FarrMan

I agree as well, though I find any photo of your model interesting. I think the higher level shot might work better because you can see more of the wonderful scenery behind the moving bits. Lloyd

Gilbert I had wondered about that. Lloyd

I object to that - No one should call our kind Gilbert smutts! Gilbert I hope that you are able to enjoy your golf more now that you are out of most of the politics. My golf experience is mainly from pretending to play when I was in the sixth form. It meant that you did not have to get changed. The only problem was that we had the clubs and a ball, but no holes. Some of my class mates went out to Oundle to play on a proper golf course on a Wednesday afternoon. One of their hazards was cows grazing on the course. I remember one of them whose ball landed just in front of a cow - He was too frightened to play the next shot! Thanks again Gilbert. Lloyd

Gilbert I am inclined to agree with Westerner, but as I don't like foreshortened photos, it is not one of my favorites. It does look as though it could be a photo of the real thing, though, so in that sense is successful. May I wish you and all your helpers a very happy New Year, and many thanks for the hours of fine entertainment that you have given us. Looking forward to more! Lloyd

Gilbert Is that from an old advert for Robinsons Jam, that we are no longer allowed to mention by name, just to the right of the Fair Maid and behind Crescent Bridge? The eyes look terrifying! Lloyd

Gilbert The only way I can tell that the top three are of the model, is the porter with the barrow. I assume that the bottom one is genuine, but the others look so realistic. Lloyd

Thanks. That sounds likely, though surely it is facing KC, so 'on arrival' would be a bit inaccurate. I do not remember a roof on that bit, as I was not born until after the war. Lloyd

Slightly off topic, but I have been trying to identify where the first photo in the Backtrack feature this month was taken. It appears to show GNR No1 in 1938 when the new coaching stock on the Flying Scotsman was introduced. It claims to be on arrival at Peterborough, and shows No1 front to the right, next to what appears to be a platform on the far side, with behind that a brick building with at least 6 gable ends immediately at the back of the platform. Has anyone any idea where this was taken? Lloyd

Gilbert I have not had a proper look at that area for over 50 years now, but, whereas your model is immediately recognizable, that backscene brings back no recollections at all. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, I would doubt that it is Peterborough at all. Lloyd

Gilbert I am far from being as expert as some of those who regularly contribute here for our enjoyment, but I wonder if the fish looks fishy with being a head on view on a tight curve. The front wheels of the bogie are obviously too far to the left leaving that bare space under the right buffer. Apart from that, there is something atmospheric about it. Keep up the enjoyment yourself, and please continue to share it with us. Lloyd

Gilbert Looking at the photo of the prototype, from under Crescent bridge you would not see further than the carriage sidings/power station, due to the way the land lies, and most of the power station would be hidden, so only the chute to the power station might be visible. From the station area itself, I think you would see very little beyond Crescent Bridge as the bridge itself would be in the way. This would apply even more the nearer you were to Spital Bridge. How do you think a backscene with the power station chute at the extreme left end to compromise between its true position and the unprototype (but essential) curve on the main line, and fill the rest of the space with Nene Sidings, probably increased in number to balance the other compromise. You would only need sky above the sidings and chute, and I am sure that you can produce a suitable smoke effect from the brickworks not much further South that hung over that area. At that end of the station, I was more familiar with River Lane, which ran down the down side of the line to the river, and was generally lower than track level. It was a favorite short cut of mine to the river bridge - except when the river flooded. Thanks again for sharing this wonderful model, and so much information, with us. Lloyd

Gilbert New backscene looks better than nothing, and in that sense looks good. Losing the power station though is not realistic. I can't remember what could be seen in the distance beyond Crescent Bridge except for the power station, but after the river bridge it was embankment over Oundle Road and then, I think in cutting under London Road. I am inclined to agree with 31A. Lloyd

Stephen I thoroughly agree. Living on a flood plane and excessive impermeable surfaces is asking for trouble. If you choose to live there, have a house that will float. Lloyd

Rubbish. Everybody knows that the South starts at Drumochter Pass! Lloyd

King Gilbert That double slip looks excellent. Must have been a nightmare working out the geometry. Congratulations. It just shows that not only is it an excellent model overall, but there is such fine detail to be found all over it. Your humble servant Lloyd

Gilbert To save you the bother, as angels do not have a physical body, then the answer would be equal to the area of the pin head divided by the area of each angel which is zero. Therefore the answer would be infinite. Lloyd

I didn't think that the class 40's could do 90. I though the best that they could do was about 75 or 80? Thankfully they did not last very long on the ECML. Lloyd

