t.s.meese

Okay, so is it that with split spoke wheels you have the rims and spokes as separate parts and fit them together, whereas with solid spokes, they are cast as a single unit?

Okay RM folk - this one has bugged me for years. So, first what I (think) I know: 1. Solid (three whole) wheels were introduced before WWII and used widely from the beginning of BR (though I understand that some old spoke wheels continued to be used on some new BR wagons). 2. Early wagons (e.g. pre-group) and POW wagons used split/open spoke wheels. 3. Big 4 used a mix of all three. And I've seen it written that all were common (Perhaps Essery somewhere). However, this is not my observation. Solid spoke are common on GWR, but split spoke seem to be rare. I think this is well known/accepted. But in spite of what I hear/read, when I look in Tatlow and Essery, I find solid (three hole) and split spoke, but little or no evidence for solid spoke (sometimes the photo angle makes the judgement difficult). 4. I had intended to review my collection of SR group and pre-group books, but find myself writing this having not done it, so I can't be sure there. I think plenty of solid (including Mansell (wooden insert large diameter smooth riding) type - also on MR vans) and also spoke - but I can't remember whether those were split or solid. So - my questions: 1. What was the history of split and solid spoke - why is one preferred over the other, if indeed that is the case? 2. Contrary to my observations, were solid spoke wheels (distinct from open spoke) used widely in regular LMS and LNER traffic (i.e. vans and opens)? 3. Why did the GWR favour solid spoke over open spoke? (I guess they were better for some reason, and GWR fans will be quick to tell me this ;-) ) Thanks in advance, Tim.

My question refers to the small yellow charts (some type of stick on label, I think) that can be seen on the sides of many of the wagons on Paul Bartlett's site. (e.g. 16 ton mineral wagons; but many others). They are available from Railtech Transfers (6403). Evidently, they were in use during TOPS, but were they introduced before then? (Railtech call them early BR, but I see no examples of a late BR version.) And were they intended for all wagons and vans? Thanks for any help. Tim

Thanks for that - I too thought about the PC63 kit. I am surprised that Parkside don't package those underframes separately, as they do for various other kits. But good to know that Peco will supply the sprue nonetheless. In fact, I tried the Ambis Engineering link provided by Alan above. They provide an entire underframe kit for the 9' unfitted (WSi09 £3.00), and brass brake gear (etc) for the fitted version (VV6 £1.80). I'm going to give the VV6 a shot and hack it for the unfitted. It is for a single fitted wagon, but with a bit of creativity - the drop link parts look like double thickness with a fold, so perhaps I can get a total of four per fret - I'll see what I can do... Cheers Tim.

Okay - so I have a bunch of 26 ton iron ore tipplers - a mix of Bachmann and, I assume, old Airfix, judging by the under gear (bought on eBay) and some further Parkside Tipplers on order. I plan to run some as Iron Ore (unfitted) and some as Stone (mainly fitted, a couple unfitted). But now I look at Paul Bartlett's web site, I find that that the brake handles for the Bachmann and the Airfix (but not the Parkside) are wrong. All of Paul's images (fitted and unfitted) show a lift-link brake lever (the type available from Red Panda). From what I can see, the fitted have different arrangements on each side (i.e. a crank arrangement), whereas the unfitted do not, as in a dual brake arrangement. Two questions: 1. Prototype. Why have this complicated drop link arrangement for the unfitted wagons when the regular 16 toners do not? (Something to do with torque?) 2. Model. Does anyone know a source (or quick fix) for the lift-link brake levers? I've checked the usual outlets (e.g. Wizard, Dart, Bill Bedford at Eileen's) and found nothing. The Red Panda underframe provides the requisite lever (which probably needs shortening by 2mm for this application), but at two underframe packs per unfitted ore wagon where all you want is a single lever from each pack, that's a lot of wastage! Hacking some together from bits of scrap brass strip is looking like the only option at the moment...

If they did, it is not evident any more (unless you include the Rail Grey that I mentioned in the OP); at least, not in the acrylic range. They do/did do three different versions of the bauxite, all of which I have, though the last time I looked (at Howes?) I could see only two of them. Amusingly, I have two pots of Railmatch 2322 BR Early Freight Grey, and they are totally different - one a shade or two different from LNER grey (approximately correct), the other much darker, a bit like GWR grey (I can only suppose this was a mistake in the mixing process, both carry the same name and number on the pot!)

I have also suspected that phoenix is probably more accurate than railmatch. I think I probably had a tinlet of the light grey about 20 years ago, but I switched to acrylics a long time ago and haven't looked back. Interestingly, the phoenix website cites 1964 as the transition date between greys. I don't think this can be right. I have several photos of grubby but uniform pale grey wagons from before then. I have wondered whether it happened at the time of the BR rebranding in 1956, the transition being largely complete by 1964?

