65179

37 minutes ago, micklner said:

Dave Bradwell only offers the Tender castings at £12 plus postage for a complete set and he will not split them. I have chucked enough money at this god awful kit already . I would probably wreck the Tender taking the others off as well , they can stay. Unless I can find something else in my spares.

DJH are far worse IMHO!!.

 

I have just looked at Hornby's Q6 they are wrong shape as well !!

 

Thanks

Mine are filed up from nickel silver bar with a piece of nickel silver sheet soldered to the front , but then that's fairly easy in 2mm, and they are only a crude representation.

Are you adding the slot in the coalplate to match your rather nice fireiron stand?

Simon

40 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

I'll freely admit to not being an expert on US locomotives, but the more I look at the nearest loco, the more it looks like a kitbash. Low-bonnet switcher mated with the cab off a mainline diesel, with a home-made short/cut down bonnet? Don't think I've come across a pic of a loco like that before.

Looks like 30, one of the pair of EMD RS1325s built: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_RS1325

Simon

43 minutes ago, micklner said:

Thanks for the info.

 

The Tool boxes are from Dave Bradwell at a guess they are  J27 versions. The LRM versions in the kit are just lumps of a similar shape. Any ideas where some could be obtained please ?

The Coalguards are what came with the kit, which if you read my previous comments re its quality, it may make things more understandable . They appear to match the photos I have . Again where can you source any any alternatives?

cheers

Mick

4125 gallon tender here, 54A photography Flickr image:

I understand Dave Bradwell does one of the bigger NER tenders for the Q6 so should have the right sort of toolboxes available, in addition to those you've used.

I can't help with correct length coalguards, I'm afraid.  Are the DJH ones the correct length? Perhaps not worth the bother.

Simon

Hi Mick,

The tender looks good, but there are a couple of things it might be worth checking:

1) is that the only set of coalguards with the etch? The original Barnfield ones are overlong. I assumed the LRM revised version would include a correct length set.

2) You might want to look again at those toolboxes. They appear to be the type fitted to earlier NE tenders rather than those fitted to the self trimming tenders.

Regards,

Simon

4 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

That track bed just looks "wrong". The rust on the rails suggests years of non-use whereas the permanent way looks well maintained with no embankment growth or leaves on the line.

If it's at Oldcotes then it would be the branch off the SYJ to Firbeck Main Colliery. This closed in late 1968 which would explain the odd state of the infrastructure.

Simon

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I really should have cropped that photo so as just to home in on the tariff vans...

Well, I for one have learnt something by you not doing so. I now know that the GCR Jersey Lilies/8Cs (B1s) weren't the only example in that era of 2 different wheel arrangement variations being tried on the same basic loco.

Apologies to all those who are disquieted by the mention of Krugers and Jersey Lilies in the same breath.

Simon

On 13/11/2023 at 17:00, 2750Papyrus said:

By coincidence, I am currently re-reading E M Johnson's book on Manchester Central and the GN Goods Warehouse. 

 

The GN built an engine shed to house its warehouse locomotives but it was never used as such.  There is a story that there was concern that an over-runiing locomotive could crash through the end wall and  land in the street below.   They were instead based at Trafford Park, where the GN had road numbers 11-15 in a shed shared with the GC and the Midland.  Prior to grouping, the GN allocation included J14 (J52) tank locos 4205/06/63 and 65.  All were in lined green and were kept in spotless condition.

 

From memory, I think a couple of J52s were based at Gorton for a while after grouping, but will need to check Yeadon when I have an hour spare.

It's shown here: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=17.4&lat=53.47577&lon=-2.25374&layers=168&right=ESRIWorld

located high above Collier Street. The building lasted beyond the closure of Deansgate Goods in 1953.

Simon

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Careful with the "preserved" example as it's a hybrid of different tenders.

 

http://www.ten.rhrp.org.uk/tens/TenderInfo.asp?Ref=168

 

 

Jason

Yes, we've been here before on here with 48305's tender.  The Johnson chassis on that tender gave it a rather different look, not least in terms of different side frame cutouts and particularly axleboxes. As Jason's link shows the tank has now been rebuilt too so that the current tender is essentially no use for modellers creating a 3500 gallon tender as built.

Simon

16 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

Hi Simon

 

Any options for the 3500G Straight High side tender, the only one I was aware of was the Jidenco/Falcon Brass one?

 

Ian

Hi Ian,

You could see if @innocentman still takes orders for his as mentioned on this thread: 

Other former options are also mentioned.

