jhb171achill

I read somewhere recently that there are some experiments going on to make a synthetic fuel of some sort out of hydrogen and oxygen; the emissions would simply replace what was used to make the fuel. It's beyond doubt that diesel and petrol are massively harmful, and even if they weren't, there would still come a day when they ran out - so those types of fuel simply HAVE to go. But I also see the massive problems with electric vehicles - too many to list here, although the extraction of the lithium used to make the batteries will (a) run out before petroleum ever does, and (b) is collossally harmful environmentally, and (c) is only available to mine in a tiny number of locations on the planet. Add lack of range to that, though I am sure technology will develop this better as it develops - early steam locomotives and internal combustion engines were even more inefficient than early battery vehicles (Ask Dr. Drumm...). This oxygen / hydrogen thing will apparently work in a modified petrol engine. Now, of course, this all sounds far too good to be true; and maybe it is. But may we live in hope on this one........ The reality is, even if it destroys the human race, people have become so used to instantly available transport to every corner of the globe (and even beyond it) that the entire way of life of 99% of the world's population depends upon it; all societies depend on it, and the world would just stop if we didn't have it. And nobody anywhere will ever wean people off that, now that we've had it for a century and more. No amount of Ryan cycleways and green buses will cure that, unless they have bus services every five minutes, 24 / 7, between every single residence in the world from the front door to every single possible destination. Ain't gonna happen. So into yer cars, folks, be they powered by petrol, diesel, electricity, awwwsum gasoline, hydrogen, oxygen, eco-vegan vegetable oil, lucozade or punctuation marks and animal noises, and head for the nearest model railway shop. They've model petrol cars on offer, two for the price of three.

And never mind depreciation on a new car; you could double the value of the car by putting FOUR milk churns in it.

Actually, good thinking - just like the real thing. Even back to steam days, many a loco yard had a few ancient "cripples" in it, which were periodically raided in order to retrieve a spare part - and then there's today's "real" 201s! A bit of ingenuity and you could at least make a few shekels selling bits on fleabay........ though I agree with others, if anyone can fix it you can!

Sounds like politics-speak. The "possibility" needs no assesment at all; the idea patently and obviously IS possible, provided they can get around a certain wealthy taxi oligarch...........

The last of them were withdrawn by NIR in 1974, I think - just before the first batch of the 80 class went into service. The last ex-GNR AEC cars went at that time too.

A nice pic of a crewless 0.7.0.........oil burner.........

Two tone rust and filth livery!

Yes, its had the centre pair taken out, very probably after withdrawal, though I am aware of one six-wheeler which had its centre pair removed apparently while still in use. Result is, of course, a very long wheelbase for a 30ft long vehicle!

That vehicle is a GSWR, rather than WCIR, six-wheeler which corresponds to your description, and was 699 in GSWR numbering system. The WCIR would not have over 600 coaches, so 699 will definitely not be their own number - unless - it's a GSWR built vehicle which was lent to them as new. Unlikely but possible. Also, no 4-wheeled stock was built after probably about 1870, so this one was always a (failry standard) six-wheeler. It was one of a series of nine of the same numbered 691-699. No. 699 was withdrawn in 1854, the others between 1948 and 1960; with one (691) withdrawn as early as 1925. Another slightly different one with just two compartments and a bigger guard's area was built alongside them. Interestingly, in terms of earlier discussions about WLWR coach numbers, this thing, a one-off, was numbered 995. This gives a clue to the likelihood of the WLWR stuff just getting the next available GSWR numbers, as they were joined into the GSWR system just a couiple of years later.

Basically, anything that was incorporated into the GSWR just ended up as the next numbers in their series. This would apply to WCIR stock too. The WLWR was a much larger company than anything else they inherited, so that "block" of carriages numbers was allocated. I do not know whether this was as a result of a specific block of numbers being allocated, or whether these just came next anyway. I would be inclined to suspect that latter. Had the WLWR or WCIR survived as fully separate companies with their own numbering systems after 1st January 1925, the GSR would no doubt have kept their original numbers with a letter suffix. Doubtless WLWR stuff would have got "W", and the Tramore line would have had to make do with some other suffix! Gawd knows what WCIR stuff would have become - "W", "C" and "R" were already taken...... A quick look at my records discloses that there was "ordinary" GSWR stock in the 600 series too. There were four brake third bogie non-corridors built in 1900, and a few bogie non-corridor thirds in 1897.

I’ve just spotted a second error in that list, regarding the “C” in addition to the “N” on ex-GNR stock. This was ONLY on railcar power cars. Loco-hauled coaches and wagons just had the “N” suffix.

If your rebuilding skills are anything like your weathering skills, it will end up better than when it left the IRM factory!

Absolutely superb. The scenic detail on this is magnificent. Very smooth-running little engine.

