Barry Ten

On 27/04/2022 at 06:40, Mikkel said:

Here's your next project Dave 😄. I came across a photo the other day and was intrigued, the caption does not give much detail but perhaps a "Short Folder" of some sort. I wonder if they were ever carried on the railway - possibly out of gauge!

 

 

 

I've seen tidier lash-ups thrown into the backs of vans after model railway shows!

Fine work, Dave. Sorry I didn't notice this blog entry until you - ahem - tactfully directed me to it! A really lovely evocation of the Sopwith Camel indeed. The quality of finish is far superior to anything I achieve in aeromodelling.

Hold the bus, whatever happened to this wagon? Unless it's now carrying a different load it's not one I recognise as a Sherton regular.

It's a very enjoyable layout to operate, too. Everything just ... works. Granted, the allure of toy trains does begin to slightly wear off at 3.30 on a Sunday but that's not Sherton's fault!

I'm glad you and Roger got it unloaded safely, Dave. I was back in Aberdare at 11.00, just in time for a well-earned pint. I then slept clean through to 11am the following morning.

Al

Hi Dave

The software is just the free video editor that comes with Windows - it's very simple and easy to use, if you don't

need anything sophisticated. It's called "video editor"!

As for the music, Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards kindly popped around to lay down the funky licks. It was a bit

of a squeeze getting the entire set-up of Chic (including backing singers) into the layout room but we just about

managed it.

This'll show my age but the other thing I associate with that Christmas is Peter Davison taking over from Tom Baker as Doctor Who! Davison's first episode aired early in the New Year I think, but there was considerable build-up to it over the festive period. I also

got a Badger 200 airbrush that Christmas, which I still own.

I'll bring the S&D carriage you helped me with the decals, for Jerry.

My ruling radius on the mainline is 30 inches (although it gets squeezed a bit tighter here and there). I've got one siding which is tighter than that, so probably somewhere between 24 and 28 inches and stock has to be pushed and pulled through it during shunting. Certainly no problems with typical 4 wheel stock, up to say CCTs, and small tank and tender locos, but I've not tried pushing really long wheelbase stock through it very systematically.

I've occasionally had to fiddle with the couplings on the mainline where there's a loco with a large rear-end throw (such as a large prairie or Fowler 4MT) pulling some wagon or coach which also has a long throw. The solution in that case is just to make the goalpost bit as wide as possible to allow maximum deflection of the hook.

In general I would say there is a good chance of getting S&Ws to work on somewhat tighter curves than the quoted 30 inches. provided you're prepared to experiment and perhaps accept that some stock can't be marshalled next to other items.

Yes, that's just what I did - two screws undone, and bodies swapped. They needed a bit of persuasion to unclip from the base  but nothing major.

Happy to report that the tender swap was very easy, with the body fixings being unchanged. I couldn't just swap the tenders as the polarity was indeed different between the two models (why, Hornby?).

49 minutes ago, mattingleycustom said:

34107 would have lost the casing ahead of the cylinders by the time the tender was cut down, a sharp knife will sort that out.

As already mentioned, Fox etched plates/plaques/scrolls would improve the look of the loco considerably.

 

Much as I like Fox nameplates those for 34043 are noticeably too long, I used Modelmaster for Combe Martin as they are closer to the correct length.

 

Glenn

I don't know why that casing is present on the later model of Blandford, and not my earlier one. Presumably a production boo-boo by Hornby.

I'm not in the mood for spraying at the moment so I'll be looking to avoid any repainting.

59 minutes ago, Combe Martin said:

 

Out of the list of Bullieds 'common' on the S&D in the early 60s that I listed earlier that were rebuilt, I would say you have a choice of 3.

 

You cant do 39 Boscastle or 46 Braunton because they had a rebodied tender top.

I wouldnt do 40 Crewkerne because it wasnt rebuilt until the end of 1960 and I havnt yet found a photo that shows what tender it had from then.  

 

That leaves 28 Eddystone, 42 Dorchester and 45 Ottery St Mary.

