Captain Kernow

I think bottom right is 'BY ORDER'...

[Captain Kernow Pedantry Service on] Er, if you are referring to the loco in Barry 10's photo, it's actually a Warship.... [/Captain Kernow Pedantry Service off]

Lovely photo, Al, and very well-deserved as 'Photo of the week'

Incredible! Didn't even realise it was a canal before it became a railway... What about the SCC, though?

I'm sure this won't be a problem for Craig, but I'd also be happy to oblige next time I'm down there on 'official business'...

Well, I respect the right of those that argue in favour of the WHHR to do so, but in my experience on the 'big' railway (nearly 30 years and counting), the correlation between 'immature' and 'lacking in competence' is fairly secure. I see it regularly in terms of the longevity/experience of the various (smaller) railway organisations that I deal with on a work basis. To clarify, I only used the expression 'immature' in response to the exhortation by a previous poster urging the FR to 'grow up'... As stated above, I respect your right to hold this view, but I'm afraid that I just don't buy the theory that the WHHR would have made the same rapid, spectacular progress as the FR/WHR. Whilst the public statements of the FR/WHR may not have been seen as 'sympathetic' to the wishes of the WHHR, they nonetheless (in my personal view) give the appearance of an organised, corporate entity that understands it's own business needs and 'gets things done'. This may seem horribly unfair, but I firmly believe that most people, whether locals (non-enthusiasts) or enthusiasts simply aren't interested in this argument. I think that most people will judge by results. The FR/WHR have rebuilt the entire route in little over 10 years and brought some amazing motive power to the line. It is an incredible outcome. I visit the line to enjoy Garretts, superb scenery and a decent coffee in comfortable coaches. I most certainly would take a dim view, were I to witness any kind of moaning about this on-going quarrel (whether from either side). I think the title of this thread is spot on, actually, whilst not taking anything away from those who want to feel aggreived by the FR/WHR, it does seem to reflect the fact that the rest of us quietly groan 'oh no, here they go again'... In my experience, an organisation with a calm, measured approach to an issue like this, and especially if they are convinced of the justice of their claim, should be able to engage in a business-like manner with the larger organisation and convince them that what they are offering will be of benefit to the larger business. If what the WHHR is offering were actually to be detrimental to the FR/WHR operation, why should the latter put their business at risk by entertaining it? Adrian, given my longevity on this forum, I trust that the proximity of your comments to mine on this thread is purely co-incidental?

Somehow I doubt that an immature organisation could have completely rebuilt the old Welsh Highland Railway. The achievement is incredible, absolutely incredible. I just cannot believe that the WHHR could have achieved this reconstruction in the manner and timescales that the FR did. As others have said, the public disagreement is very unfortunate, but to my mind the F.R. motives appear to be more business-led and with less emotion. Revenue abstraction from potential competitors is a real issue in the wider railway industry. As such, I think we should be glad that the most amazing railway restoration in the world (IMO) is in the hands of people who understand business planning and what it will take to ensure the survival of this line in uncertain economic times and beyond (not that I'm implying that the WHHR can't run a business, but I know who would get my vote). I do hope that they 'kiss and make up' in due course, but of course none of this will stop me enjoying my annual ride on the WHR main line, nor my visit to the excellent second hand book shop at the WHHR shop either!

The loco looks rather good in that light blue BP livery!

In fact, they aren't the first uncompensated wagons I've run on the DRAG facilities, although one of my 16t minerals used to derail on TT1 (but we know why that happened, don't we?!)...

One other thing I forgot to mention, is the buffer beams - they are from spare Parkside ends (mostly with the wrong sort of buffers), so essentially all that is left from the moulding is the buffer beam itself. This is due to the fact that the Parkside underframe kits don't come with seperate buffer beams (unlike the Red Panda equivilent). I was willing to sacrifice the sprung buffers on the odd wagon, in favour of the lovely Nairn Model Supplies examples...

