Rivermead Central

[40057]

About £1.51. Quick and dirty estimate would give about £193 in today’s money.

But 1951 Britain was far from prosperous, I guess, so perhaps rather more.

Hi Simon

£193 is a staggering amount for a piece of 0 gauge track. Especially one that is gauche and actually doesn’t work very well for some of its intended functions. I bought this ramp rail as a novelty, because I had never seen a post-WW2 example before. I am not sure I am going to use it. Current plans are to use post-WW2 Bassett-Lowke permanent way track for the yard at Cavendish Goods — which is to be worked by van Riemsdyk 0-6-0Ts, and these are not fitted with trips for track control.

The real terms price of the ramp rail does raise some interesting questions. First, how many were made? To my knowledge, there is little or no information regarding Bassett-Lowke’s sales figures from the relevant period. We know what the company was selling (from the catalogues), but not how much of it. Just on the basis of the enormous price, it seems likely only tiny numbers of ramp rails would have been sold. Also, by the 1950s, mains electricity was the norm so demand for clockwork models had greatly reduced. By the mid 1950s, the ramp rail was no longer listed in the catalogues. I don’t have a catalogue from every year, but let’s say from the resumption of model manufacturing after WW2 until the ramp rail ceased to be listed was six years when it was produced. If a ramp rail was sold every week, that would be total sales of just over 300. Actually, I can’t believe sales would be anywhere near one per week. Were there even 100 made in total?

The second point the real-terms new price indicates is just how cheap vintage models are. I paid £17.50 for the ramp rail in an internet auction, quite recently. So, less than a tenth of what the original owner paid. I think this is probably a general truth for antique and vintage items, leaving aside very rare or remarkable pieces for which there is competition from collectors. The much lower labour costs prevalent when the item was produced feed through into the current price. The price of items made today necessarily reflects current costs, though the relative prices of new and vintage models will obviously also be influenced by supply and demand and other factors. For the ramp rail, who, apart from me, really wants one? The internet auction suggests that could well be nobody.

 

[David Waite]

Hi Martin
I‘m glad you have a ramp rail even if you are the only one, if you didn’t I probably would have never known
about it but now I do.
David.

 

[40057]

Prompted by the above exchange (thank you, Simon), I have been pondering what amount is truly the present day equivalent of a price of 30/3 in 1951? I know ‘equivalent’ prices can be calculated on the basis of RPI inflation, wage increases or percentage of GDP, so there isn’t going to be a single ‘right’ answer. On reflection though, I think the real terms price of the ramp rail in 1951 must have been less — probably a lot less — than £193. Accepting that Bassett-Lowke sold good, expensive models to the better off, there is still a point when something is clearly far too much money and just not worth it. Would a model enthusiast in 1951, even a wealthy one, really fork out the equivalent of nearly £200 for a device for stopping and starting trains from the track? Surely not — any more than an enthusiast now would see that as value for money. On that basis, I feel the 1951 price must have been equivalent to a present day amount in the range, say, £40–80. The price of the ramp rail in 1951 was about the same as the price of a pair of points (slightly more or less depending on the particular type of point). So applying the same ‘what’s reasonable’ argument to the price of points, pro rata with my suggested current equivalent price for the ramp rail, the 1951 price of permanent way points was equivalent to £35–90 now. Curiously, the actual price of good-condition, post-WW2, permanent way points on the second-hand market is currently typically around £20–45.

OK, so I have no data to support the above. It’s not at all scientific. I’m basing my argument on the fact that I have a ramp rail someone bought from Bassett-Lowke around 1950. And I don’t believe they would have bought it if it cost the equivalent of nearly £200 in today’s money.

I’m interested in trying to understand how the prices charged in the 1950s (and at other periods) compare with the present day. Sure, it was a very different society, less affluent overall but probably more equal than now given the increase in the number of billionaires. So how many people in 1951 could afford a Bassett-Lowke model railway? Were the prices charged within reach of middle-class modellers, or too expensive for anyone but the wealthy? So what demand was there and how many models might have been sold?

