Methuselah

The Whirlwind is a strictly static build. The Tempest - being a Centaurus - is a bit more practical - but still a Herculean effort, and I very much look forwards to seeing it fly. The Typhoons.....well, it's fair to say that anything with a Sabre in it is in quite another league - rather an understatement..... I don't think ANY Sabre has even ground-run since the 1950's. There are few engines, very few spares - and nothing to compare with the infrastructure that sits behind, for example, the Merlin. No one alive was involved with the design, development or servicing of the Sabre. The Sabre was always a highly problematic engine, and the RAF got rid of them all as soon as the war ended - for exactly that reason. Napiers only half-decent engine was the Lion - and that took them decades to get right. We may well get to see a Sabre-engined Typhoon ground run, but the odds are stacked very heavily against it flying.

I think so. I didn't realise how different - or how big they were until I stood under a (Non-airworthy.) Fury in Florida some years ago. (Even chunkier than the Fw190 - a beefy machine too.). They even re-engineered the Tempest's main u/c - presumably to fit into the thinner wing, so the apparent similarities actually belied what was really quite a different machine.

Nowt to do with the Whirlwind. The Hornet was a spin-off from the Mosquito - both superb machines.

The Sabre was problematic at any height, and in the early days, the Typhoon's airframe also gave many problems - all very stressful for the MAP at the time. The Whirlwind's airframe was built around the Peregrine, which was a much smaller engine than the Merlin - so the Merlin was never an option, they were simply to big and heavy. All the time and effort went into developing the Merlins, so the Peregrine and the Whirlwind both withered on the vine. The Typhoon never made the grade as a fighter, because, quite apart from the problems with the Sabre's reliability, the Typhoon's wing was very thick. Great for strength and housing cannons, but it had a very low Critical Mach Number - a problem many other types of that period suffered from, such as the P38. The similar-looking Tempest had an entirely new, and much thinner wing, and was a much better machine that used the Sabre and the Centaurus. The Tempest was developed into Centaurus-powered the Fury and Sea Fury, both excellent machines, though the Centaurus was also not without it's problems.

About a week ago it was 22C and I was in shorts and a T-Shirt, now we are back to frost and snow. The brief taste of balmier weather reminded me that, after very long break - and official retirement, I became one of those idiotic 'born-again bikers' last year. I don't need a bike - but most of my pals have them, and the ability to go out for a Jolly as a bit of a posse appeals. Getting back on a bike was a little surreal. As a kid - I started-out on an execrable BSA Bantam....like the Telegram-boys used to ride - enough to put one off biking for life. In fact it did have a good go at killing me. Thankfully, modern stuff just works - unlike me - all stiff and creaky. I'm convinced that if I come-off I'll be found halfway up a cow-pasture, still locked rigidly in the riding position...... At least being in my dotage, I don't feel the need to do any more than potter like the silly old fart I am. Roll-on summer I say - and lots of 'Wing Commander's weather'....

Took these a couple of weeks ago passing through B&E.

Whilst any attention to pre-Grouping coaches is very welcome, what a pity Hornby have basically copied Hattons generic approach. If the coaches had have been based on at least ONE correct set of prototypes - then one livery at least would have been accurate. Like Hattons - they are rather a pig-in-a-poke. Pity - Hornby could have upped the game. Had they been a reasonably accurate representation - I would certainly have bought a quite a few.

I have no idea if there were 'Mistletoe Specials', but there were certainly many specials related to the local production of fruit and hops - especially with regard to the transportation of seasonal workers. These groups were reported to get quite rowdy (Perhaps from the fruits of the Teme Valley.) - and railway staff took to locking the carriage doors to prevent groups of them inadvertently exiting the train at the wrong station(s) on the return journey to the Black Country. Extra sidings were added at Newnham Bridge to cater for the hop & fruit traffic in the late summer and autumn - quite a tonnage, whereas the mistletoe would only have filled a couple of parcel vans.

I thought I'd post this since the weather of late has been so unremittingly ghastly. My son favours Autumn. Summer seems so often, to be the season of disappointment, meteorologically-speaking, but for me, Spring is replete with so much to see and smell. When the sun shines, the sheer freshness of the colours - especially after the dark grey months of winter, always has far more impact. The first image was a set I took on a stroll, and the gin-clear air set -off the bright, fresh greens against the achingly blue sky. The second Spring image is of the apple-blossom in the cider-orchards surrounding the house. After a warm spring day, if the evening is calm - the fragrance of all that apple-blossom fills the farmhouse. Truly sublime.

