billy_anorak59

BR Green for these units can be split into 3 variants: - Light Green (Malachite?) Dark Green ('Standard' Stock Green) Dark Green with SYP (and coaching stock roundels) Agreed - never saw them dirty. Not so much livery, but another variant would be Blue/Grey with end doors...

Thanks, but the answer is probably no and no. I'm still on tension locks for most of my stock, so no infallible coupling system here! The main reason I went for a terminus with a lid was to bring back memories I have of Birkenhead Woodside (however I've compromised it here) when I was a child - I enjoy the building of scenery rather than operation to be honest. So the intention is to remove the centre section of the roof when operating steam hauled stock, and also use a good dose of DMU (and even EMU Class 503 : modellers licence here) operation to obviate the need for uncoupling . A bit of a minories the way the track plan has ended up really. Although it won't be a static diorama by any means, the main interest for me is the nostalgia and the process of construction - sorry if that upsets the operators out there, but each to their own I guess - the hobby is a broad church after all!

Thanks for all your thoughts folks – most appreciated. @Hal Nail I’m hoping that the building won’t need moving once installed, but I recognise now that some sort of semi-permanent fixing might be desirable for those unforseen issues that could occur once in a while, so dowel (or threaded bar as suggested by @Nick C) would be sensible. I do like the beam front and mid-way idea though – I reckon that might give the rigidity I’m looking for, albeit with the inconvience of cutting slots in the baseboard top to accomodate them. Just to clarify the construction, these two photos show the centre removable section of roof under construction – it will be flanked at either end by a ‘fixed’ section of roof, which I’m hoping will enhance the rigidity of the walls further. On this inside shot, you can just make out the two longitudinal brass strips (like @AndrueC‘s ‘skids’) that are the foundation for the roof trusses of the removable section, at the top of the walls. I’m hoping that will brace the walls from falling in on themselves even more. The trusses themselves are slotted into gauge 1 cast track chairs at each end which are epoxied to the brass ‘skids’, so are quite firm. I don't want to add more bracing at the top of the wall, in order to maintain the 'openness' of the trainshed, as this was a feature of the actual Woodside that has inspired it. Cheers all - like I said, all appreciated, good food for thought.

Thanks Jeff - a friend of mine suggested the same thing (and I might actually do that), but it's not really the problem of location, it's the keeping of everything together whilst its being built! Erm... yes...afraid so...! 😃 The walls themselves are pretty strong though - they have a central core of 4mm, with overlays of 2mm on either side, so they've ended up as a sort of mdf ply. I'm not worried about them individually - just when everything gets joined together. Cheers.

No - it's a lyout that never leaves home - and thanks for your 'BTW'! Interesting! Hadn't thought of that one - thanks. However, where it is going to sit has a number of cross braces underneath the 1/2" chipboard, so may throw up all kinds of issues. They might however, support the potential insert though, so more thought/investigation on that is required. Cheers.

I don’t think I’ve planned this very well. I’m a fair way into building a terminus building (‘inspired by’) Birkenhead Woodside, but half the length, half the width. It’s still big (and getting heavier) at over a metre long and about 375mm wide, and now I’m starting to look at bringing the walls and end-screen together (once detail painted and weathered), I have a niggly feeling that I have underestimated the strength needed to handle the part-completed building prior to final installation. All walls are layered mdf covered with a skin of embossed plasticard. The end wall has already been glued and screwed to a piece of chipboard which will form part of the concourse. The walls themselves will be glued (and probably dowelled) to the end-wall/concourse – the attachment points forming a sort of ‘L’-shape on both walls. Please see this amended photo of the end-wall as it stands - the ‘red’ areas will be the to-be-bonded areas. At the other ‘open’ end, I’ve contrived to brace the walls apart with a section of old bullhead rail, bent at either ends, to be epoxied into the end towers on assembly. See below showing the brace and joins on a computer-generated sketch: All well and good, but as I said, I’m getting a nagging feeling that this will still result in a rather fragile structure – especially at the bottom of the open end. So I thought I should finally ask for guidance now I’m this far along!! I can’t do anything more at roof height, as the roof will be removable during operation in order to aid access, and the base of the walls obviously need to be free of obstruction in order for the rails to pass into the shed. The other photos are included to give a perception of the size of the work in progress – everything is just lightly clamped a the moment: The only thing I can think of would be to assemble and glue the building to a piece of ply of the thinnest thickness I can get away with. It does, however, mean that the approach rails would have to slope up to the train shed in order to get over the threshold (so to speak). If I went this way, would 3mm do the job do you think? Have I answered my own question? I would appreciate comments/thoughts as to my perception that this will end up fragile (if built as originally intended), and indeed, if anyone has had a similar problem? If you did, how did you overcome it? Thanks in advance.