 

[40057]

Further thoughts on who were Bassett-Lowke’s customers. The company sold good quality models, not toys and certainly not cheap toys. At the top end of the range, Bassett-Lowke’s products would only have been affordable for the very rich. Just looking through the 1933 catalogue, the most expensive locomotive listed is a two-inch scale Ivatt Atlantic. £450, ready-to-run (£25 extra if fitted with vacuum brakes). It doesn’t matter what particular conversion factor is used to try to work out the present-day equivalent cost — the Atlantic was, by any measure, an enormously expensive purchase. Presumably tiny numbers were sold and the production and sales of such models must have been a very small part of the overall Bassett-Lowke business. By contrast, from about 1912 through to the mid-1960s, there was generally a ‘budget’ lithographed tinplate 4-4-0 included in the 0 gauge range. At first this depicted LNWR no.2663, George the Fifth, and was made by Bing. Later models were made at Northampton and were freelance, starting with ‘Duke of York’, then ‘Princess Elizabeth’ and finally, after WW2, ‘Prince Charles’. These successive freelance 4-4-0s (‘based on latest practice’) were the closest Bassett-Lowke got to selling toys. The advertising for them suggests they were expected to be bought for children (OK, boys). The price of the Duke of York in the late 1920s was comparable to the price of the contemporary Hornby 4-4-0s. But the Hornby 4-4-0s were the most expensive locomotives in the Hornby range.

One complication in trying to understand who Bassett-Lowke’s customers really were is that the company sought to project a brand image, associating itself with wealth, success and celebrity. Mr Bassett-Lowke appears to have had a natural flair for self-promotion and clearly set out to create a particular identity for himself and his business. Even his distinguished double-barrelled name was an invention. Bassett-Lowke’s father, JT Lowke had taken over an engineering business from his stepfather, A Bassett, and when Bassett-Lowke started his model business he called it ‘Bassett-Lowke’. Right from the start, in Bassett-Lowke’s writings, company catalogues and publicity, famous, wealthy and celebrity customers were mentioned and publicised. There was a campaign to emphasise that well-educated and successful people had model railways, and, in particular, they bought them from Bassett-Lowke. But whilst the company certainly did have some very rich and famous customers within a few years of its formation, most of its business must have been selling to ‘ordinary’ people. It’s probably more accurate to see the emphasis on famous and titled customers as a marketing ploy, effectively celebrity endorsement, rather than a true depiction of who a typical customer was.

As an example of just how savvy Bassett-Lowke’s marketing and image projection was, here is an illustration from the 1905/06 season large gauge catalogue. Details are given regarding mail order arrangements and payments, and this photograph is included of goods being packed:



There is no caption or comment in the catalogue about the addressee to whom the goods are being sent. But it won’t have been by chance that it can clearly be seen that the customer is Prince V Narayan of Cooch Behar, with the address The Palace, Cooch Behar, India. The crate behind is being sent to New Zealand but the rest of the address is not legible.

I think Prince V Narayan must be Victor Nityendra Narayan, born in 1888 and the third son of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar. It appears he is being sent a model of GWR Atbara class 4-4-0 no. 3410 Sydney. This model was one of the first two Bassett-Lowke offerings to be made by Bing to Bassett-Lowke’s specifications. The model was introduced in 1904 and made in gauges 0,1 and 2, in clockwork only. I think the prince is getting a Gauge 2 example, judging its size relative to the person doing the packing. It is not as odd as it may seem that an Indian prince is ordering a model of a GWR 4-4-0. He was at Eton.

What clever marketing that photograph is! Customers on the other side of the world, including royalty. And not just any Indian prince, but one whose parents were friends with the British royal family. Subtly done too — no caption, just left for the reader to notice. Name-dropping elevated to an art form.

I wonder where the prince’s Sydney is now?

 

[40057]

Back on 1 January (my post #55), I described the transfer-printed wooden wagons sold by Bassett-Lowke and showed a picture of this example:



I mentioned then that wagons made in this way continued in production after lithographed tinplate wagons were reintroduced post-WW1. By the mid-1930s, the 0 gauge range of transfer-printed wooden wagons included an open wagon, covered van and brake van for each of the four main railway companies. Equivalent models were produced in lithographed tinplate except for the Southern brake van, which was not included in the tinplate wagon range. The tinplate models were cheaper and all the same length since the same pressing was used for the under-frame of all the 4-wheeled tinplate wagons. There was some variation in the lengths of the transfer-printed wooden wagons, in particular the GWR, SR and LMS brake vans were much longer than the open wagons and covered vans.