Okay - so unfitted wagons were painted mid grey by BR. Not the same as, but not a million miles from, the LNER shade. This is the colour that the Bachmann 16T wagons appear in, also Oxford 6 plank and many others... However, photographic evidence shows that many 16T wagons (and others) were painted a much lighter pale shade of grey - like the Accurascale shade for their unfitted 21T wagons. I know grey faded, and the paint mixes varied and all that, but it seems there is good evidence that this lighter shade was real and widespread. However, I've never found any mention of it - e.g. the railmatch paints have only the mid grey. I tend to use railmatch 2206 Rail Grey for my 16T repaints. I don't think this is strictly correct (I think it is intended for some aspects of diesel locos), but is close enough as a practical solution. My questions are, 1. does anyone know what the pale wagon grey shade was called (perhaps it never had a special name, just one of 50 shades of wagon grey!) and 2. when this shade began to be used? I think it was quite widespread by 1961, and was not being used in 1948. Thanks Tim.

Ah - interesting thought. But on the Fox sheet there are none of the \/ symbols (white on black) to indicate bottom doors. Was that marking removed at the time of TOPS?

Yes - I had noticed that. So perhaps the Fox Transfers MHO is a mongrel offering of MCO meets ZHO. Hmm...

Yes - this is my primary source - but no MHO...

I've puzzled over this for several months now. MCO and MCV are the typical TOPS codes for 16 ton mineral wagons, unfitted and fitted respectively; MDO and MDV for 21 ton minerals, and so forth. But what is MHO? M = Mineral; O = unfitted. H = some detail, I don't know! They appear (plentifully) on the Fox 16t transfer sheets , but I can find no reference to them on Paul Bartlett's site, or on any (detailed) TOPS lists I can find. My only thought/guess was that maybe the H is for rebodied wagons, but I've found what I think are rebodied examples with the middle letter C, so perhaps not, or maybe that was a later tweak? Or did they run out of suitable running numbers for MCO, so the H is an overflow character? Dunno. Any help appreciated. Cheers Tim.

1. A set of LNWR coaches, including a restaurant car. In LNWR and LMS liveries. 2. The two LNWR Royal Saloons. 3. A Claughton in LNWR and LMS guises. Plus a fantasy BR version with the unused number that was allocated. (Hornby have form for this creative fantasy work). Okay - I can find no evidence that the Royal train was ever pulled by a Claughton, but is it known that it never was? Alternatively, a parallel boiler Royal Scot - but that rather defeats the LNWR livery of the coaches. I've seen a lot of posts for LNER's The Coronation set. That would be great - and I think it is likely in the future - but I'm not sure this is the right year for it (i.e. it's the wrong coronation/wrong Elizabeth!). The Royal train above is a more respectful fit, I think. Plus, wouldn't the LNER Silver Jubilee be a more likely Hornby follow-up to the LMS Coronation Scot, being a totally different colour? (Also, lots of options for those short on cash or space for a full train: 3, 4, 5 & 7 coach purchase versions of the original full 7-coach set.) But an odd release for a platinum jubilee year (and the wrong head-of-state). So no, my guess is the Royal Saloons... Cheers, Tim.

The question is pretty much covered in the title. I'm interested in WWI and WWII and wondering whether WD trains (tanks, rail guns, and anything else) had brake vans in WD livery, or whether regular brake vans were used, local to the region.

I must take a look at the 4-track versions of these. But wired remotes - a bit twentieth century? (Not that I need them for my plans...)

Paul - is this etch available for purchase? I would love half a dozen or so...

I guess you mean that brake simulation control. I have no experience of that and I'm not sure what it does. Is it for entering stations etc? But how is that different, operationally and visually, to just winding down the main control? Or is this really about acceleration out of a stop? Perhaps you set the brake control to set the rate of acceleration and the speed control to set the upper speed. Is that the concept?

Nice to hear - yes, many a glass of fine wine to the slow freight - and with an A4 speeding past on the inside - pure joy... ;- ) I purchased a yellow GM D and a Hornby feedback controller on ebay a few months back to test - but the kitchen floor test branch (+ cat; that's not an acronym, I mean hair-shedding explorative pet cat) was not ideal/conclusive! I got the sense that the Hornby FB controller might be less aggressive to some motors than the GM, but my testing was not comprehensive - my main observation was that my brand new Hornby Princess motor assembly was put together by an inattentive Hornby apprentice (and weathered - I have no air-brush facility at the mo' - by an equally inattentive TMC to the problem they inherited (that's happened twice; though I sought and received good reparation on the second occasion)) - but that's an old thread (perhaps on the Hornby site)...

