Regularity

I have Cornwell’s three books on hospital railways. They are virtually as new - one even signed by the author. £15 each, or £40 for the set, including U.K./EU postage. Contact me via PM

Which (as a later edit to your post) sort of backs up what I said: K for side corridor.

Yes, but for the most part, they are post-grouping issues, particularly the examples you cite.

Don’t know for sure, but BR adopted the LNER system, which did differentiate between brake (B) and gangwayed brake (BG) and for non-gangwayed stock would indicate a lavatory accessible from within the coach via side corridors by adding an L to the code, which they didn’t do in the case of gangwayed stock - although they did then add the K for corridor plus gangway (gangway would be pretty pointless without a corridor, when you think of it!) TL meant lavatory third, non-gangwayed, and T meant third, non-corridor. A mainline third coach was TK or TO. TKG or TOG would have been clearer. Parcels stock also supposedly used Y for 4 wheels and Z for 6, (e.g. BY, BGZ) but these were not used for passenger stock. Similarly, there is a difference in the G as a prefix (GUV, general utlitity van) and a suffix as in BG. And yes, a CCT should have been a CCTY, or CCY, but as with the good old PMV, the distinction wasn’t made! It is slightly ambiguous, but I think the LNER used K for “through corridor with gangway”, and determined that a corridor without a gangway would be indicted simply with the L. Anything else was assumed to be compartment stock for mainline use, and compartment stock for suburban and local use. Because of the ambiguity, it seems we are both right! Why they didn’t put a G in place to indicated a gangway is something we will never know, but that criticism comes from the perspective of historical hindsight. It seems that as far as new carriage designs (Mk 1s) were concerned, the 64’ Stock was gangwayed, and the 57’ stock wasn’t by default, hence the BG needed the G, but the BFK didn’t. BR certainly didn’t denote multiple unit stock as anything other than trailers, as these were nearly all opens anyway. Not sure whether they were overly bothered about Inter City dmus, assuming that they had corridors at all. My local electric units (AM10/310) were described as “partially gangwayed within, there being no through connection between the MBS (motor brake second, with the pantograph and traction motors, etc) and TS (trailer second), not even for the guard, and there was a 6 person bench seat across the inner ends. When refurbished, as well as losing the wrap-around cab windows, the units gained an extra gangway and a doorway for use of the guard only. The MBS lost 1 seat, and the TS lost 2. Now, this may not seem to be pre-grouping, but (a) it is a useful way to describe things, and (b) I believe it was introduced in 1920 although I am not sure which company came up with it. I would guess NER, but I might be wide of the mark.

Although we use the term “corridor” to mean the connection between coaches, corridor really refers to a passage down the side of a coach, and the connection between the corridors of adjacent coaches is a gangway. Even now, we see Mk1 stock described as, say, BCK with the K standing in for side corridor (as the C has been used for Composite) as against, say, a TSO, Tourist Second Open. (Tourist meaning 4 seats across the coach, 2+2, against SO, with 3 seats arranged 1+2. We will, for the moment, overlook suburban trailer stock, which was 2+3!)

Erm, see post ”2742” above.

Clearly the uncoupling electro-magnet wasn’t properly aligned under the track, and pulled both couplers the same way.

Or put the lid back on!

Oh, how true that is. What I really want to model is pre-WWII, but those Alcos keep calling me.I have four in brass (S1, S2, RS-11 x 2) plus two etched brass kits (RS-1) and a plastic rtr body (RS-3), and some old parts for an S4. So that’s 8 more than I need, but about right for what I want... Please don’t tell the missus!

Many Midlands and most East Midlands tramways were laid to 3’6” gauge, so if using 00 track, 1:64 Scale makes a lot of sense. This is not a problem for some of us! Are you going to lay your tramway to 14mm gauge, just to make the point?

Just so long as we have the machine which goes “ping”.

One of those cases where if you need the joke explaining, you ain’t gonna get it...

Re the drawing in the March issue, the engine appears to levitate above the wheels: no frames have been drawn, or maybe if drawn, they were omitted from the final selection of layers for the output file, assuming CAD.

Denis Allenden produces a fine model of this, using the Triang-Hornby 9F chassis, adding the Flamme boiler, etc. Brutish thing, not without its charms.

You just need to fork out a few quid on a decent app.

Unless you spend a lot of money on very precisely made gears, and have an anti-backlash gearbox as your final drive, then some jerkiness is all but inevitable. But if you follow Lezz01’s suggestions, you can reduce that. Argh. Get that out of there.The PVA and the lead will react, producing lead acetate. During this process, the mixture will expand. It won’t be immediate, but the reaction has already started. Use something like epoxy resin, Bostik clear adhesive or UHU instead. But as these are in an ecnclosed space, why not simply trap the lead shot with the panels? Or better still, cut some lead sheet to fit the aperture: there will be no interstitial gaps this way, and you will acquire a greater density and hence more mass in the space.

It’s a cattle van permitted to run in passenger trains. Usually a longer wheelbase, and with at least through brake pipes, if not automatic brakes. A drover’s van would, like a horse box, including accommodation for a groom/farmworker/what have you.

I am sure the pre-colonial inhabitants of the area thought “Providence” an equally unlikely name.

The GWR had road vans, about two at any given time. They were toads with side doors opening into the guard’s area, and used on lightly loaded lines. One was allocated to Kington and used on the Presteigne line. Station trucks were different. They were sheeted opens or vans, loaded at major transshipment depots, operating on specific services on specific routes, for what we often call “smalls” traffic. They were marshalled into a specific point in a train, the idea being that train would stop at a station with the station truck as close as possible to wherever the parcels were dealt with. No other shunting took place - that was the role of the pickup goods. Sometimes these went off the system: there was a daily wagon from the transshipment shed (goods shed) at Oxford to Northampton. Goods from the West Country to Northampton went to Oxford for bringing together in one regular load. I presume they had a goods agent of their own in Northampton, in an attempt to return the wagon loaded.

Seeing as you are working in 00, choosing wheel diameters based on the “over-flange” dimension can help with clearances, especially with cast splashers. But the R1 is not the only alternative: just the only alternative for you.

Ask a Lancastrian...

Iain Rice’s T7 drawing is more than a little erroneous. The Colne Valley engine, built to the same design, made it into LNER ownership, and core dimensions are provided in the relevant RCTS volume, which state the wheelbase. Iain estimated his, and got it wrong. There is probably a side elevation in the series of drawings by HT Buckle, in Railway Magazine or some such - the GERS used to provide a reprint of this. A drawing of the T26 by Lyn Brooks appeared in the book on the hobby produced amongst other imprints for M&S. All this has been mentioned before.

That price tag just reflects what a small number of people have been prepared to pay for it relatively recently, and a current scarcity of available copies. It is no indication of there being sufficient interest to justify a reprint (which is dictated by number of likely sales). It could be that 3 people are seeking a copy, but none at that price, and if 4 became available, the price would plummet.

You will find drawings plus other information on the LSWR Adams classes in the Wild Swan book on the same, and also info on carriages in Volume 1 of their LSWR carriages book.

Proto:pi scale... not April 1st, is it?