The transfer-printed wooden wagons were around three times the price of the tinplate models of similar vehicles. For sure, the tinplate wagons were made in far greater numbers. In addition to their relative scarcity, very few of the transfer-printed wooden wagons from the 1930s have survived in good condition. The issue is poor paint adhesion. I don’t think this is due to damp or poor storage as the problem is so common. It must be the paint and/or wood used in manufacture. In extreme cases, there may be so little paint left attached that it is difficult to work out what the model was. The problem is all too apparent with this LNE covered van:



There is extensive paint loss from both sides, both ends and the roof. A great pity, as it is (or was) a nice van. Much of the remaining paint is only loosely attached. More comes off every time the van is handled. It is completely impractical to restore this van, so sadly I will use it as a spares donor (for wheels, buffers, couplings and axleguards).

I have only two transfer-printed wooden wagons from the 1930s range in good condition. One of these I have cleaned and repaired today. I didn’t realise quite how dirty it was until I started to clean it. The whole colour changed and details hidden under the grime appeared as a film of black/brown dirt was wiped away. It was reminiscent of seeing an old painting being cleaned by a restorer in one of those art investigation TV programmes. The only repair needed was to give the wagon new couplings as the originals were missing. I am not sure whether the wagon would originally have had Bing-pattern couplings (like those on the LNE van pictured above) or the later type of Bassett-Lowke coupling introduced in the mid-1930s. I have fitted the later type as they are neater and give closer coupling. I am very pleased with the wagon in its cleaned condition:



This is not a common wagon, but really is a rarity in this condition. A few chips of paint missing around the edges of the roof, but no sign of general flaking or poor paint adhesion.

The model of the LNER van pictured above has the correct 63 mm (9’) wheel-base. This GWR van has a 73.5 mm (10’6”) wheel-base. Such variation is possible since the axleguards are attached to the solebars with wood screws and so can be positioned to suit the prototype.

Unusually for a Bassett-Lowke model, my GWR van has its price, 10/-, written in pencil on the underside. Since Bassett-Lowke wagons were sold in boxes, if the price was written anywhere, it was generally on the end of the box. So this van was the same price as the near-contemporary Pealling wagon described in my post #57. I have to say, the Pealling wagon is a far better and more detailed model, and must have taken far longer to make. Perhaps here too we are looking at another consequence of Bassett-Lowke’s brand image and marketing, as per my post #104. Maybe Bassett-Lowke could charge higher prices because they were Bassett-Lowke, selling a little bit of social status along with each model. Since Mr Bassett-Lowke had made sure his firm was well known for supplying models to the rich and famous, what did that say about you if your model was also from Bassett-Lowke? I am sure Bassett-Lowke had plenty of customers who just wanted a good model of a favourite locomotive. But they may have had quite a few customers who also saw a Bassett-Lowke model as a status symbol.

To paraphrase a current advertising slogan, this is not just a model railway, this is a Bassett-Lowke model railway

 

[simond]

Can’t have been bad for sales having a rather exclusive-sounding double-barrelled name either.

 

[JimG]

Can’t have been bad for sales having a rather exclusive-sounding double-barrelled name either.

I came from Clydeside and started work in London in 1960 in my late teens and I remember doing the rounds of model shops which I had seen advertised in model railway magazines - like Hamblings in Cecil Court, etc. And I did visit the B-L shop in Holborn but it was way out of my league on my £405 p.a. salary. I faintly remember everything being in glass showcases with an aura of "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it". I did have a copy of their catalogue so I did know the prices, but it certainly wasn't a place for an impecunious teenager.

Jim.

 

[40057]

Can’t have been bad for sales having a rather exclusive-sounding double-barrelled name either.

Indeed. I am sure that was why he invented it (see post #104). He was clearly very image conscious right from the start.

 

[oldravendale]

The problem is all too apparent with this LNE covered van:

There is extensive paint loss from both sides, both ends and the roof. A great pity, as it is (or was) a nice van. Much of the remaining paint is only loosely attached. More comes off every time the van is handled. It is completely impractical to restore this van, so sadly I will use it as a spares donor (for wheels, buffers, couplings and axleguards).

I'm finding this an unexpected but fascinating thread so thank you.

In total ignorance I ask why you don't repaint the wagon with the paint loss? Surely the wagon as it stands will not suffer any value loss if repainted even if the original finish is lost and to my eyes those wooden wagons have more presence than the tinplate ones.

Brian

 

[40057]

I'm finding this an unexpected but fascinating thread so thank you.

In total ignorance I ask why you don't repaint the wagon with the paint loss? Surely the wagon as it stands will not suffer any value loss if repainted even if the original finish is lost and to my eyes those wooden wagons have more presence than the tinplate ones.

Brian

Hi Brian

Glad you like it! Thank you.

