Pebbles

Not altogether sure about the J21, best to wait as Arthur's daughter has promised to publish a list. It must be appreciated that her time is limited, just hang in there!

Mike, as you have indicated, yours was a very much pre-production etch, and who knows where the master is. There remained a significant number of issues to be resolved. The slide bars had been sorted, but quite apart from a representation of the internal valve gear, a master for the cast middle cylinder and various other masters had yet to be addressed. Arthur had evolved a fold up etch incorporating the valve cover together with the smokebox saddle, this had always been a problem. Any production etch would have incorporated this together with alternative boilers. Arthur also wanted to address the tender and changes to the etch were required, as well as various masters produced. Time had run out, and the F8 will most likely remain the last of the line. The Q7, as with the C6, will, again, most likely remain unfinished projects. We should be grateful for what Arthur has produced.

I can assure you that the Chivers D20 did exist and that Arthur, as was the case with the Q6, had a hand in it. They both had a 1940gal tender. The D20 was very innovative, in that like the McGowen D9, etched overly were added to a core cast body structure.

Self adhesive heat resistant aluminium foil tape. Looks like you can also get copper tape that may take solder.

Some time mid or late 80's I was in Bournemouth on a course. One evening I found the small workshop where they made ?assembled the Airfix or whatever motors. as an aside, Airfix at some time had a range of slot cars that used the 1002 version. Anyway, there was one individual on site who was spraying the armatures with insulation. I managed to purchase a number of armatures and also some pole pieces which I switched for the Triang/Hornby version. I believe that many years ago the late Iain Rice pointed out the the 1001 armature in a Hornby frame gave a smoother motor, with less power, than a pure 1001. Turning to the Romford axels, I once encountered a Romford axle that had been made with two pieces. Was this a KX bodge?

John had set himself a quite massive undertaking, not just the drawing, but the research. Maybe he his aim was to cover all types in the RCTS green books. From what I remember he wanted to complete the GN 0-6-0s, both tender and tank and then maybe the GE tanks. It is eye watering to think of the cost buying a full set of his drawings.

Is this not an Ace Models kit?

You will find reference to this drawing on Mikemeg's Workbench 28th February 2021. You may remember, as you commented on it at the time. Should you obtain a copy I'm sure we will all be grateful for any feed back.

Mikemegs posting of 21 February 2021 points to fact that the drawing for the NER version predated that for the GCR version. Bearing in mind that both types of tender had roughly the same wheelbases, they could both have the same weight distribution. The only caveat would be that the larger diameter wheels of the GCR type would mean some modification to the lower part of the tank. As the LNER group standard tenders were essentially developments of the NER self trimming 4125 gal tender, I would have thought that this would have been carried through to the re-tanking. In the interests of standardisation I doubt if any real consideration would have been given to significant deviation. Turning to modelling, the only usable parts of Arthur's etchings would be the running plate, frames. and chassis. This would rather ruin a usable tender kit. The running plate and frames could be scratch built using Arthur's etches as patterns; the tanks would in any case have to be scratch built. It is possible that Arthur could provide a set of tender casting. The chassis, (this would need to be adapted ), and many other parts could be sourced from 52F.

I should clarify my previous posting. My observations of differences only apply in the context of the Isinglass drawing of the re-tanked Ex GCR tenders. My supposition being that the replacement tanks for the NER 3940 gal tenders were very similar, but their fronts altered to suit the cabin widths of the engines they were to be coupled to. Drawing 404 clearly indicates a 8ft 6inch width for the replacement tanks, i.e. a NER 4126 gal tender width. The small indents at the front locating the hand rails were presumably to match the 8ft width of the 3940 gal non-self trimming tender. My conclusion is that, other than any reclaimed material, the replacement tanks were new, being loosely based on the NER 4125 gal self trimming tender in both tank width and height. They may of course have differ in their internal details. I can't see what of Arthurs 3940 gal tender etch you can effectively utilise.

Isinglass Drawing 404 has the ex GCR iteration of the re-tanking. There are possibly differences due to the difference in tender wheel diameter those of the GCR intruding into the tank. However, as far as can be established for modelling purposes. only the front of the tenders would be different to suit the various locos.

Mikemeg was exploring building this type of re-tanked tender some years ago it might be worth contacting him.

Many years ago, and predating anything that is currently available, a layout at Warley operated a 4mm B7. Now where did that come from?

This was included in their D11 kit and I believe compiled by Rod Neep.

From what I remember the distance between the first and second driving wheels on the Finescale King Arthur were fractionally more than 28mm and I would suspect that the GWR engines possibly followed suit.