1 minute ago, sjp23480 said:

I was watching an AG version on Ebay a few weeks back. 

Bidding topped out at over £46, a bit too rich for my taste. 

I think the Brassmasters version retails at about £40.

It's £65 now such has been the increase in metal prices.

Simon

11 minutes ago, Market65 said:

Good evening, everyone. This evening we have four more photo’s with thanks again to knoxrj, on Flickr.

 

The first one is B12/3, 61577, and B1, 61377, on Bridlington shed. There is no more information.

 

 

The second photo’ is of B16/1, 925, in possibly the early 1930’s, at Hull Dairycoates yard.

 

 

Next we have a photo’ of J23, 2474, departing Beverley - a chimney of Hodgon’s Tannery can be seen behind the trees - on what appears to be a cattle train. No date is given, but could again be the early 1930’s, or even the mid 1920’s.

 

 

Finally, we have a photo’ of B15, 822, waiting to back out of Hull Paragon after arriving with a special train, on Saturday the 22nd July, 1923, if the details in the caption are correct.

 

Best regards,

 

Rob.

925 was the B16 bombed at York in 1942 along with 4469, wasn't it?

Simon

26 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Simon

 

Just over a week ago I went through Flickr, one Jubilee at a time looking at the rivet positions on Stanier tenders to see which ones in the late 50s and early 60s were towing 3,500 gallon tenders. I assume the information which loco and which tender were paired with each other at what dates is available somewhere so my exercise might be seen by some as a waste of time, but who doesn't like looking at photos of trains.

 

As for my model, I am not going to remove the row of rivets to replace them with rivet transfers when in 4mm scale the smaller tender is a more readable means of identification. 

 

As for the Ks model, had I known I might have waited for one to appear on E-bin, on the other hand I might have still done the conversion.

Hi Clive,

In 4mm Brassmasters and Alan Gibson are/were the other options aside from K's.

The Book of the Jubilees is pretty good for information on which locos had which tenders.  That information, as I understand it, comes from the record cards, so looking at photos would still be a good idea particularly for the end of their lives.  It's always worth a second look,  particularly if it's a Midland Division Jubilee, just to check if it's a 4000 or 3500 gallon tender.

I don't blame you for not changing the rivets! It might be a useful aid to spotting them in photos, but it's hardly worth risking messing up your tender sides trying to move them a few millimetres.

I do like a 3500 gallon tendered Jubilee:

What's your straight sided one going to be?

Simon

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was aware of two restored D299, one at Butterley:

http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9848;

this also has oil axleboxes and both side brakes (or at least the vee hangers for them) with long brake levers; and one at the Avon Valley Railway:

http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=6419;

which has 10A axleboxes and short brake lever(s).

 

I have corresponded with an MRS member who has been involved in Butterley wagon restorations about the one there; the number comes from a later Midland wagon that was beyond restoration.

 

I have had no response from the Avon Valley Railway from an enquiry via their website.

 

I had missed this one owing to the 1910 date in the register.

I saw the AVR one in May this year:

Simon

Noticeable that it has the top horizontal row of rivets in the wrong place for a 3500 gallon tender. The bigger gap on the 3500 gallon tender between the beading around the rear of the tender sidesheet and that row of rivets is the easiest way to distinguish this tender from a 4000 gallon one in photos.

Flickr photo posted by 'Richard' showing 45659 Drake and another 3500 gallon tender fitted loco at Kentish Town :

Simon

1 hour ago, Daddyman said:

I've been looking into this a bit more and a couple of explanations present themselves. Unfortunately, neither really helps John with his D&S kit... 

 

The first is that even when a diagram was nominally a toplight design, that doesn't mean that every carriage built to that diagram had toplights; the builders could apparently go back to the old-style Bain bodysides at whim. This was the case with a number of diagrams: D.161, for example, included one carriage with the Bain body style, while all the others in that diagram had toplights. However, no D.162s are listed as being built with the Bain bodysides. But that doesn't necessarily mean that none were. 

 

The other possible explanation is in one of Benham's captions (p.93) in his book on the NYMR, where he says: "For the push-pull operations introduced in later LNER/early BR days a number of new conversions were made from conventional former NER Brake Third coaches." Leaving aside the fact that the caption relates to a toplight-sided D.162 with large end windows, it might explain how the D.213s came to be converted; but could it be that composites were also converted? Diagrams 210 and 124 would have the right compartment arrangement (1+5) and Bain bodysides. Does Longworth offer anything? 

