DavidLong

Thanks, Brian. Just had a read through the thread. Two Flat EDs mentioned in Adrian's table B906820 and B906826. The former is at Whitemoor in Paul's photo, I wonder if the one behind it is the latter? David

Thanks for the links, Brian. I hadn't thought of looking on Paul's site! It looks like the last lot had hydraulic buffers. Can you tell me any more about the Concrete Beam sets? David

Hi Bernard, I assume that the container flats referred to are the (in)famous diagram 1/075 that Don Rowland illustrated in British Railway Wagons. Described as being for the Condor service they do indeed look like the later standard air-braked 20' 9" underframe but without a body. On checking the official diagrams 1/075 comes up with a bogie vehicle but 1/079 is an absolute ringer for the vehicle in Don's book! A few years ago I was contemplating modelling the 1970-72 period which would have enabled me to run the likes of Cov ABs and Open ABs but the lure of 1967 was just too great and I don't have room for the Condor! David

And another Merry Christmas from me, Andy. Always love seeing shots of St Ruth. Appreciate the namecheck for Peter Gray, an excellent photographer! David

Hi Steve, I haven't seen any pictures of the Flat ED in service but there are a few scattered around the net on preserved railways. There is a drawing of 2/072 on the Barrowmore site: http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/SpecialVehiclesIssue.pdf Is the OBA on the Association (SRH) underframe? First one I've seen assembled if it is! I like the early air-braked wagons but I'm stuck in this time-warp of 1967 and can't seem to get out Merry Christmas David

Thanks to you both for your kind comments. I think that you are being unnecessarily modest, Julia. Anyone who has produced working and illuminated signals should find a few etched wagon underframes a pleasant relaxation The underframe for the bolsters is 2-360, 17' 6" for 3 Chivers kits. The other is the tube wagon which haven't done as I'm not sure that they survived to 1967. The others all use a variety of 10' underframes. The Conflat uses 2-357 which is for B.R. 8-shoe brake gear. The D1927 Medfit has the 2-332 RCH underframe but this needs a tie bar adding between the axleguards as it doesn't have one on the etch. Finally the B.R. 1/017 Medfit has 2-354 which is the standard B.R. 4-shoe underframe. Andy has spotted that I replace the safety loops on the brake gear. I started doing this with flattened 5 amp fuse wire but Stephen Harris, who thinks I have an unhealthy obsession with safety loops, kindly etched me some and he occasionally adds a few more on a corner of his test etches. Frankly they are a bit of a b****r to fit but the RSU does make it a bit easier. The safety loops on the 8-shoe underframe are also from Stephen. If you build his 16T mineral wagons as unfitted you will have spare safety loops for the 8-shoe fitted version which haven't been used. He supplements my supply by providing me with his spares! Finally I'll add another photo: This is a test etch that I assembled for Stephen's Catfish kit which was done more than several years ago. It has been sitting around waiting for a suitable set of buffers and, finally, thanks to Julia, it is now the proud possessor of a lovely set of 3D printed Great Western pattern self-contained buffers. No, I don't know why they had them either and they weren't even built at Swindon! It might get painted now but don't hold your breath . . . David