Actually - it's a toy - if you wish to be really pedantic. Gawd.....

The train. The train. Can we talk about the train....

Several ordered in the original glorious iteration - look forward to these. Hopefully we will see more of the much neglected Pre-Grouping locos now the market is saturated with later stuff - an antidote to endless BR-everything. It'd be great if there were some RTR LNWR coaches too. Maybe this new product will provide a stimulus there too. Bravo to all concerned - these look absolutely superb....!

Hi Dave, This is all new to me too, returning to railway modelling after over forty years. For what it's worth, I think the expensive chips and all the bells and whistles are over-kill for most people. I'd never be interested-enough to learn all the commands - and seriously - since when could one hear coal being shovelled from quarter of a mile away...? Naaah. Some compromises would be necessary - but one three cylinder Gresley Pacific sounds much like any other etc. I still see videos of locos with fancy chips in them - with a complete mis-match between the sound and the speed of the train. Chuffing, overrun and maybe a whistle is really all that's needed. You are right - I think we should have cheap chips and a little PC interface to set wheel size and number of cylinders and whistle type. Nothing more is really required. ATB.

I've deferred writing another blog in the hope that I might have some real progress to report. Sadly, apart from the usual trickle of purchases, I'm still unable to get onto building the railway room owing to other commitments. The following may end-up being filed under 'Daft Ideas', but then again....... I was recently corresponding with another modeller, seeking to expand my knowledge - and the subject of DC/DCC entered the dialogue. Now, even not having run DCC trains myself, I can see their obvious manyfold advantages - especially if we include sound etc - which really appeals to me. Model railways are, to me at least, an animated diorama, so anything that helps animate and bring the scene to life is a 'Good Thing', be that sound, smoke lights, movement or whatever. However, the 'elephant in the room' is clearly cost. The problem for me isn't the cost of the static components - I've managed to collect quite a lot very much on the cheap, secondhand. The problem is the chips/decoders - call them what you will. If one has a few locos, them £10 per loco for a basic chip really isn't going to break the bank. However - if you have a lot of locos, then the cost is substantial - prohibitive even. I've got quite a few locos - so this really is an issue for me. If we look at the cheapest sound decoders (Hornby TTS.), these seem to run out at around £35. The proper sound chips are over £100. Now let's say you have fifty locos - and many folk do....;- DC = £0.00 DCC = £500.00 DCCS = £1,750.00 (Hornby TTS.) DCCS = £5,000.00 Clearly, if the number of locos is large it really does get eye-wateringly expensive........and if sound-chipped - stratospherically so....! You have two hundred locos...? That'll be £20,000.00 extra please sir....! Yikes.... Obviously, if you have quite a few locos, some sort of rational compromise is required. A local club has their trackwork switchable between DC and DCC - and this seems a thoroughly excellent idea for starters - and I'm pretty sure I will use this great idea to maximise flexibility. My corespondent also pointed out the great advantage that friends visiting who wish to run non-DCC locos can still do do with a system that is switchable. I'm sold on the idea already...! If one wants to stay with all DCC, there may be other, additional solutions - some of which may seem a bit odd.....but bear with me... One solution would be to have mounting for the chip and speaker in the lead train vehicle with a removable roof. That vehicle could also pick-up the power and feed the loco motor via the chip. Locos and chips could be swapped at will. This might work very well for me, since I will have permanent rakes of vehicles marshalled in storage sidings and have no interest whatsoever in shunting - only running the trains. I will always have less trains than locos, so this seems to make sense..... This idea also offers the ability to also use much better, larger speakers too. The locos would need to be only very slightly modified with a fly-lead/plug-socket underneath for quick interchangeability. The loco's feed from the wheels would have to be cut and a miniature plug and socket fitted. There would be a lead under the tender with a plug hidden underneath for the coach/van hook-up. In principle, to go from DC to DCC would then only require the swapping of the plug from the loco's own pick-ups to the fly-lead under the tender. Cost;- Pennies. Difficulty level;- Very low. This system might also make it easier to use DCC with some older models - and 'visiting locos', equipped with the same plug, could be switched from DC to DCC in literally seconds.... In my case - I will only have a limited number of trains, but many more locos, so this option might make sense. That lead DCC coach could also be put on other trains in a jiffy too - even further expanding the availability of DCC-running, but without needing a chip for every train even. Anyway - I'm estimating I'll end up with around three locos for every train available. If I only need one decoder for every three trains, that's around a 66% saving. Sure - not every sound chip is perfect for every other loco - but you get the drift.... Yet another advantage of this system would be that you could have sound for a small or awkward loco - especially tank engines - that simply have little or no room to fit full sound. Perhaps the obvious question is - has anyone already done this - and if not - why not....? Knowing the vast breadth of knowledge and experience on RM-Web - I'm sure someone will have the answer... Feedback appreciated - positive or negative.

