jhb171achill

Probably the nicest livery these ugly ducklings ever carried. Lisburn.

Tis very true, Old Blarney, tis true. Leafing through these pictures I've posted today I find many family ones too which seem like yesterday but were 20, 30 and 40 years ago. Somewhere amongst it all, for those with a strong stomach, there are shots of an infant me in an AEC on the Harcourt Street line, and standing beside a Donegal 2.6.4T at Strabane. Now, even an oul elephant like me doesn't remember that, still less bring held up to a window in the upstairs of the old Hillsborough railway station as the lifting train did its work below me....

Here, now and again, I'll post older photos taken by jhb171senior, and jhb171inchicore, back in the day when Jesus was learning his spellings, and pussy was a kitten...... I don't have exact dates to hand, though eventually I'll be able to match the pictures with notes taken at the time. Based on what I know of their travels, though, I can estimate. Larne narrow gauge (B & L station). Early 1940s. I think this is Magherafelt, with a goods train shunting. I believe it's about 1938. And finally, about 1929, Cavan & Leitrim No. 1, still in badly worn C & L lined green livery.

These pictures were taken during the last few years of the beet ("turnip!") trains. The short lived containers feature, as of course does the Indian Summer of the 121 class! And views at Cherryville of NIRs 112, then on a several-year-long sojourn on IE. Not a chance these will all be the right way up, but c'est la vie..... Wellington bridge 121 class - only 134 and 124 were left in use. This was their beet swansong. A four wheeled turnip-tin. A bogie, or gourmet, turnip tin. And not a label on either to say how many zillion calories of sugar was in the contents. I'll tell the helfin safety people. This what the combined efforts of 124, a 141 and twenty two loaded turnip tins did to two 10c coins. My life savings squashed. At least this one can't be the wrong way up.

I stand corrected, Old Blarney; I've come across "whosoever"...... the rest of it's still irritating though! "To whom it may concern" would be as handy! As for the SLNCR one............aaarrrghhh! I'm reaching for my smelling salts.

Gramatically correct, if cumbersome Victorian legalese..... First and last quotation marks are appropriate as it is clear that a document is being quoted, though the ones at the sides are superfluous. Victorian English, it has to be said, tended to be meticulously correct, albeit long winded, formal and dry...

The branch train awaits departure. I have silent cine of 155 with the same set of a Park Royal and BR van a couple of days later, leaving Ballina behind 155. The young ladies on the platform are now 29 and (next week) 32. The younger of the two, on the left, had a footplate run from here to Ballina a short time after this photograph was taken. She had no PTS, no steel capped boots and no day glo nappy. And, she's still alive, having survived this near-death experience! Her verdict: "it was very noisy in that train"..... Well, this was before they relaid the branch, and the cab of a 141 at even moderate speed is not the most silent environment to be in at the best of times..... going over the Moy bridge in a 141 was like going down a tin staircase in a biscuit tin full of marbles in an echo chamber, while you've a migraine. But I wouldn't miss it for the world. Mum, upon whose knee she sat in the locomotive, was not impressed either, I regret to have to advise.

Here we are. A view ahead, just coming into either Crossbarry or Drimoleague. Sorry, along the South Wexford. Lost the run of meself there.

Anyone remember this? Dare I suggest that might be josefstadt on the footbridge? Or is my eyesight getting even worse..... It was a brilliant day out. Note for modeller's: in silver livery, chassis (and roof) should be silver as well, not black. Whether it's this or "Ivan" the brake van, I don't know where this obsession with black paint on ironwork and bogies has come from...Hornby models probably.... The "A39" lettering would be in a font with slightly "thinner" letters, and there would also be a number on the side. This picture, on the first leg of the journey was at Greystones. I have a few more somewhere which I'll post when I find them. I'm sure others have better pictures than mine of this day. Full marks to the ITG for their painstaking restoration of the engine which is of course now in expert care and great form on the DCDR where travel behind it can still be enjoyed. A fine beast indeed.

Here's a lesson in how not to write a notice. Let's start with No. 1. There no need for " marks at the start and end of this notice. In this context, they are wrong. 2. Lazy typing. There shouldn't be a gap between the ( bracket and the word "including". 3. "It's" servants; are you serious? Wh'y th'e apos'troph'e? 4. There is no such word as "whomsoever". Somebody's swallowed a dictionary without having the ability to digest it properly. 5. In the second instance of this new word "whomsoever", even if it was a correct word it is entirely superfluous in this context. This is another dictionary indigestion moment: stuff a sentence full of big words you don't understand, let alone understand the correct usage of, in the hope that your notice will sound more "official". 6. Lines 3 & 4. When you end a phrase with a comma, you should have a gap between the comma and the next word. Basic typing. 7. There should be no comma between "to" and "vehicles" on the third last line. 8. "The Board or IT'S servants".... That apostrophe again. 9. The CIE heading has no fadas, let alone in the correct place. Perhaps it's just as well; it might translate as "Water Closet & State Cabbage Farm Authority of The Republic of Mozambique".... The whole thing is all the more laughable as it is intended to be a legal, official notice, not something that someone has scrawled on a piece of paper like "back in 5 min". I'd love to see a haughty barrister getting someone off the hook in a court because the notice was written in an unknown language! (Ulster-Scots, perhaps?) I despair. Seen in Claremorris, about 2004. Or should I say Claremorri's? Rant over.