I've been mulling over this issue too. Personally, I'd prefer to see 0 and 00 scale in the correct gauge - I do think the appearance makes the difference; but I'll agree that in terms of pricing and convenience, as well as flexibility, the idea that it "isn't worth it" carries a lot of weight. A friend is making an 0 scale MGWR D16 for me; prinarily as a display item, so I had thought, why not put it on a 36.XXmm gauge bit of track - but I took the option of putting a motor in too, in case I ever have time to do an extremely simple mini-shunting layout with half a dozen trucks, or run it on someone else's layout. The jury is still out, but I'm veering towards the narrower 0 gauge just for convenience.

In millions, yes.

Well, it would - it’s just a wooden box on wheels. No bogies to worry about either…..

In all reality, as Mike implies, a preservation body must acquire what it can and when it can. Not everything will end up being restored for a whole range of reasons. Between Downpatrick and the RPSI, spanning my almost fifty years in preservation, I could mention various vehicles which either fell to bits (wooden coaches / wagons) were burnt by vandals, which (correctly) took a back seat because they were far too expensive to restore / rebuild, too much highly specialised manpower / maintenance needed, of little or no historic value (e.g. yet another Mk 2, for example), would not ever be of any benefit to the organisation concerned, and a host of other reasons. In an ideal world everything acquired would be preserved (and in the correct livery!) but the world’s not perfect, and preservationists have yet to discover how to get 25 hours into a day, nine days into a week, a decade into a year or how to obtain goods and services worth €1,000 with a fifty cent coin! Yes, SLNCR “B” and 6111 (especially the latter) may indeed never run again - but look at the stuff we DO have! As Mike says, the operational stuff MUST take priority, always. I lament the fact that no preserved MGWR locomotive exists. Yet, not one person has ever died, become injured or disadvantaged in any way as a result! As always in preservation, cold hard practicality MUST prevail over our emotional attachment to what a senior RPSI steam locomotive person once described as “obsolete, redundant equipment“ when being badgered by people as to when a particular locomotive was going to return to traffic….

Looking better and better and better and better and better........! Can't wait to see results!

Not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that the UTA might have asked to try one out.........

It was already at Downpatrick but nothing short of a total rebuild will sort that one out - PLUS a new engine.

Without wanting to veer away too much, in the mid 2000s when the 27s were being withdrawn, I was finance officer for the DCDR, and was involved in the transfer of 0.6.0T No. 90, the SLNCR railcar and the remains of two mangy old MGWR six-wheelers to Downpatrick. Being in touch with IE over this matter, I broached the subject of the society getting 2750, 2751 or possibly even both. The background to this was that the DCDR had, at the time, a funding application being put together for a possible extension to dundrum, and it was felt that if this was to come into being, the very severe gradient just south of Ardglass Junction (in the cutting; a quarter mile of one of the steepest gradients in Ireland) plus thee length of line would be too much for maybe a three-coach train in the summer behind a Sugar Co. loco. These things were not made to do a 9 mile return trip. My query was a general one, and a casual one, but was siezed upon with interest by the folks in IE with whom I was dealing. I relayed this information to the DCDR committee, but as the funding scheme was abandoned shortly afterwards due to a change in personnel in Down District Council (as was), no formal request was ever made to IE. Bottom line, had things been different, you could have had a 27 from Downpatrick or Inch Abbey to Dundrum...... Mind you, maintenance of these things would have been an unholy nightmare for an organisation like that, for a number of reasons.

VERY nice, and shows the correct LMS lining style (Whitehead take note) for not just the LMS over in Brexitstan, but also the NCC - and - the GSR! Same lining on the GSR, same background colour (after 1933) but different crest and lettering style.

How many geigers can it count up to?

Most yellow patches were applied 1964-5, and lasted until about 1969. Like the "day-glo" patches on 141s and 121s in the early IE days, some locos had them and some didn't. As a general rule, when locos started being repainted out of the green livery in 1962, initially they were painted black'n'tan. After a couple of years, all-black (with white flashes on the ends above window level). Some, but not all, got the yellow patches. After rebuilds, between 1969 and 1972 any new repaints were black'n'tan, usually (on A & C classes, but also B101) with the "low" tan band, in which guise they belnded in better with 121/141/181s. # After 1972, the orange and black "Supertrain" livery, and the white "tippex" stripes added after 1987. When liveries change, an entire fleet of anything will never be repainted overnight. There were still some steam locos in old company liveries to be seen in the very early 1930s, seven years after the all-grey livery had spread to all. There were still a few green diesel locos and coaches into the late 1960s; 1967 certainly, maybe 1968. And it's only recently that the last of the 29 class railcars has lost that gawd-awful lime green, white and navy blue livery, despite the first of the fleet getting the all-green something like ten years ago.

That is EXPERT weathering! Well done!