Ian commented;- This leads to the notion of a small country railway yard handling Cadbury traffic during pre-grouping times! Oddly enough, the famous Cadbury site at Bournville had it's very own private railway system - like a 1:1 train-set.....! I worked on site as an outside contractor in the early 1970's. By that time, the internal railway system was mothballed, but as well as steam shunters still in the engine shed (I believe the locos have survived to this day.), there was a fascinating collection of very old covered and open wagons, almost all of which were already well over a century old even then. I presume they were sold off cheap by the railways. Sadly - I did not possess a camera in those days. These old wagons never left site even when in use, as there was also a canal transhipment dock called Waterside on the other side of the canal and LMS mainline;- (Originally the old single-line Birmingham West Suburban Railway, that terminated at Granville Street Station.). To access this canal dock, the Cadbury's shunters took the wagons up an incline and over a bridge which, I think still survives, then down another incline via a reversing headshunt. The headshunt and the dock sites are now built-over with housing. I believe the wagons were all scrapped on site, but I always wondered if any of these most venerable vehicles made it into preservation.....

What can it manage to pull....?

What are you laying the track onto...?

What is the gradient of the helix - and what is capable of climbing it? I'm currently mulling - over the idea of using helixes, but I'm concerned that the extra drag added to the gradient will severely limit what can climb up it. ....

My recollection was that the main lines, which were on the east side, remained, whilst most of the goods/relief lines on the west side were removed, and all the remaining trackwork simplified. I think a few stretches of the old slow lines survive in the weeds.

Thanks for all that info'. It seems that today there is quite a mixture everywhere. Actually - I hadn't even considered the safety of gangs on he line - a good point - but it all seems to have great potential to confuse drivers. Logically, you'd have expected there to be some sort of national standard - especially after two hundred years..... :-). I wonder if the issue has ever caused any accidents...? There certainly seems a balance of logic for UUDD on the face of it, as the fast traffic is away from the margins, and the slow lines can access sidings etc more easily.

Yes - this is why I asked, as it seems a rather odd approach, as it could potentially cause confusion for drivers - it was bad enough with drivers on the right and signals on the left..... I wonder what the GWR's rationale was......

Years ago, the main GWR line both north and south of Snow Hill was quadroupled, and most, but not all of the intermediate stations had at least four platforms. There was a main Up and Down, and next to that, seperate slow/goods/refief Up & Down lines.Did the GWR always follow that pattern, or did they sometimes run both Up lines next to each other and both Down lines next to each other....? Did the other 'Big Four' have a set approach/policy to how they laid-out quadroupled lines with regard to the traffic directions....? Have modern practices changed in regards to this issue...?

CCGWR;- Movable sections are always a bit of a liability. Use good quality hinges which are slop-free, and ensure you have positive stops where the flap shuts - metal to metal is best - and use a couple of decent over-centre latches to hold it firmly against the stops. You can also use some sort of locating pin(s). A bit of a gap in the rails won't normally derail, but if the lines don't align properly in both axises, you need to address that before thinking of altering any locos.... :-)

This image, of the internal GW driveway ;- - is taken from here, looking North West. 52°29'20.70"N 1°54'50.44"W This is the south eastern end of the whole site, SW of the Ickneild Street road tunnel. If you look at google Earth, the masonry/revetments there are original GW, and there is a short tunnel under still in-situ I believe. Flip into the older 1945 imagery, and you can see the curved revetment in both 1945 and modern images. The canopied loading-dock and driveway/road, between the building in this image can also be seen from the opposite direction here, both looking south-east. That's Pitsford Street to the right with all the parked cars, with Vyse Street crossing at the top of the hill;- The gable-ended building behind the now demolished arc-roofed sheds can still b seen in Google Street View;-

Well spotted...