As you have 3 rebuilds you may have 45 Ottery St. Mary already as it was done by Hornby.  (Ive got one)

 

So your choice is 28 Eddystone or 42 Dorchester.    From the number of photos I've seen I would say that 42 Dorchester was the more common. 

I do have plates for both Eddystone and Dorchester. So If I've got this right, I could put Westward Ho's tender top onto Calstock, then Calstock's tender onto Westward and rename it either 28 or 42?

(my three rebuilts are Westard Ho, 17 squadron and Yes Tor, by the way). 

1 hour ago, Combe Martin said:

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure 34102 Lapford retained a wide bodied tender in cut down form.   I'm led to believe it was one of only 4 wide cab unrebuilts that did so.  I'm not sure when it did get the cut down tender though, there's an S&D photo of it still with a high sided tender in mid 1960.

 

Although Lapford was a Bournemouth loco until mid 1964 there's very little photographic evidence of it on the S&D, just a few 1959 and 1960  photos, so it depends upon your modelling period.  Yours looks like 1962-63 judging by the Bullied coaches.  It depends upon how correct/fussy you like to be.

 

I'm in the same position as you.  I've got a Weymouth waiting to be converted into Calstock.   Unless you can find someone selling a 4500 gallon cut down tender on its own, you need to find someone selling a rebuild with one and do a tender swop then renumber/name it into a S&D one, 34042 Dorchester maybe, but not Boscastle or Braunton, they had rebodied tenders.  When doing the rebuilds BR ran out of wide tenders to pinch so some did end up with narrow tenders (I dont know why they didnt pinch the above mentioned 4) and Hornby have modelled this combination but not much.

 

One other consideration if doing a tender swop, beware some later models have the wiring polarity the other way round or different loco/tender coupling, so just swop the bodies. Latest models have different tender chassis/body fixings too though.  It's a bit of a minefield till you've got it all settled in your head !.

 

My only option for swapping a tender body would be from my existing three rebuilts, of which I think 34036 Westward Ho might be suitable, if I'm understanding my tender types, but then I'd need to find a new identity for  34036. 

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thank you. I had been under the impression that they only appeared on summer Saturdays as a measure of desperation whilst the weekday traffic remained in the hands of indigenous types. These were all Bournemouth-shedded machines, I presume?

Bath initially (34040, 34041, 34042) then Bournemouth I think.

On 04/09/2021 at 15:50, Compound2632 said:

The first two shots rather looked like 1960s colour photos; the last, brighter, shot looks much more like a photo of a model railway...

 

Under what circumstances did these Bulleid pacifics work over the S&D?

They were introduced on the line in the very early fifties and saw use on everything from long-distance expresses such as the Pines to local services.

10 hours ago, Combe Martin said:

You need to change the tender on your Calstock.  This loco was a wide cab one whose wide tender went to an (originally narrow cab) rebuild.  All rebuilds became wide cab on rebuilding.  Calstock was then attached to a 4500 gallon narrow cut down tender (presumably from where its wide tender went).  

Oops, I had a horrible suspicion about that, confirmed by a rear 3/4 shot of Calstock in "Portrait of the Pines Express" I came across a couple of nights ago. Would Lapford have been a better choice? It may be easier to order a new set of plates, rather than locate a replacement tender.

Hi Andy

Thanks, I just cleared images and forms in addition to the cookies done last night and that seems to have cleared it.

best,

Al

Still can't post on Chrome. When I try to reply to anything, all I get is the grey box for uploading images. I also wasn't able to post a status update.

Hi Andy - logging in via MS Edge now, and that's cleared it. I'll see if it's still there on Chrome, which is what I usually use.

Many thanks.

AY Mod testing Barry Ten's login for posting.

I still don't quite understand why it made such a difference, as I'd have assumed the camera's exposure calculator would just compensate for whatever's

in front of the lens.

I tried another shot tonight. This time as an experiment I took the UV filter off the front of the lens:

I'm not sure why it but it was definitely having an adverse effect on the images. With the ones above in the main post, I had to load them into Gimp to brighten them up, but this one is untouched, except for a bit of cropping which I did in Paint.