put the 1 on the door and the the sausages in the windows.

I bought a K's B set coach kit off 'Bay, initially because it had fishbelly bogies which I needed for the K's A31 I'm building as another topic (!), but I've decided the coach has a role to play on Cwmdimbath in it's own right, and I will make it up anyway. It's a Collett flat ended type, similar to E147 as made by Comet but that coach has Collett 9' bogies. I don't know what E number this coach is; E was used by Swindon to denote brake composites, and an initial squiz at the side mouldings does not show any obvious different spacing between the compartments to accommodate a first class one. Perhaps it's a brake 3rd. I know some flat end B set coaches were split from sets used individually in the BR period, certainly in the West Country, and am using that as a Rule 1 excuse to employ the coach in this way on Cwmdimbath. It'll make a good running companion for my Comet C66/75. I'm having a general modelling session today in between doing stuff to the A31, and decided to assemble the body of this on the basis that it's harder to lose the bits from an assembled kit. The intention today is to complete the body shell and reinforce it with the bogie stretchers. These are plastic on this kit unlike the whitemetal ones on the A31. This is a plastic kit and the only whitemetal parts are the cosmetic bogie sideframes, which are indeed fishbellies! If you've been paying attention at the back (and if not, why not?), you'll have picked up on the fact that I have, for the A31, ordered a 3D printed pair of fishbellies from Stafford Road Works/Shawplan, which is due to arrive tomoz. I haven't actually decided which bogies are going under which coach yet; the ones from this kit which will have whitemetal sideframes are of course heavier and may be more suitable for the all whitemetal A31. They are the same mounting for both coaches although the stretcher on this is plastic, and whichever coach I use the Staffords under I will have to modify the mounting, which is I believe for Lima coaches. This is the worst kit I have ever come across for flash and moulding pips, and a good bit of trimming and fettling seems to be necessary for all the parts. The ends are a bit 'moulded' and not very crisp, but the sides are rather good. Fitting the sides to the ends proved a problem and some trimming had to be undertaken before the parts would sit properly together, and we are now at the stage of waiting for the glue to go off before I mess about with the shell putting the stretchers in; I'll be a lot happier once this is done as the thing will be much more rigid. Putting a floor and compartment dividers in will improve matters further. Like the A31, this coach'll need a floor and an interior, and I'm not happy with the truss/battery box moulding, very crude. I think these will be from Comet, and I'll probably bin the kit buffers as well. Livery will be 1956 unlined maroon. Ok, back to the fray...

More progress today; the Milliput has gone off hard, so I've been rubbing it down smooth, and painted the inside. Dark grey floor and upholstery, cream walls for cab, vestibule, and luggage compartment. dark brown for seat backs and bench dividers and saloon end walls and sides. I'm not going to worry too much about the saloon doors from the vestibule, or the one I assume led into the cab from the front saloon because there's a gap between the seats on that end bulkhead, as I doubt I'll be able to see them once the roof's on through the smaller window area. I'll do the cab to saloon door, though, as this can be seen through the cab windows. The plan in Lewis shows what might be a sliding door here; whatever it is supposed to represent it's not a solid bulkhead. I assume there were sliders from the vestibule to the saloons as well, as no door opening arcs are marked. Having done the inside of the cab front, I've glued it back on (Gorilla Superglue) and am ready once the interior paint's gone off properly to do the first coat of the exterior 1949 crimson. I have a pot with probably not enough in it, so will not start until I've been to town and bought a new one in Antics.

Inspection of the pillar box, which I unpacked to make up and paint this avo, shows it to be an 'E II R' item, and E II wasn't Queen until half way through my period. The frets (there are 2) include mouldings for a free standing on a post small box, also current monarch, and a wall mounted one for G R. The George one is probably more suitable for Cwmdimbath, not the sort of place where postboxes were replaced that often and George VI is probably considered very modern; it is anyway correct for the first half of my period and not incorrect for the second; Elizabeth II is incorrect for pre-1953 of course. But I haven't got a wall to put the G R one on except the station building, and I'd have to cut a rebate into the planking for that or it'd just look stuck on (well, to be fair and to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, it would be, wouldn't it?). So I'm gonna cheat and make my confession now to avoid comment later; I'm gonna use the G R wall box on a post as a free standing box, and not use the pillar box at all. As an ex employee of Royal Mail, my shame is only slightly outmatched by my desire to provide the residents of Cwmdimbath with a G R postbox at the entrance to their station, so that they can post letters while they are running for the train. One of the drawbacks of the railway running all the way to end of the narrow baseboard at Cwmdimbath is that there is no room to model any of the village, which is assumed to be up the hill and at the absolute end of the valley. Apropos, it is time I gave some thought to a nameboard for the station and one for the signal box. I could use the excuse that these were taken down during the war to confuse 5th columnists and have not yet been replaced, but it's a bit thin... I've also taken the yard lamps off their frets and, when I've finished this screed and the cup of tea I'm currently supping. I'll crack on with painting them and installing them. I've decided that one is needed at the 'country' end of the loop where brake vans are uncoupled and locos coupled after they have run around, but this is going to be a bit vulnerable to being knocked over if I'm not careful, and I'm famous for not being careful. A bit of perspex frontage to protect it might be a good idea!