I'd go for the leg room idea, Mayner - most MGWR survivors (to 1963 latest) were 1890s origin, a few late 80s. They were also very solidly built - though so were the GSWR ones....

Both UTA "Courtaulds" wagons, originally built by the NCC in 1922/4. The "cut down" one was exactly the same as the other - as were ALL of those cut down ones - before NIR altered them thus about 1970/1 for PW purposes. By that stage it was 6 years since they had been used for actual goods traffic.

:-)

No, it didn't have a clerestorey. It would originally have had a "flat" roof like the MGWR six wheelers stored beside it. I'll try to dig out the diagram from the GSWR carriage book I have. For modellers who have never seen it, it's important to note that it's being rebuilt as a brake first. It's original condition was as shown in the photo of its companion above.

I'd say it certainly has potential to adapt. I'm on a learning curve right now with regard to Austrian station buildings in the 1970s era! Found a good IRM type internet group who are very helpful. All too often a good layout has buildings of less accurate standard..... better to get it right, I suppose, first thing!

I would agree. They could be disguised, possibly? Also, it's a bit big for all but the largest Irish stations. Wouldn't be suitable for a branch line or country station setup.

This was rare, but did happen. There's a picture of it happening at Ennis in "Rails Through The West". I've seen a photo of a train leaving Kilmainhamwood somewhere with the usual couple of 6-wheel coaches and half a dozen cattle vans. Back in the day, a place like Kings-court is bound to have had some sort of proper facility. Naturally, in later years it might have been removed.

Mayner Yes, the shunting that day was an absolute nightmare. The RPSI train was too long for the loop, and nobody had thought about this. Added to that was the fact that the place was full of gypsum wagons! The train had to be split in two parts and reunited. However, each cloud had a silver lining. There was time for several pints.... I'd say you're right about the use of the hoods bank there for cattle. I do know that when built, cattle traffic was anticipated, thus provision must have been made initially. As you say the Midland especially was involved in that. As to the exact type of "beast" traffic, I don't know, but maybe pigs were carried. The traffic returns for the branch in the late 20s / early 30s would be interesting to see; they (and possibly other years) should be available in the Heuston (CIE) archives.

Baker was very interested in carriages and wrote a lot about the. Extremely informative. A carriage numbered 70B would be ex-CBSCR rather than GSWR. I think the one above had a number starting with 2. I have a note somewhere, so as you say, Dive, this one must have been gone by maybe 1968 at latest. On re-reading your post, do you mean "built".... for "b"... It's a pity the renumbering of vehicles into the departmental series by CIE followed no rhyme nor reason, and thus no relation to its original number! It makes things hard to trace. One of DCDR's senior and long-standing volunteers is a mine of information on these "A" numbers.

You can't really see vacuum bags, right enough - could be hidden? Anyone know? Dive - you're right about all roundels on brown being white. The container is, in fact, badly faded orange. They had originally painted their old type of container grey, but these ones were always orange - same "carriage / loco tan". There was one kicking around at the back of Whitehead site until recently - probably cleared away now. The Uniload containers were also orange, but had a white strip on them, and an all-black roundel was on this white strip, along with the word "Uniload", which was - I think but I'd need to check - in red. CIE never painted any containers brown.

Nice, but they need grey chassis... I like the fact that one, having a "D" suffix to the number, is intended to be of DSER origin. And they're the right way up. I had to turn the computer upside down and stand on me head...

I don't think this is one of mine, but it's of late 1970s interest.

I should clarify - I meant mid 90s before ALL were done, and also that they didn't start them straight away in 1987 like the others stock.... The rebranding generally was from 1987 as you say, when IE was form, but for some reason while locomotives, Mk 2 and Mk 3 stock hot the "tippex" ASAP, they didn't seem to start on the Cravens for a while. Mind you when they did, it was done reasonably quickly. I've pics of a Craven still in the old style in 1996, but they were extremely few and far between then. I saw one at Connolly, I think, in the middle of others which had been "tippexed". The BR vans were amended only by the addition of a single tippex line below the waist, and this likewise didn't happen immediately after 1987. More than a few "A", 141 & 181 class locomotives acquired the new "set of points" logo on ends and sides engine getting the white stripes. Money was tight and full IE livery would await the next repaint. All of the 121s were repainted fully. Thus, livery wise, in say 1993 we had - Mk 2 & 3 stock: with and without tippex Cravens: black'n'tan and tippex A class: Supertrain, supertrain with IE logo, and IE full tippex livery 141 / 181: as above 121: CIE or tippex Quite a variety!

You can get them for little more than half that..... and he's wrong about the livery - it would have been well into the 90s before they got the tippex waistline and orange stripe under the cantrail....

I'm astonished that it didn't sell... I have two, boxed and unused, in reserve for a possible future layout. Had I only one, I'd have snapped that one up in no time. I just need the two. I can't remember what I paid new - whatever the going rate was at the time....