There doesn't seem to have been much modelling done chez Long in recent months and output has been slow even by my usual snail-like standards. However, just to show that I haven't completely ground to a halt I recently took a few snaps which are reproduced below and there is a theme. Over the last few years there has been some excellent work done by the likes of Bob Jones and Chris Higgs to produce a range of etched chassis', marketed by the 2mm Scale Association, with which to enhance both kit and RTR bodies. The wagons below are of both types and are still to reach the paint shop, a move which I confidently predict may happen by 2015 or 2016 or 2017 . . . These two are closely related, the first being an LMS D1927 Double Bolster and the second, its successor design, a D2067 Double Bolster. The latter was the last wooden bodied double before switching to the steel-sided version. They both utilise Chivers bodies allied to Higgs underframes. The bolsters are plastic strip and, if you look carefully, you may just be able to make out the holes for the chain shackles at the bolster ends. The shackles have been made but are stored safely until required. D1927 has some scratch-built 2-rib buffers while D2067 has some early trial white-metal buffer bodies with separate steel heads. By the mid-1960s both of these types would have been looking the worse for wear so the painting and weathering should be amusing. The next is a B.R. Diagram 1/069 Conflat which has a Bachfarish body with an etched B.R. 8-shoe fitted underframe. I like this style of underframe, so much more interesting than the usual 4-shoe type. The body is a very decent rendition of the type and deserves the subtlety than an etched underframe provides. The buffers are some more pre-production samples, this time of the Dowty hydraulic type. A couple of Medfits this time. The left-hand one is another Bachfarish body of LMS diagram D1927 while the right-hand one is a Parkwood body of B.R. diagram 1/017. Both were built unfitted and have been vacuum-braked by B.R. in the late-1950s, hence the 4-shoe vacuum brake gear with associated tie bars. I will be using them as engineers stock for carrying spent ballast as they would have run in the mid-1960s. The buffer beams are Evergreen U channel strip as Association etches are to 2mm scale and lack a little in width for N scale bodies. D1927 has also acquired Dowtys but 1/017 is stuck with simple spindle types. The last one is a bit of an oddity, apart from having no wheels and also having got as far as a blast with primer. It is an example of a batch of 32 wagons built to diagram 2/072 in the 1950s and lettered Flat ED. I photographed one at Bridgnorth a few years ago and I believe that a number have survived at preservation sites. They utilised an LNER eight-shoe style underframe but with B.R. style axleguards. By chance this is the same type of underframe used on some B.R. plate wagons and is available as an etch from the Association. The only real challenge with the scratch-built body was creating neat squares along the edge of the floor and then filling them with representations of the lashing rings. A simple enough wagon but also something a bit different. No idea what I'll use it for though . . . David

Excellent work, Tim. I'm interested in that you have used different media to represent brickwork across the layout and it seems to be working. I've never been brave enough to try it myself but you may just be changing my mind! Approve of the reading matter as well. Peter Gray, an excellent photographer. David

48 of 'em! Wow, that's a lot of wagons, Jeremy. Six of any one type is about my maximum but I guess clay wagons aren't often seen in ones and twos. The kit itself is quite nice but as a Cambrian production it does lack some of the crispness of Parkwood's Parkside produced items. As regards the width, I know that this would exercise some of my Association colleagues but I believe there to be more to worry about in a modelling life than whether a vehicle is a mill or two on the wide side. At the back end of last year I had a go at one of these myself, not particularly needing one but just out of interest. I had intended to post a couple of pics when it was finished but as it has remained in primer these several months I didn't get around to it. If you don't mind I'll post a couple now which will add to Andy's comments and maybe add one or two other features that you may like to consider, although in the context of forty eight of the beasts you may feel them to be unnecessary. The underframe is for a B.R. constructed wagon and uses the fitted 16T mineral wagon etch but has had the steel conversion solebars added. With the latter etch you get some door bangers which can't be used as designed with the etch due to the way that they are attached on the prototype. However, you can attach them in the format that Andy suggested by soldering them to the bottom lip of the bent up solebar. The downside is that the solebar rivets aren't all in the right places as the etch is designed for LNER vacuum brake gear but I wasn't too fussed about that. You'll notice that I used the Association cast axleboxes and springs as I'm not a big fan of the etched ones that are included as part of the underframe. They look a bit flat and they can be a bit of a b****r to put together! On the body I'd suggest using the 3D printed GWR self-contained buffers or the brass B.R. 1' 6" buffers which are both available from the Association. The use of either will depend on earlier or later B.R. built lots. I also found the join at the corners of the non-door end to be a bit iffy so I overlaid the cornerplate on the end with some 5 thou and replaced the bolt heads with little slices of 5 thou. Andy's comment about brake gear/end door orientation caused me to go and check some photos but, thankfully, I had gone them the right way round! Best of luck with the forty eight, Jeremy, and I look forward to seeing them coming off the production line and will be especially interested to see your hoods. David

Very nice, John. Good to have you back and it's been worth the wait. David

Sorry, there was one other penalty in the PL at the weekend which the ever-incisive Shearer described as 'stonewall' (whatever that means) and that was Steve Harper's hopeless lunge at Adam Lallana. Hugo Lloris ('the sweeper goalkeeper') it wasn't and was duly despatched with customary violence and aplomb by England star Rickie Lambert. Bet the watching Roy was impressed with that one, although I expect that the nerveless Lambert will go all shaky when faced with Manuel Neuer. Not to labour a point but the penalty given to Tottenham on Thursday was especially amusing. After sticking a leg out and up-ending Eric Lamela the Sheriff defender turned away theatrically with arms raised hoping to indicate that no contact had been made. Even the ever-incisive Shearer could have made the point that it wasn't the players arms that were the problem it was the fact that his foot had, undeniably, made contact with Lamela and not the ball! No need for guessing by the referee on that one . . . David