It's a very distinctive building and visible from Fabian Way, the main A483 into Swansea from the Briton Ferry direction. It is familiar from photos of the Swansea Docks 0-4-0s as the background to many of them; enthusiasts seeking these locos with cameras went to Danygraig by default as access was easy and it saved hunting them down all over the extensive dock network; it's harder to hit a moving target!

This is a bit of a conundrum that affects autos, dmus, railcars/bubble cars, light engine diesel or electric, HSTs; anything with a cab at each end. If it is to be used bi-directionally on a layout, do you put crew in one, both, or no cabs? On Cwmdimbath, because we are in South Wales, the autos come up the valley to the terminus loco hauling, and propel back down. Thus, they are only visible for a short time loco hauling, and are very quickly in the station where they habitually linger for the time it takes a coal train to clear the section and maybe for the empties to come up before propelling back to Bridgend. So, my compromise is to have a fireman aboard the loco and a driver in the auto cab, which for Kevin's railcar would translate into a driver in each cab. Thus a driver sits incorrectly in the auto cab, but only for a very short time. We have not yet reached the stage when 4mm DCC drivers are able to change ends as they should... There is no ideal solution to this, we all do the best we can for our own circumstances. One of my auto sets has no driver because it is loco hauled by non-auto fitted locos in both directions, a thing that seems to have been common in the Tondu valleys if photos of Abergwynfi are anything to go by; Tondu shed never seems to have had more than the bare minimum number of auto-fitted locos to work it's services and works visits, boiler washouts, or other day to day problems may account for this.

It was called Naval Colliery actually in Penygraig not Tonypandy, and I believe it was manned by 'Bevin Boys' during WW2, but I don't know much more about it.

Movements inside the confines of the MPD needed no headcode or even lamps. They were made under the instruction and authority of the yard foreman, but were not handsignalled by ground staff as they were in freight yards or carriage sidings. In practice, you had a good look round, blew the horn, and moved off carefully paying attention to anything else moving around. Accepted working practice determined who had right of way where. The headcode, as Merfyn Jones says, is to inform the signalman, not only for him to identify the working but as a train description code in panel boxes. Traincrews communicating with signalmen on signal telephones used it. On shed, the headcode was either what the loco was carrying when it arrived or the duty it was about to leave to pick up after the driver had prepared the loco.

Light engine only needed to carry the code at the front, so both ends if it reversed direction anywhere.

I’ve filled the toplights with Terracotta Fine Milliput, which seemed more amenable to what I wanted it to do and much better than the first attempt, which didn’t go off properly after a whole week. Can’t do any more until this has gone off and can be sanded smooth, then I can start painting, interior first. Next move move will be to order a cab detailing set off Springside, so I can finish off the cab before the crimson livery goes on. I have a good feeling of steady, ordered, progress with this project now that the bogie problem is resolved.

Experiencing the same on Mac with Safari; works fine on iPhone Safari. Will try logging in direct when I get home.

It is not difficult to balance rotating mass, that is, the wheels, cranks, crankpins, coupling rods and so on, with balance weights on the driving wheels and counterbalances for the internal cranks of inside cylinders, and as the forces increase identically in the rotating mass and the counterbalancing with increased speed of rotation, it can be done pretty accurately and effectively. Hammer blow is nothing to do with this, although the ‘stiffness’ of the wheels will affect the ride if the loco and may exacerbate or ameliorate it. Hammer blow is caused by reciprocating mass, the stuff that goes to and fro rather than round and round. This is the pistons, piston valves if there are any, and crossheads. And then there’s the connecting rods. These take some of the reciprocating load at the crosshead end and become rotating mass at the crank end. Hammer blow, unsurprisingly given what it is called, manifests itself as a physical shock throughout the loco and at the railhead, and is A Bad Thing that has caused many a CME to look old and grey before his time. While the rotating mass maintains the same speed, reciprocating mass stops dead for a nanosecond (or we’ll say it does to stop my brain hurting) at the end of it’s stroke, accelerates until it gets to the middle, then decelerates to stop at t’other end before reversing itself and repeating the move. So, we have stuff going round and round all at the same speed, and stuff going to and fro at all sorts of different speeds, the latter being impossible to balance and easier to increase than it is to reduce. The difference has to escape the system somewhere and does so in this violent way. This is is my very limited layman’s understanding of a very complex engineering issue; I am sure there are many contributors here who can explain it better than my inane ramblings! A steam locomotive in motion moves, like god, in all sorts of mysterious ways, not all of them in the same direction or speed and not all of them intended...

Good question! I will be glueing plastic glazing to a painted whitemetal surface. Superglue is the obvious choice but will fog the glazing. I have Bostik, which might be a bit messy, but might go for Liquid Glass used as glue.

A large number of ‘bargain’ bikes, bought new at below the price you have to pay for something of any quality, develop major wear issues fairly soon and are not well looked after. Many repairers won’t touch them and spares won’t fit; it’s easier and cheaper to abandon them and buy another one. Welcome to the throwaway society, and the delusion that cycling is cheap, or green...