Gilbert Just been away for a few days, so catching up with PN. Re tripod for photos, we used to use a small bean bag to sit the camera on if there was not room for even a small tripod. It would take up the shape of whatever surface it was on and still give the SLR a firm support. Re banking out of platform 3, I do not remember seeing this occuring - though my memories are more of early to mid 1960's. What I do remember, though, was the almost universal wheel slip on pulling away, though usually after a couple of spin sessions it would settle down. I have always put that down to the trailing wheels. The normal GWR express locos were all 4-6-0, and so all the weight settled back onto the driving wheels when pulling away, which made them generally more sure footed. Of course, the length of runs on GWR tended to be shorter, so not the same need for fuel capacity as for the longer ECML runs. As for flats on rolling stock, i thought that that was more likely to be caused by sticking brakes, etc.. Surely if the wheel is spinning it would wear down the whole circumference, and one spot on the track, rather than cause flats on the wheels. A stuck wheel being dragged along would spread the damage on the track, but confine the damage on the wheel to one position, causing the lack of circularity. Yet again, lovely photos of a wonderful model that is so accurate and lifelike. Thanks for keeping up with it for so long. Lloyd

Gilbert Lovely video. I thought that I was there. Very many thanks to you and Andy. Lloyd

Gilbert found out a bit more re the Precast Concrete factory at Tallington. See https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Dow-Mac_(Products) Made bridge beams and columns, piles, fencing, buildings, railway sleepers (for track, not rolling stock!), etc. Some interesting loads? Lloyd

Gilbert It was only withdrawn in 1960, so still running in 1958. It may have lost its way somewhere! Re the pipes or tubes controversy, various suggestions including 1) Pipes are measured by internal diameter, tubes by external size 2) Pipes are for conveying liquids or gasses through, tubes are for structural work I can't say that I like either particularly, but a trainload could well be a mixture of pipes and tubes. As to colour, Clive has fairly well covered it. I would add that Cast Iron pipes were spun in the Nottingham/Derby area if I remember correctly, and they tended to be painted black. They would normally have a spigot at one end, though, which would be quite fiddly to model. Larger concrete pipes would also usually have a different shaped spigot at one end. From a couple of photos that I have looked at, both showing GWR practice though, both show the load uncovered, just chained down. One of them is tubes, but the other is cast iron pipes from Staveley Co. of Chesterfield (I think). Each of these pipes had 'STAVELEY Co.' in largish white letters on the side (Fig 299 in GWR Freight Wagons & Loads by J.H.Russell. From Chesterfield, they may well have come through Peterborough either on the ECML or Leicester to GE destinations. Does anyone know if the Tallington precast concrete works produced pipes or other items at that time, as they may have gone by rail. Lloyd

Tony Good point. But with all the track and other paraphernalia, I tend to agree with Gilbert that usually the point rodding is not glaringly obvious, and probably except just by the signal boxes, does not stand out as an omission. Perhaps it is because you have a much better eye for detail than I have. I do think your work on the point rodding at Little Bytham is well worth it, and thank you for the time and patience expended on it. Lloyd

Tony Delighted to see these photos of your progress with point rodding. It just shows how obvious it was in many locations, and adds to another already excellent model. Not being so familiar with Little Bytham, as it was closed by the time I was traveling that line quite regularly, I cannot comment on the accuracy as I can with PN. Gilbert Ignore that youngster Clive's niggling - the point rodding at PN does NOT look at all obvious from the photos, so can easily be ignored. What I thought did stand out rather, especially when viewed from the Midland outpost on the down side, was that fence, or signal wire line, whichever it was. Re the use of Platform 6, I only remember it being used for Peterborough East or Leicester trains. I tended to travel to Nottingham, Leicester, or occasionally Kings Cross, so I do not remember the trains into East Anglia. I do not remember any of the bay platforms being used for trains at all, as by 1960 all the stations between PN and Grantham had closed, as had the M&GN Joint line. Thanks again for excellent photos of an excellent model. Lloyd

Gilbert I meant to imply that the point rodding, which I agree not to mention any more (!) is not noticeable in the photo, so it's omission is not important. I understand the difficulty of the signal cable, or on second thoughts, is it actually a fence? but it is more prominent. If I had the skills and was nearer to you, I would offer to do it for you, but I am sorry that both counts rule it out. Perhaps one of your very able fans will be able to help you out. lloyd

Gilbert I think that the photographer must have had a step ladder. It is possible that they were particularly tall - remember that at that time I was not very tall, in fact I never have been, but it gives me the impression of being from more than just above the parapet. There was often quite a bit of steam about, and I do not remember what was seen beyond Crescent Bridge or much of what was to the left of the station from that location, though I was of course much more interested in the trains than the surroundings at that time. Going back to a theme of some time ago, Looking at this photo, I do not see much obvious point rodding, but what does stand out, and I also remember it now that i have been reminded, is the signal cables almost forming a fence to the right of the train. Was this the boundary between GNR and MR? Lloyd