Why don’t I repaint the wagon? Perfectly good question. The easy answer is ‘reproduction transfers are not available’. For detail, this type of model relies entirely on four large printed transfers each of which covers either a whole side or end, plus two smaller transfers, one for each solebar. None of the strapping, doors, door furniture etc is actually there. So without the transfers the wagon is a plain ‘box on wheels’. Reproducing the transfer design in paint would take for ever and is way beyond my capability. But in any case, even if the design was perfectly copied, a painted wagon would have a very different character to the transfer finish and not be true to the original concept. The transfer approach is interesting because it was a commercially viable solution to putting a lot of detail on a wooden wagon, whereas painting would have been much more expensive. Yes, I could paint the wagon in some simpler livery. It would then have no historical validity as an example of 1930s commercial modelling. Nor would it be a good model by current standards. So I just don’t think that’s a good way to use my modelling time. A slightly different question is: Would I repaint the wagon if reproduction transfers WERE available? The answer is still probably not. The original paint is so much a fundamental part of the object as created, that a complete repaint has become a different thing. That said, I do have some items that are completely repainted, so it can be acceptable (to me, anyway). I have a Bassett-Lowke lineside hut where much of the paint was missing. As it left the factory, it was painted matt black all over. A large proportion of the paint had flaked off when the building came to me. It looked awful. I re-sprayed it black. The building now looks like it was supposed to. My repaint is essentially the same as the original finish, done in the same way. I also have a locomotive that is a complete repaint. When I got it, it had been poorly repainted. I had it professionally repainted, not as an exact copy of the original livery as that was not there to reproduce. But as an accurate reproduction of the full size locomotive’s livery. For this locomotive, the new paint was the best that could be done. It is just part of the engine’s own story that it has had (I believe) four different coats of paint through its working life. For both the hut and the loco, I would prefer them to be in perfect original condition. But they are not and I took an individual judgement in both cases as to what it was appropriate to do. I’m afraid my judgement for the LNER van is ‘spares donor’. At least that way it will contribute to putting some other vintage model(s) back into complete, useable condition. Spares donors are necessary things for vintage model railways.

Martin

 

[oldravendale]

Thank you for such a full explanation, Martin. In no way was my question intended as criticism of your decision and I can see that you don't take it as such. I absolutely understand the need to retain originality where that is a sensible option and, as you say, as a donor vehicle it will live on in other forms.

Brian

 

[40057]

I came from Clydeside and started work in London in 1960 in my late teens and I remember doing the rounds of model shops which I had seen advertised in model railway magazines - like Hamblings in Cecil Court, etc. And I did visit the B-L shop in Holborn but it was way out of my league on my £405 p.a. salary. I faintly remember everything being in glass showcases with an aura of "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it". I did have a copy of their catalogue so I did know the prices, but it certainly wasn't a place for an impecunious teenager.

Jim.

112 High Holborn is now a McDonald’s. On a previous visit to London, I ventured in just so I could say I had been in no. 112. I didn’t buy anything either.

 

[simond]

Hi Brian

Glad you like it! Thank you.

Why don’t I repaint the wagon? Perfectly good question. The easy answer is ‘reproduction transfers are not available’. For detail, this type of model relies entirely on four large printed transfers each of which covers either a whole side or end, plus two smaller transfers, one for each solebar. None of the strapping, doors, door furniture etc is actually there. So without the transfers the wagon is a plain ‘box on wheels’. Reproducing the transfer design in paint would take for ever and is way beyond my capability. But in any case, even if the design was perfectly copied, a painted wagon would have a very different character to the transfer finish and not be true to the original concept. The transfer approach is interesting because it was a commercially viable solution to putting a lot of detail on a wooden wagon, whereas painting would have been much more expensive. Yes, I could paint the wagon in some simpler livery. It would then have no historical validity as an example of 1930s commercial modelling. Nor would it be a good model by current standards. So I just don’t think that’s a good way to use my modelling time. A slightly different question is: Would I repaint the wagon if reproduction transfers WERE available? The answer is still probably not. The original paint is so much a fundamental part of the object as created, that a complete repaint has become a different thing. That said, I do have some items that are completely repainted, so it can be acceptable (to me, anyway). I have a Bassett-Lowke lineside hut where much of the paint was missing. As it left the factory, it was painted matt black all over. A large proportion of the paint had flaked off when the building came to me. It looked awful. I re-sprayed it black. The building now looks like it was supposed to. My repaint is essentially the same as the original finish, done in the same way. I also have a locomotive that is a complete repaint. When I got it, it had been poorly repainted. I had it professionally repainted, not as an exact copy of the original livery as that was not there to reproduce. But as an accurate reproduction of the full size locomotive’s livery. For this locomotive, the new paint was the best that could be done. It is just part of the engine’s own story that it has had (I believe) four different coats of paint through its working life. For both the hut and the loco, I would prefer them to be in perfect original condition. But they are not and I took an individual judgement in both cases as to what it was appropriate to do. I’m afraid my judgement for the LNER van is ‘spares donor’. At least that way it will contribute to putting some other vintage model(s) back into complete, useable condition. Spares donors are necessary things for vintage model railways.