 

Incidentally, Benham's book has a photo on p. 32 at Whitby of an A8 with a BR number coupled up to a driving trailer with porthole end windows - so some did survive unmodified. I can't see if the bodyside has toplights or not. 

 

As said, none of this much help to John, sorry! 

Longworth has the wrong drawing for D210, but records only one vehicle which was withdrawn in 1953. No mention of push-pull conversion either. D124 would be a candidate if the duckets had been removed. However, again, there is no mention of pp conversion.

That porthole windowed brake is a puzzle! Of course the water column is in a perfect position to obscure whether the coach has a ducket or a first class compartment! No hooded ventilators over the doors though.

There seems to be so much variety that anyone would be hard-pressed to definitively say you were wrong whatever you build!

Simon

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

Oh thanks Simon, didn’t realise that. It does looks good, tempting if you’ve got the bodies…..!

 

Bob

Mr Higgs has done a lovely bit of etch design for this one. The double thickness frames and slot in tender outside frames give a good positive fit and the loco frames are nice and rigid. Doing a dry run to check the fold over and fold down portions that act as frame spacer location guides fit with the inner frame layer, and a bit of filing where the tender side frames meet the bufferbeam/dragbeam are all that was needed from memory.  There is no lubricator drive so if you want to add your own you'll need to make that up from etch waste.

Simon

14 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Possibly the tender underframe if that isn't included with the tender body. There are no spares for the loco on the Bachmann spares site.

 

Bob

The etch includes tender outer frames and appropriate axleboxes are now available in the 2mm shop.

Simon

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony and everyone

 

...

 

Of course, such a history is fairly easy with the likes of, say, Flying Scotsman and most locos that lasted until BR days or have been built since. It gets harder with PCCS and NPCCS and even harder with wagons (unless built in modern times).

 

I'd rather the system didn't exist but it seems here to stay. Perhaps best to just ignore the fact it's there?

 

...

 

I applaud the many makers who are now going to extraordinary lengths to give us superb models backed up with researched data.

 

Brian 

I think the value of the era system is as a rough guide/starting point for those that don't have any, or at least any detailed, knowledge of what should run with what (if they care).  It's unrealistic to expect people to get everything spot on, and we all have our blindspots.

To pick up on Brian's point, this thread illustrates neatly what the limits of knowledge are in terms of accuracy of models.

To generalise Tony, you model your Pacifics with every detail spot on for your period and then things get steadily more vague with a bit more room for inaccuracy in the condition of the freight types, coaches of as near as possible the right formation with a not inappropriate livery (except where type, number and livery are easily correlated) and then broadly representative freight stock.

If a manufacturer put "locomotive X in a condition suitable for 3 February 1954-1 July 1957" on the box it would take someone 10 mins to point out the detail that was wrong for half that period or that there was a photo showing the loco running in on 20 June 1957 in a different condition (the quoted date of 1 July being just a dodge to even out the works output figures or similar).

Good luck to them too providing dates for all the PO wagons out there where, even if the wagon in reality ever existed, its existence in that livery is likely to be proven by a single undated photograph.

Even amongst the popular loco types there are huge holes in knowledge making accurate/sensible time periods difficult to list.  To recycle an old example, how many LMS Jubilees made it to nationalisation in LMS red? Look through the reference books and the number recorded in red steadily increases as each new volume appears. Even Ray Townsin's sterling attempt to record every livery/number change in his RCTS volume has known omissions.  I have half a dozen photos of 45628 in 1949/50. Not one of them allows me to determine with confidence what colour the loco is in - black or red?

If a system, however imperfect,  discourages people from running a rake of RCH 1907 POs with a class 66 and nudges them towards thinking about what would be seen with what, then I'm all for it. We all started from a zero knowledge base.

Regards,

Simon 

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Or the carriage is a conversion from a different diagram? The changes to the bodyside to alter the windows would amount to a complete rebuild from a D.162. 

 

Not quite academic if he's trying to produce it from a D.162... 

Yes indeed, that's what I intended by 'wholesale rebuild'.  I've very much blundered into this topic, and don't pretend to have any detailed knowledge. I do however know that the GE section had all manner of coaches that changed radically externally (and some internally) over their lives, with significant changes made to GN stock too. 

John has outlined his dilemma.  I shall look forward with interest to see what he produces and how he achieves it.