I've now finished P4 box vans numbers 7 and 8 in the current batch build for 'Callow Lane'. These are two Bachmann insulated planked vans, which have had the Bachmann chassis completely replaced with various components from Parkside, Bill Bedford and our very own Craigwelsh of this forum. Notwithstanding the valid debate about the mouldings of the planked Bachmann vans, I had acquired a number of examples when the came out, and I wanted to use them on Callow Lane, (the OO layouts having enough box vans for my usual operating sequences). Whilst the Bachmann chassis are pretty fine, especially by the standards of only a few years ago, the conversion to P4 provides me with a number of smallish headaches, which I now prefer to solve by complete chassis replacement. On some of the vans I have converted (as opposed to having built from kits) during this batch, I have provided compensation, but I decided to build these two completely rigid, albeit with the usual pin-point bearings, and see how they perform. They have slightly more weight (60 grams) than my previous compensated or sprung examples (50 grams). During hand-powered speed trials on Callow Lane, with the route set over the sharpest turnouts, they held the track fine.... Whilst most of my P4 stock admittedly has some kind of compensation or springing, not fitting it to these two has certainly saved me some time (although I would have had to have re-thought that, had they not run OK on the layout). I have used some of the Parkside brake gear, albeit modified. Also, for the first time on my P4 rolling stock, I have used some of Craig's 10' Morton brake levers. Whilst the ratchety bit (the bit that hangs down) was very fiddly indeed to put together, they did get easier the more I did, and I have to say that I am very pleased with the result indeed. I've now completed eight of the batch of box vans, which I think is enough for now, as I really want to get back to working on the layout again...

Just seen the footage of CoT on 'Countryfile' tonight - rather sympathetic coverage of the heritage railway movement, plus some fantastic shots of CoT herself, including working the first passenger train over the re-laid Stanway Viaduct on the Glos & Warwicks line....

Having (a) done this myself (lamping) on a heritage railway and (B) managed a lampman as part of a former job, I know that it would cost more in labour and time than it would save in lamp oil. I like the idea of a Sectional Appendix entry covering Callow Lane, indicating that the lamps aren't illuminated on winter nights might be quite amusing..... Anyway, I'll still probably fit them with LEDs, just to see how difficult it is! Dave - one thing you mentioned was 'LED paint' - not something I've heard of before - presumably straightforward to get hold of?

Actually, Tim makes a stonkingly valid point here - it is more than likely that this out-of-the-way goods yard wouldn't have had the signals lit, let alone operate during the hours of darkness, although I suppose some operation might have been possible after dark during winter. Still not decided whether to fit lamps or not, but I kind of want to do at least one signal, if only to prove that I've done it!

OK, fair enough - I might look at these nanobots a bit closer, but I'll probably try one of the LEDs that I already have in one of the signals. Thanks for everyone's comments!

Right - didn't realise there was any conventional bulb small enough to fit inside a 4mm lamp housing?

Thanks for the link - these look rather promising... I will admit to not having really thought much about the brightness - so are you recommending that it would be better not to illuminate the signals at all, Dave? Or is there an alternative to the LED that would do the job? (what about these Nano thingeys in the above link?).

I am probably going to make a start on the running signals for Callow Lane soon. They will be built from MSE and Alan Gibson components. Like my previous layouts, these signals will be built as working models, using some kind of motor (probably Hoffman point motors). Unlike my previous layouts, I plan to illuminate these signals, using some small LEDs I've already bought. The idea is to wire them up into the structure of the signal. This bit is not the problem, but the purpose of this request for information concerns how to disguise the LED as a signal lamp on the post? I had thoughts of moulding Milliput around the LED, but I'm not sure how easy or effective this will be. Is it practical to drill out a whitemetal signal lamp and glue the LED in there? How have other people achieved this - I'd be grateful for your suggestions. Many thanks.

Very nice job you've done there - is that the Hornby 8F chassis underneath, by the way? In which case, which is the body?

Well, there's a thing..... Me, good taste??!!

The History Revisionists in Somerset are going to be busy in the near future.... Co-Bos at Shepton Mallett, 1500v DC on the Highbridge branch, Blue Pullmans at Radstock, whatever next??!! Whatever next, I say!!

I picked up a new grey one today, running number is B951504, which I trust is correct... A little bit of work on the handrails, perhaps, and a conversion to P4 using Masokits sprung whatsits to fit inside the frames, and the job's a good 'un, I reckon!

Hi Brian, I used a couple of spare whitemetal ones I had, then found a packet of the brass ones you can get - they are sold by various different companies at different times, so it seems. These were obtained from InterCity Models in Cornwall, about £.10 or so for a packet of six pipes, I think.

I snipped the pivot off shortly after taking the photo, but thanks for the reminder, Craig! The reason I've gone with the Bachmann bodies (in those particular cases only - I am also doing some Parkside ones) is purely down to the fact that I bought some as an impulse buy, and am determined to use what I have. I do like the decoration, which obviously saves doing transfers etc. I take the point about the planking, but I only have two such examples and the ply-sided ones seem OK. Any future planked vans will definitely have to be Parkside, however...