Martin

I looked again at the wagon in question, and now see what you mean about the way it was created. It may not be a good option, and indeed, it might already be too late, but would it not be possible to recreate the transfers using modern techniques?

I’m thinking of a computer-created image printed onto transfer film, and overlaid on a repainted body shell. There is a difficulty in printing white, certainly on home printers, but it is possible, I understand. The computer graphic image itself is not difficult to generate, given a suitable graphics package or even CAD package, I’d think.

I guess that might depend on there being sufficient wagons to be “redecorated” to justify the efforts & time involved.

 

[40057]

I looked again at the wagon in question, and now see what you mean about the way it was created. It may not be a good option, and indeed, it might already be too late, but would it not be possible to recreate the transfers using modern techniques?

I’m thinking of a computer-created image printed onto transfer film, and overlaid on a repainted body shell. There is a difficulty in printing white, certainly on home printers, but it is possible, I understand. The computer graphic image itself is not difficult to generate, given a suitable graphics package or even CAD package, I’d think.

I guess that might depend on there being sufficient wagons to be “redecorated” to justify the efforts & time involved.

Hi Simon

I am sure someone could exactly copy the originals and make new transfers using modern technology. Personally, I don’t have the equipment, skills or inclination to try. Possibly even the reproduction could be recreated by scanning which would save work, though if you look closely at the wagons it is possible to see that often the transfers distorted, wrinkled or broke during application. So drawing new is likely to be better.

The point you make about demand is probably the biggest obstacle. I know there are reproduction transfers for many Hornby 0 gauge locomotives and rolling stock. But Hornby trains were made in vast numbers and there is a large and active Collectors’ Association. Even Bassett-Lowke tinplate wagons are far, far less common than Hornby types. The wooden B-L wagons far less common again. Then amongst Bassett-Lowke enthusiasts, the tinplate wagons are more popular (and generally sell for higher prices) than the wooden equivalents. The demand for the wooden wagons may be artificially depressed by the difficulty of finding them in acceptable condition of course, and the practical impossibility of renovation — which reproduction transfers would address.

The other issue is the wagons all require at least three different transfers — side, end and solebar. Four for the GW brake van which has handed sides. (Edit: that would be five, I think. Different ends too). The artwork on the transfers is complex, always includes at least black and white and each type of wagon is different. So the artwork, at least three separate sheets, is only applicable to one type of wagon. That is not going to be much demand for a lot of work. Certainly not a commercial prospect. An enthusiast with the right skills? Possibly, but that isn’t me.

A long shot, but not impossible, is finding replacement original transfers. After the range of transfer-decorated wooden wagons was discontinued in the late 1930s, the remaining unused stock of transfers was offered in the catalogues at very low prices. So there might be some spare original transfers out there somewhere. Anyone on WT have any?

 

[40057]

Listed in the Bassett-Lowke catalogues amongst the transfer-decorated wooden wagons — described in my posts #55 and #105 — were two tank wagons. These tankers had the same fittings (axleguards, buffers, couplings, wheels) as the transfer-decorated wooden open wagons, covered vans and brake vans, and the construction of the wooden under-frame was identical. But the tanks were metal and the only transfers on these wagons were on the tanks.

One of the two tankers was listed in the catalogues for just a few years in the early 1930s:


(1933 catalogue description)

This is a rare model, so catalogue illustration only I’m afraid. I have only ever seen one and it was in a terrible state.

The other tank wagon was listed for much longer and examples turn up fairly frequently. It was designed for carrying either water or methylated spirit to supply the needs of live steam locomotives. Using the tank wagon, a locomotive could be re-supplied as required, not just at the model MPD. This useful model was produced in a fictitious livery:


(1933 catalogue description, but the same picture and words were used for many years. Photograph of a Gauge 1 wagon).