A big tank loco can carry enough coal and water for a non-stop London-Brighton run, 60 miles, a distance suitable for a lot of the Southern’s fast commuter jobs; you can see why Maunsell designed the Rivers. It is a matter of debate as to whether the Southern would have been better off improving the Eastern Section’s per way in the wake of the Sevenoaks accident rather than withdrawing the locos in a knee jerk reaction. Large fast tank engines were, as we’ve said, ideal in many ways for much of it’s work, and were introduced almost immediately upon nationalisation, LMS types followed by the Brighton designed Riddles 4MT tanks. The LMS had no such trouble with it’s big tanks, from the Fowler 2-6-4T on. In the event the Southern put it’s money into the 3rd rail, never built another big tank engine for fast work, and converted the Rivers and the big Brighton tanks to moguls. The River design was in fact exonerated by a trial on the GN main line shortly after the accident; over 80mph was achieved and Gresley, who was on the footplate, reported that the loco’s ride and stability gave him no cause for concern. One has to give credit to the steady nerves of anyone aboard the loco on this occasion; personally, I’d have been a bit apprehensive (by which I mean bl**dy terrified) given the class’s well publicised ‘Rolling Rivers’ reputation, even if it was ill-deserved! The GW seemed happy enough with their various large prairies, and the LNER seemed to show little interest before WW2 in big tanks.

They’re fairly safe these days; things were different about 800 years ago, mind... We actually rather like some of them.

A possible answer to the loco length problem for modern image is to go industrial, which can include a few internal user older wagons. But I endorse the idea of a plank to get you going; it'll build your confidence, teach you a lot, and be a lot of fun. And it could be incorporated as a branch or siding off your eventual bigger layout, so nothing is wasted, and you have something to use as a test running track in the meantime. Win win.

This is a very educational thread! A comment, purely my own viewpoint and not to be taken as definitive or authoritative, on the subject of driving standards. These differed noticeably between individual drivers in my time on the railway back in the 70s, on diesel traction, and the differences must have been more pronounced with steam. The driver is tasked with stopping the train at the places and times determined in the working timetable subject to and authorised by the Rules and Regulations, but, if he's any good, does this with the least discomfort to the passengers, or the guard on a freight train, the least work for his fireman, and on some railways he got a bonus for saving coal. The traditional way of training him for his highly skilled job was to let him spend many years firing to other drivers. This meant that, with minimal interference from inspectors and depending on his own enthusiasm for attending mutual improvement classes, which were voluntary and in any case more focussed on Rules and loco technology than driving technique, new drivers tended to acquire and continue old drivers' bad habits, and pass them on to the next generation. If they were innovative enough to try a new technique of their own while being supervised in the seat during this long training period, the driver in charge told them not to and they were very strongly persuaded to do it his way. 'His way' worked, of course, tried and tested over time on regularly done jobs. But the fact that it was seldom challenged led to a stifling of innovation and a persistence of, not bad practice, but practice that could sometimes have been bettered. Modern steam drivers are different, as are their locos in some ways; their training is much more closely monitored by inspectors and be drivers who have themselves been taught by inspectors; the preservation movement is approaching it's 3rd generation of main line steam drivers and nobody who worked steam pre-1968 is in the game any more except in an advisory capacity. The job references the old guys continually, even the loads and timings on main lines are based on the old days, but the situation is different. The locos are, at least theoretically, in better shape, but good coal is harder and harder to come by, and the rail profile and ballasting is not set up for steam operation. So, 'properly' taught drivers under the observation of inspectors a good bit of the time are driving locos that are in theory fully restored to main line condition, but I suspect that not all ex-Barry rebuilds withdrawn in poor condition are as good as Tornado, which is getting a bit of mileage under her now. Maintenance is rigorous, probably much more intense than in BR days, but I suspect focussed on safety issues rather than improving the efficiency or tractive ability of the loco, and locos can be set up very differently from each other to the specification of their owners or the preserved railway they mostly run on. So, one rebuilt light pacific will fly up a bank with 11 on no problems, while a classmate with the same crew and same coal in the same conditions will struggle with 10. Remember the criticism of Flying Scotsman last year when she embarrassed herself on the West Somerset (that was a stall, not a slip, i know, but illustrates the point; this loco was described as a bag of nails by Alan Pegler back in '63 and must have been pretty rough until her NRM rebuild; perhaps she'd have performed better in this situation in her nailbag condition). This sort of event happened daily on pre-'68 BR and nobody commented except the signalmen and the drivers of following traffic held up by it. Drivers' techniques still differ of course, and each driver has his favourite loco, that responds best to his methods, especially if he's the only one that can get much out of her. Messroom debate on the matter is no doubt as lively as ever, and as opinionated, such is human nature, but there is a fundamental difference I think. It is that modern driving standards are probably better than the worst of traditional ones, but unlikely to match the sheer depth of experience and knowledge of the best. They are by and large very good indeed; driving a steam loco even at heritage railway speeds and loads is a complex and skilled job without having to react to situations at 90mph on a busy main line, but we are not really comparing like for like if we are comparing current steam operations to the old days.

Found the level then; knew it wouldn't take long...