Simon

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Interesting, Simon. And do we know that such a thing (re-panelling) happened? It's a heck of a lot of work to go to for a superannuated carriage. It occurs to me I haven't seen many photos of toplights in later days, which might argue for re-panelling. However, the Transport Library image LSDC2890 shows a five-comp brake third in the late 1940s/early 1950s on the GE with toplights still intact, suggesting there wasn't a fundamental design flaw (leaking, for example) - or perhaps just that it didn't bother the GE enough to re-panel?    

 

I've been looking at some old Expresses but there's not much. An article by T. Smeaton in issue 69 says just that D.162s Nos. 229, 2106 and 21898 were re-fitted with the new PP gear in March 1938 for West Hartlepool-Ferryhill services.  

No evidence whatsoever.  If it's not re-panelled/covering over the toplights then the alternative seems to be a wholesale rebuild. This of course assumes that there isn't a missing diagram/drawing error in the relevant Longworth section. 

In a sense it's all a bit academic. The coach in the photos, whatever it is, with those details is the one that rowanj would like to reproduce!

Simon

Longworth has 5 of the 6 surviving D213s as p&p. However, the photo above and the one posted with the kit on Nov 3:

both show a coach with the correct BC compartment spacing for a D.162 with the biggest gap between compartment windows closest to the brake end. There's a top light in the brake portion next to the driver's door, although not where you'd expect it in an as built D.162.  The brake to composite proportions and the compartment layout makes me lean to this being a re-pannelled D162 rather than anything else.

Simon

On 29/10/2023 at 15:42, 30368 said:

It is my birthday today and what a lovely sunny day it has been here in Buxton. One of my daughters 'phoned to tell me that a steam engine was running a train into Buxton today which was an extra birthday present. A few of my acclaimed crap pictures follow:

 

So this loco is running as Alberta which as we know is in Sierra Leone.....

Can't resist a few snaps intended to help modellers.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

30368

It's completely obvious then that its real identity is 45699 Galatea! Such a transformation from the Barry wreck that for so long looked like restoration wasn't possible and would be no more than a source of spares for Leander:

Dubdee's image on Flickr:

Simon

19 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

One for the 'when the real thing looks like a model' thread - the scenery on the left looks contrived, to hide the fiddle yard behind the industrial sidings on the viewing side. A wonderful prototype for anything photo!

 

Did the expanding quarry remove an exisiting hill continuing to the right of the main line, or were the lines built by competing companies. I'm afraid this is an area of England I don't know much about, nor its railway history.

Here you're looking south from Great Rocks Jct. The line to the left is the former Midland Railway mainline south to Derby and Buxton, by this time freight only and to Buxton only, while the line to the right are the then ICI lines at South Works carrying on into Tunstead Quarry. The quarry dates from the late 1920s.

You can see how things were arranged here:

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=15.9&lat=53.27139&lon=-1.84979&layers=193&right=ESRIWorld

together with the more recent satellite view showing the former MR line heading south through Great Rocks Dale while quarrying has now expanded to both sides of the dale.

Simon

When the topic of sulphate wagons cropped up on your LNER forum thread a number of years ago Jonathan, someone (Peter Berrie) quoted the Roche drawing:

"According to Roche Drawing G/129, Dec. 1949 the painting is:
NE Oxide, black running gear; white tyres and lettering
'BR' dark battleship grey, rest as above."

I fear that leaves you with a toss up between a contractor painter error and a Roche error. Painting instruction errors to contractors weren't unknown ( think 1856, every manufacturer's favourite J39), but as we well know Roche wasn't infallible.

Personally I'd say they should be grey, but then I remember my old Graham Farish N gauge grey one with fondness, so am totally biased!

Just to add that sulphate wagons had a bituminous emulsion painted on the inside according to Tatlow.

There's also a grey Beeson wagon on this page: https://www.milbromodelrailways.co.uk/beeson-mills-evans.html

Simon

Take great care when marking things like handrail knob positions using pictures from Yeadon etc.  You'll be aware that there are two different boikers for Q6s with quite a change of fitting positions between the two, but also the Q6s with the sandwich bufferbeam have a longer running plate than those built with the 'normal' type. 

Guess how I know this...

My Selby Q6 is a bit of a compromise as a result:

Simon

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16.7&lat=54.88791&lon=-2.93073&layers=193&right=ESRIWorld

Bog Goods  certainly had immediately adjacent sidings at one stage.

Simon