None of the three penalties in the Premier League this weekend should have been given. Reid made no attempt to foul Ramires and I don't even think that it was a dive, just two players coming together. Goal kick, nothing more. Jaaskelainen had made a mess of collecting the ball but he was reaching out for it on the ground and had no idea that there was a player coming from behind him who then went on to fall over Jaaskelainen's outstretched arm. Certainly not an intentional foul and certainly not a penalty, despite what Shearer and Owen reckoned. Swansea equally robbed by the referee making a guess at contact through a crowd of players. Even with the benefit of several replays from different angles it didn't look like handball so how the referee was so certain only he knows. More worrying though for the Swans is their increasing ability to be in a position to give away late goals. As a side with their ability to keep control of the ball it is a worrying trend which won't escape the attention of other managers. David

The wing rail crossing assembly is the exception when it comes to using long lengths especially, as you say, they have to be isolated for DCC. I make them up using the jigs which are some of the best items that the Association has produced and I have found them pretty near fool-proof in their use and results. How did you get on with producing the sleeper strips, Don? I found this to be the worst part of the process in maintaining a consistent width between lengths. The individual sleepers were ok produced with the help of a NorthWest Shortline Chopper but getting the strips in the first instance nearly drove me to distraction. Even worse when some are 2mm wide and others are 1.7mm wide. Some laser cut strips would be nice but I suspect that, frankly, we can whistle for those. David

Don, I would certainly agree that this is a perfectly viable method of building 2mm finescale track. I like to use the longest lengths of rail possible in order to keep the trackwork flowing rather than building it up from smaller sections so I haven't used any of the plastic base easitrac. I have also found that using the cast brass chairs to be useful in conjunction with pcb sleepers at the crossing and also at the closure/switch joint. This means that the crossing and wing rails are bonded and also the switch/closure rails and the stock rails. A couple of photos show this: Using long lengths of rail makes it much easier to maintain gentle curves through switch and crossing work as can be seen on this illustration: The sleepers have been stained which doesn't interfere with the chair/sleeper glue joint; however I'm not sure that I would bother in future as most of the staining colour will disappear under weathering. Good to see you continuing to make progress with the layout, Don. David

I quite like the sound of 3D printing using brass as this would satisfy a number of requirements: 1. Robust 2. Ability to solder the lamp section to the post 3. Consistency of output I am still pursuing a couple of leads relating to a drawing. And Don, I have absolutely no intention of trying to make them work! Once again, many thanks for the responses. David

Interesting comment, Peter. There is a photograph in LMS Lineside of a similar lamp on the lineside at Wigan Wallgate which has a taller post and a fixed ladder attached. This is described in the caption as being an 'LMS lamp' but, being at Wallgate, is on an ex-L & Y route. Other than the height of the post it appears to be identical to those in my illustrations. David

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far. I have had 48 views but no comments in the Prototype Questions section so there is no more information about drawings and, therefore, dimensions. However, I would think that Alan's estimate of 6" diameter or 1mm in 2mm scale is probably not far from the truth for the post. I would certainly prefer it in metal not only for robustness but also for soldering the gas lamp apparatus to it. David

This is a repeat of part of a question that I have asked in the 2mm Finescale section. I am looking for a drawing for the type of L & Y gas lamps which are shown in the photos below. LMS Lineside Part 1 has illustrations of this style of lamp but no drawings. Any help in terms of dimensions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance David

It may have been that he was an unwitting pawn initially but he was increasingly on road transport's case. I've seen it suggested that, after Beeching 1 (Reshaping) and Beeching 2 (Trunk lines), his intention was to begin an enquiry which would produce data concerning the direct attribution of costs between road and rail. He had become increasingly of the view that road transport was not bearing its full share of the costs which made direct comparisons between the two modes somewhat unbalanced. It has been further suggested that in order to head off such an enquiry he was 'encouraged' to return early to ICI and, oh by the way, have a life peerage for your trouble. I'm not sure that anyone has ever found irrefutable evidence that this was the case but it remains that such an enquiry has never officially taken place despite many suggestions over the years that road transport has never fully borne the costs of its activity. It is also true that both the road transport unions and road transport pressure groups lobbied the (1964-1970) Labour government in support of their interests. I can't recall all the details just now but I seem to remember that there was a particularly nasty scenario that developed over a proposed railfreight terminal at Didcot that was effectively killed off by such activity. David