I can show it working!

Not sure if anyone will have the answer to this one, but on the basis of “the only dumb question is the one that you don’t ask”, here it is anyway… I’m making a model terminus which is ‘based-on’ (or more realistically ‘inspired by’), Birkenhead Woodside and will end up as a ‘sort-of’ Minories affair. Where that station had a two-span trainshed, mine will have just one (space constraints), and will be half as long. The walls are built, and I have turned my attention to the trainshed roof. Woodside seems to have had curved access ladders on each end of each roof, arcing up towards each apex, but they didn’t meet, stopping at the line of the clerestory. They did, however, seem to be able to move laterally along the roofs themselves (some photos show the same ladders in different positions) – the thing is, I can’t see any mechanism to enable this movement (rails/runners, etc), so can anyone tell me how they were attached, or how they slid? Anything welcomed. Incidentally, the magnificent Merseyside MRS model of Woodside on display in Birkenhead Town Hall seems to have omitted these features completely. It's all a bit difficult to explain in words, so a few snipped and zoomed shots may be prudent - sorry, some of them are a bit fuzzy, but the best I've got. Can anyone see something that I’ve missed? I wouldn’t have thought Woodside was unique in it’s roof access after all, but I can’t work it out – I’ll probably end up making it up like I usually do!

OK - it's an Ivatt, not a Standard 2, but just for the record, this might be a good reference for an 'in-service, but clean' look? My photo - Bridgenorth 1984. Of course, excuse the bell for the BR period!

A bit better than my effort from the time...

Not sure if this is any use, as I suspect it's unusual regarding it's location, but this photo shows the CEGB Bromborough coal-powered (later converted to oil) power station just after being built (c1950) - the sidings can be seen to the left, but also a coaling wharf further left (the power station was on the banks of the River Mersey). Wagons arrived here from either Bromborough Dock or being transferred from the mainline at Port Sunlight via the internal Lever Brothers Railway system. I've also attched an extract from a booklet dated 1948 explaining the buildings progress and requirements which may be useful in determining what a large-ish power station would need to feed it, and hence the siding space required.

No quality pictures from me, but just for the record: September 1979 - Crewe February 1972 - Birkenhead Mollington St February 1972 - Birkenhead Mollington St September 1979 - Crewe 15th October 1977 - York 15th October 1977 - York

They've certainly arrived on Wirral Jason - 777 008 managed to run into the buffers at Rock Ferry last week anyway!!

But they didn't have "sheds" in those days... Oh, you mean THAT shed. Yes, good to see it again. No Wolseley though! Must be tucked away inside.

Found this - might be of interest:

The recess and silencer for the auxillary engines looks to still be completely missing on one side too. They should be present on both sides of the roof as there where two auxillary/blower engines one either side of the loco centreline.

As previously mentioned, generally a Stanier 2-6-4T, although the occasional Black 5 or Hughes Crab took the Woodside trains too. I've got no evidence (photographic or other) that Westerns or Warships ever made Birkenhead (and I've been looking for many years)