I do have one of these Lowko Spirit wagons. It’s in better condition than many I have seen but still needs significant work. The thing about these Lowko Spirit tankers is they mostly seem to have been used very much as intended. So, in addition to the general tendency to poor paint adhesion amongst the transfer-decorated wagons, the paint could have been stripped by being soaked in methylated spirit. I have seen several examples where there was pretty much no paint at all left on the under-frame. My Lowko Spirit wagon has very little paint missing from the under-frame (good!). But it does have one of the other issues that results from use with live steam locos; it is coated in steam oil residue (bad!). However, mine still has its filler cap, which is often missing (again, good!). And despite what it says in the catalogue description about the tank being all brass, the tank on mine is tinplate and has areas of rust and flaking paint where the flux was not properly cleaned off after soldering (again, bad!).

My Lowko Spirit tanker is going to require some careful and time-consuming conservation work. I wouldn’t have it anywhere near my railway in its current state. The coating of steam oil leaves you with sticky, oily fingers even from briefly handling the wagon. I will also need to thoroughly remove the oil if I am to do anything about the areas of flaking paint. So some challenges. Addressing the wagon’s problems will be a slow job, but I made a start this afternoon with an initial clean. This is the wagon before any cleaning:





As you can see, no couplings. When the wagon came to me, the original single-link couplings had been replaced with ‘scale’ three-link couplings forced into the horizontal coupling slots. The small amount of damage caused will be easily repairable. I will reinstate the type of couplings originally fitted.

Unsurprisingly, water removed virtually no dirt from the wagon. An hour outside using cotton buds dipped in white spirit produced a visible improvement:



Still an awful long way to go before the wagon will be clean enough for a decision to be taken about what (if anything) to do about the localised corrosion and flaking paint.

 

[David Waite]

Hi Martin
This might seem a daft question but why do you need to put spirit in a model tanker? wouldn’t it be easier to use a designated container and less messy.
As far as rust goes there are rust killing products available and will kill and stop the rust from spreading, I don’t know what is available where you live but here in Australia automotive shops sell two products one stops the rust and puts a coating on the metal that can be painted over when dry there is no need to wash it off the coating left behind turns a dark grey to black the other is a phosphoric acid based product that must be washed off before it dries I have used it (not on models) and it didn’t seem to damage the paint, you would probably need to experiment first.
David.

 

[40057]

Hi David

Thank you. I use a phosphoric-acid based rust treatment when I need to treat rust. As you say, it is generally kind to paint. I bought a bottle of the particular product I use from a business that generally sells motor-vehicle related products (Halford’s) — about thirty years ago. I haven’t used it up yet, but it’s getting close. I will have to purchase a new supply. I don’t suppose the same product is still available. A cheap alternative phosphoric acid treatment for larger rusty items (e.g. tinplate rails) is ‘Sanilav’. You can guess its intended purpose. But it works well as a rust remover.

Why do you need to put meths in a spirit tanker to take it to the locomotive? I think that’s part of playing trains. Using the Lowko Spirit tanker, your model train is conveying an actual, useful, load from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Fuel (or water) for the steam locomotive that has run out. As opposed to all those purely imaginary or fake loads most model goods trains convey. I suppose that makes the Lowko Spirit tanker a Departmental vehicle. It’s a sort of realism, but about replicating the function of railways, not the exact appearance.

 

[40057]

I know ‘look at my new toy’ type of postings are frowned upon. However, in my defence for posting this one, I must point out this is not a new toy, but rather an old one. An unexpected present from my wife received today, and the first road vehicle for use on Rivermead Central:



I know really nothing about road vehicles and certainly nothing at all about 1950s lorries. Does anyone know, is it a recognisable model of a particular type of lorry? It won’t be out of place on Rivermead Central whether it’s a freelance, generalised model of a lorry or a model of a certain make.

In case you’re wondering, yes, that is a key hole behind the mudguard. It’s a Minic model with, as it says on the box, a ‘powerful clockwork motor’. I’ll need to get a key. It’s tinplate, constructed using the ‘tab-and-slot’ method.

On the box, it is simply described as a ‘delivery lorry’.

 

[Heather Kay]

I’d say it’s generic, but with hints of Morris about the radiator grille. What a nice present! Did you get the key with it?

 

[40057]

I’d say it’s generic, but with hints of Morris about the radiator grille. What a nice present! Did you get the key with it?

A Minic key will have to be obtained. Shouldn’t be a difficult thing to find as they were a popular range of models.