Haha! Well, one of them is just a problem with some tiny grit behind the forward/backward switch which is jammed. But since they deny user removal of the casing (presumably to protect the guarantee), I can't apply myself to this trivial fix. The other is a sudden death on one channel. But no reason to suppose that is specific to the red build...

Okay - some brief background to help frame my question... My last layout was a four track tail-chaser in my cellar - think something like Stoke Summit but not as long. 1/3 visible, 1/3 covered (to hide tight curves) 1/3 fiddle yard. I moved house (several years ago) and I'm now getting ready to build a bigger update in my double garage conversion (~1/4 of its width lost to the rebuild, so still tight-ish curves into the fiddle yard and hidden sections). My previous layout used Gaugemaster DF controllers (the maroon/red ones, not the yellow ones) on all four operating lines. These were great - the reason I chose them was because I supposed that long trains (e.g. typically 8-12 coaches; 40+ wagons) would drag around corners, slowing the procession, completely destroying the illusion. I have no interest in hands on control - let them run while I sit back and enjoy (besides I don't have enough hands) - but I feared that without a feedback controller, this would not work. (On the down side, I did notice that most of my Bachmann split chassis locos (I still have them) sounded awful.) Since then, Gaugemaster have stopped producing their feedback controllers (and two of my three need repair on one channel) and coreless motors (increasingly common) hate these things anyway. So here is my question: what is a solo long-train mainline tail-chaser to do? Was feedback never really necessary (i.e. will the yellow Gaugemaster controllers do the job?), or is the concept of hands-off analogue constant speed control a thing of the past? DCC is a possibility for the additional orthogonal small lines I plan (different layers)---but does DCC achieve the constant speed I'm looking for anyway? If DCC is a must for the main line, then so be it, but I'm unlikely to convert my 80+ older pacifics etc. Have they had their day (beautifully/painstakingly weathered - sigh) , or can I hope that modern analogue can deliver constant speed on long trains/tight curves without feedback? (The thought of having more than one type of controller feeding the same line fills me with engineering dread! Even if wired fail-safe, the operational faff of it defeats the enjoyment...) Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Markjj - I've looked at those - but I think they are of the same ilk as the dart/mjt product - i.e. spring designed for shunting (which is fine, but extra expense if you don't shunt). I don't think these have collars either.

Thanks - but no, the Markits link from 2mm Andy shows the pattern I'm after. But I'm still left wondering who made/make the ones for the LNWR ratio wagons/Dave Cleal... Edit: I've purchased the Markits items from Pete's spare, as in 2mm Andy's link. By eye and the Internet, they look like different moulds to the Ratio ones; I'll feedback when I have them in hand, though perhaps I'll need to buy another Ratio kit... Second edit: 3.40GBP for 4 Markits brass buffers with collars vs 3.00GBP for 12 steel buffers without collars from H&A: https://www.hamodels.net/wagon-buffer-heads.html I guess this is as much down to the brass as the collar (if you don't do shunting, I see no advantage in brass), but the Ratio double wagon kit (PC576) is great value (~15.76GBP) absorbing the cost of 8 black metal collared buffers (of unknown type because of the black cover finish) as it does.

That's the sort of thing, Andy, thanks - might give them a try, but a bit pricey for only four; packs of 40 for the price of 20 please! - but not quite the same mould as the one's I have in mind (and in my LNWR wagon buffer housings).

Yes - I'm also happy with Dart/MJT. But it's either buffer heads without collars (and with springs), or fuller buffers including housing, collars and heads. I'm after the product in the middle: heads plus collar but no housing, like the ones I used to get from Dave Cleal. At least, I assume it was there; I can't think where else it would have been. I find it odd that something so useful should have vanished from the spares/accessories market...

Hi Jason - the slaters buffer heads are steel and don't have the collars. They look very similar to the H&A product to me. 51L do various white metal buffers, and I have a lot of this kind from various sources, but they require that you cut off the existing buffer housing and drill. I can do that easily enough. But this is much more work than is often needed because the existing plastic housing is often/usually fine for my purposes (Powside, Ratio, Cambrian, Parkside. Mousa are not a problem since they have the collar printed as part of the buffer assembly.). There are finely machined black buffer heads that come with tiny springs so you can make them active. 51L and/or MJT; can't remember. These are good for their job, but expensive if all you want is to glue a buffer head into a plastic housing. And in any case, they don't have the collars. I'm holding an unpainted Ratio LNWR wagon in my hand now - it has the buffer types I mentioned - black, neat and with collars. This is from one of the newer Parkside packaged versions - so someone has a supply!