Jump to content

45609

Members
  • Posts

    406
  • Joined

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,148 profile views

45609's Achievements

736

Reputation

  1. I’ve just bought some and they are very nice but I’ll buy some more if offered with integral bracket. So, yes, with an integral bracket please for 4mm Cheers…Morgan
  2. These look great. I’ve been admiring them and watching progress over the last couple of weeks. Please could you give a bit more detail on the external weathering you’ve applied? It is very convincing. TIA….Morgan
  3. A very reasonable point Tony. As popular as this thread is there are only 313 people following it.
  4. What equipment are you making these on? Look very precise for something so small. Cheers...Morgan
  5. Agree re the old 14T cradle mount tank wagon. Without mentioning the underframe the Bachmann anchor mounts also have problems with tank diameter and length. So, it is about the definition of "better". It is neither fish nor fowl on diameter for Class A and Class B wagons and only accurate on length for a 14T wagon. It is closest to a 14T class B when all things considered but it's not perfect. Many liveries that it has been released in are therefore inaccurate but of course it is about your own personal sensitivities to what compromises you can accept. Yes, 2794 would have been the best choice for the Oxford Class A SHELL/BP livery but then you'd still need to change the axle box fronts. As I said. Model what you see not what you think is there. Applies to manufacturers as much as it does to the individual Morgan
  6. Agreed, but the more fundamental inaccuracy is the tank diameter and the tank diameter determines where the wires go and the brace rods terminate (i.e. in front or behind the solebar). The real photograph of SM1061 is a 14T class A tank with a barrel diameter in the region of 6'7" (26.3mm). The Oxford model has a barrel diameter of 22.6mm (5'8") and so is actually a 10/12T tank wagon. Oxford Rail describe it as a 12T wagon and that is right. Apart from a couple of other minor mistakes, mentioned earlier in the thread and can be dealt with without too much trouble, it is a good basis for a 10/12T wagon. Golden rule with tank wagons. Find a photo of the one you want and model that. Do not deviate and/or make it up. It is just a pity that such a nice livery of a real tank wagon has been applied to the wrong model. I've bought a couple and, for me, the livery, as nice as it is, will have to go. I'm just a bit perplexed why Oxford picked a 10/12T wagon when the 14T was far more numerous. Morgan
  7. Edit: instructions now supplied. Is anyone able to help with a copy of the instructions from the D&S kit for a NER V4 10T brake van please? The D&S kit reference is DS178. Please send me a PM if you can help. Thanks...Morgan
  8. Looking sweet Tony. Might have taken a long time but it has been time well spent. cheers...Morgan
  9. Probably not worth the silly money that they go for. How many were originally produced? I know of a few of them that were built. Made one myself a few years ago too. Not for me I might add. Very long locos too. cheers...Morgan
  10. Quite similar to rods on Great Central locomotives. Extract from ROD 8K (O4) coupling rod drawing below... I wonder how often the bottom plugs were taken off to drain oil and inspect for the level of metallic contamination in the oil? Changing the subject. Dave? Are the Stanier 2-6-2T castings now available for general purchase please? cheers...Morgan
  11. Hi David, Thanks! It was reported way, way back on page 97 (Tony's summary of our visit and my summary of the build standard). Links below. At the time of our visit the model wasn't quite finished. But I posted a photo a week or so later (Page 100). Just before I bid it farewell. 60012 was built as a companion for these two A3s. Both essentially DJH kits out of the box. Cheers...Morgan
  12. To a Mechanical Engineer it would be known as "hogging" - high in the middle and "sagging" - low in the middle
  13. Really nice work Tony. Looks the business. I must start building mine. The news of the B7 coming soon from Graham is turning my thoughts back to how elegant the big GC 4-6-0s are. Cheers...Morgan
  14. Without doubt this is true for older airframes built in the pre-CAD / CAM days. Things are much more accurate and repeatable now. My anecdote stems from a visit to BAE Dunsfold in 1999. I had to trial fit an electronics bay gasket that my company had made to fit the Sea Harrier FA2. There were two types of airframe. The new build FA2. All the gaskets fitted the panel shape and hole positions within a millimetre. All the airframes that were being upgraded from Sea Harrier FR1 to FA2 were awful. Every one was different and I don’t recall getting a gasket to fit on half a dozen airframes that we looked at. Airframe construction was certainly the coach builders art up until the late 1980s and arguably still is but probably only for the home builder of light aircraft. cheers...Morgan
  15. Tony, you are so right. That’s one of the best looking GCR faces in model form I have ever seen. Well done. Just the top handrail and lamp iron to do now.... cheers...Morgan
×
×
  • Create New...