Seen on FB: The body of the message reads: "Posted on behalf of the Suburban Electric Railway Association. It may be of interest to some on here. Please feel free to share this post. DO NOT CONTACT US CONCERNING THIS. Following a review of the items in the Suburban Electric Railway Association (SERA) collection and based upon what the group can realistically hope to restore in the future the decision has been taken to offer the body of Liverpool Overhead Railway first class trailer car no. 7 to any interested party. The body is offered free of charge but the new owner must collect it from its current site in Kent and relocate it at their own expense. The SERA feels it will never be able to progress this project in the future and would like to see it offered another chance before disposing of it. The body has been in the care of the SERA for 25 years, having previously been at Steamport, Southport. To date no restoration work has ever been undertaken. The condition of the body is poor, it had all its interior fittings removed prior to going to Southport, except for one seat and the screens where the two sliding doors are on each side. The underframe is believed to be the original one from 1898 and is constructed of hardwood and in good condition. The body was modernised in 1947 with aluminium panelling over the timber framework and sliding doors fitted. The ceiling has suffered water damage over the years and the roof canvas is in poor condition. The vehicle has been sheeted over for the last decade. The current sheeting is not included in any transfer of ownership. The structure of the body is reasonable on the ends and one bodyside but has been damaged on one side and the side at one end has become detached in the area of the door and is now only held on by the roof joints so would present a considerable restoration challenge. A section of the floor has been removed adjacent to the door at the other end from the damage to the bodyside. The vehicle lost its original bogies when it left the Liverpool Overhead Railway and for the last 40 years has sat on a pair of accommodation bogies (believed to be from Horwich works). THESE BOGIES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OFFER OF TRANSFER and will be retained by the SERA. The vehicle was offered to the Liverpool City Museum in 2018 and they declined it. The body may be suitable for a shed, man cave or glamping conversion in the right hands and any interested parties are requested to get in touch with the SERA by email to sera01uk@yahoo.co.uk a viewing can be arranged by prior appointment. Please note the photo of the vehicle uncovered dates from 1998 but all other photos are recent." Hope something can be done to find it a home.

Thanks Stewart - I didn't move to Cambridgeshire until the early 90s, so I missed Alconbury, Oakington and Wyton in their full glory. An Oakington Varsity (if that's what is is) would make sense for where the photo was taken - thanks for the info!

Wondering what the aircraft is in this one - looks like a Vickers Varsity or Viking to me, is that possible in 1972? Were they still in service then?

Will do! Thanks for the link - cheers.

John - many thanks for this, it explains a lot, including why it was done. A remote header to avoid air-locks would be very plausible due to the lower bonnet line and differently positioned heater. As I said earlier, I suspect I got the caps the wrong way round. Schoolboy error. 19 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said: Nicely explained and with a solution too! I'll take that - much appreciated. 👍

Me again... Sorry about the delay @alastairq – I was offline yesterday, so have only just seen your reply. Many thanks for your extensive reply – much appreciated, and thank you for taking the time, it helped. Looking again at the photos I have of the engine ‘as received’ (they were taken 30 years or so ago), and from your reply I thought that this is an expansion tank setup, and not a header. However, when taking another look, I am more confused than ever, as it could be acting as a joint header/expansion! (?) It seems to be both at the same time! This photo shows that the radiator in effect has two top hoses leading from it – one to the thermostat housing as per normal, the other leads to the expansion tank. Alongside it is a thinner (part metal)‘overflow’ pipe leading to the ‘high’ end of the expansion tank, and the expansion tank has an overflow pipe dumping to ground as would a radiator overflow. It certainly does not look standard, but I guess it worked. I've labelled the photo for clarity. When I rebuilt the engine, I replaced the components as you see in the photo, and the only thing that I am likely to have got wrong would have been putting the pressure cap that would have been on the radiator, on the expansion tank, and vice-versa. I’m still trying to work out how the expansion tank might have collapsed under vacuum if I had got that wrong though. Looking at the pressure cap ratings might be key, but I would have thought that the expansion tank overflow would have prevented a vacuum forming anyway? Doesn't look at all like the 'specimin' photo setup I posted earlier, so all a bit bizarre. Thanks again.

Food for thought there to mull over @Jol Wilkinson@Nick C - thanks for the input - appreciated! Time to think a bit more.

Hmm - Interesting that. Taking a look at the Rimmer Brothers diagram as well as a photo of an actual Vitesse engine bay, it would appear that the expansion tank does need a cap, but the radiator iself does not: A 'Specimin' engine: Does that mean that my radiator is 'wrong', and can I effectively blank the radiator by having a cap that is just a cap, i.e. a 'solid' cap with no pressue release? Is there such a thing? I do wonder what's going on here, as I was told that the whole engine/gearbox came from a crashed 1965 Vitesse (on the M6) - and I 'presumed' (I know - never presume) that the cooling system would have been from the same car, but it looks like it may have actually been replaced. Thanks for making me look properly! More thinking needed...(apologies if none of this is interesting to other folk - it wasn't my intention to hijack the thread)