jhb171achill

That looks outstanding - superb scenery!

I was looking at some 1950s and 60s pics last night and by coincidence came across one of B127 which I suspect was about 1963. It had grey buffer beams, so obviously the red was added between then and '65. It had hit a level crossing gate. Maybe they touched up the paint after that and put red on it.

There's a man with a red suit and a sleigh saying "C'mon! I still have to pack!!"

I haven't got comprehensive livery details per livery but what I can say is this: 1. At least one LMS "transplant" simply had its new NCC number roughly painted over its old LMS one, but otherwise ran briefly in rather tired looking LMS livery until repainted UTA green. I don't know its identity but I've seen a picture of it. 2. NCC livery per se had distinct differences from LMS livery in Britain. Leaving aside detail differences on locomotives and wagons for now, and sticking to carriages, in post-war times most NCC coaches newly painted (and there weren't that many!) had no lining if they were of older designs. This also applied to narrow gauge stock. 3. In later NCC period in general, there was no LMS crest applied. Some earlier stock shows no sign of crests either. 4. Lettering was always "LMS NCC" rather than just "LMS" as on British examples. 5. Obviously, standard LMS shade maroon was always used, and where lining was applied it conformed to normal English LMS patterns. 6. It is probable that most of the stuff brought in after the war from England, therefore, was plain maroon with LMS NCC markings and number in standard NCC style, and no lining. I cannot say that there weren't exeptions - there may have been - but before a couple of years had passed, they were being repainted into UTA green as fast as they could anyhow. Hope that's helpful.

Absolutely right, Randall. And in the modelling world, an otherwise excellent model can be spoiled appearance wise for want of basic detail like that. B127 and I think one other B121 had red buffer beams briefly, and thus could accurately be reproduced with either grey or red. It is very much to your credit that you are taking such time and effort over your dad's collection.

For a child of that age, that is a truly excellent idea. That sort of idea is what got me interested in railways over fifty years ago, when I was given a circle of track with a push-along toy engine made by Senior. It had a wooden body painted light grey with drawn-on windows and recalling it now, I reckon it was meant to be a very rudimentary form of one of those brand new grey diesel things made by General Motors, with a cab at one end.....

D R O O L !!!!! Congrats to Leslie, Railtek, the layout.... the standard of Irish stuff is getting SERIOUSLY better every tear. the "H" van has been probably the most glaringly obvious omission. No amount of BR vans of all shapes and sizes look right behind an Irish locomotive! Absolutely superb stuff all round.

Hmmmm... the wheels on my one are too small and those are a bit big! I suppose, in either case, if we were to be content with an approximation, it would do. Yours, above, is probably a better bet indeed.

Haha excellent! I'm sure that many of us have been there too!

I've always admired Arigna Road's weeds, puddles and undulating surfaces. I think that a mirror-smooth uniformly coloured model road will always look more toy like. There's some American man who posts up youtube clips of scenery making which look as real as any photo. Doubtless, though, many of us might prefer to retain hard-earned funds for many of the good models available, rather than scenic materials!

I've put up (or upside down) a few of mine in the past, Warbonnet - will have a delve. My main point was that those of the esteemed gentlemen mentioned above 9and others) would probably be a great deal better quality!

I would re-align it, to be honest - it looks a bit more cluttered the way it is.

Their carriages look OK if you were doing a G scale continental line. You can get four for $100!

Interesting - thanks..... I'm thinking in terms of whether the chassis might serve for a rough equivalent of a T & D 2.6.0.....

Tis actually true; horse poo is a necessity! One for the weathering department......? A modern road on a layout set in 2016 or 1976 would need the odd puddle, worn white or double-yellow lines (not pristine ones!), oil and tyre marks and the occasional weed to look realistic - one might even say the odd bit of litter in the gutter. Same is true of days of yore.

An open letter, I suppose, to the likes of Finnyus, Hurricane, The Wanderer and others among the excellent photographic community that exists now.... Few as the photos were that I took (in the mid 1970s film was dear, as was processing, and I got pocket money rather than state employee's pay cheques), I always thought in terms of the potential use I might make of them if ever I decided to make models of any. Little did I know that I would go down the continental narrow gauge route, though if I hadn't, why would I try to make models when messrs SSM, Provincial, Murphy, Worsley, IRM and many others are doing a better job..... Anyway, my point is - it might be of interest if you folks of the upper-drawer photographic community had perhaps a data base of straight side-on and end views, above roof views, and detail views of each type of loco, coach, wagon and yellow machine variety over the years... We all know how beneficial a flat side-on view is to modellers. Maybe you have already; just a thought. Meanwhile, keep up the excellent and necessary work of recording every detail of the railway.

Excellent stuff, Hurricane and Finnyus!

I had battery mechanisms on a railcar and a locomotive in former garden railway days... I never found them to be that adequate. Maybe this type of battery mechanism is better? How long does it take to charge, and how long does a charge last at reasonable running speeds? I'm in a smaller-gardened "town house" since scaling down, but some sort of rudimentary outdoor tramway may come into consideration one day....

He doesn't understand the value of things, the definition of the word "rare", what £150 translates to in terms of people's wages, let alone his inaccurate grasp of geography!

As always, that just OOZES character - and realism.

3 x 2 is also possible, yes.... Very few were larger than that, very few smaller than the earlier dimensions, from observation of old photos. Cobbles would indeed have been large tonws; not only that, but the busier thoroughfares in them.

Correct. Big cities - rectangular cobblestones on streets, gravel surfaces on lesser roads. Country towns - gravel roads in streets, tarred from mid 30s. Tarmac may have been invented, as such, around 1900, but it was several decades before it came to almost all places in Ireland. Pavements - paving stones typically about 1ft X 2ft, or 1'6" x 2'6".

Yes. Tarmacced roads came to most rural Irish towns in the late 1930s, but paving stones for pavements with kerbstones were a good bit earlier. Gutters tended to be along by the edges of the kerbs and basically dipped troughs lined with cobble stones about the size of large potatoes

Excellent stuff as always, Mr Wanderer.

70!!! Wow!!!!