Jump to content

Jub45565

Members
  • Content Count

    810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

480 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bristol
  • Interests
    P4 West Yorkshire (Ilkley shed, hopefully Embsay one day circa 1958)
    0-14 North Wales (FR/WHR/PQR) & West Yorkshire (freelance)
    1'11.5" North Wales

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Plus the ejector. They will do a LH one for the Compound, but from memory those are subtly different to the 4F. Otherwise they have done right hand drive ones (4F,3F,1F,1P), or later/different styles. Unless the Crab suits? I don't think it does but not in a position to check just now.
  2. Jim Smith-Wright has built the LMS D1804 Gannet kits: http://www.p4newstreet.com/look-mum-no-glue.html I thought he had also done the D1800 Trout kit too, but can't find it now and I am most likely mis-remembering the work he did to the Hornby version. These are probably two cases in point - the Trout is unlikely to have a large market now due to the RTR version (however well or otherwise it builds), but the D1804 is otherwise a gap and would sell some.
  3. Cannot answer that one save to say the appearance of the extinguisher pod seemed coincident with the removal of all but the bottom end steps. The pod could appear left or right of the gangaway connector. So I would say between 1960 and 1965. Dredging this back up from over 8 years ago, but just to add that it looks to have been before 1960. There is a photo on colour rail (ref BRM307) of Fairburn 41238 running round at Oxenhope, dated October 1956. The end of the D1999 TO has the extinguisher fitted at this point - but it won't long have been through the works for conversion to push pull fitting.
  4. Could you not use the MJT to reform the plastic one? Either with the old boiling water trick, or 50C in the oven (presuming it is plasticard)? Looking like a good build though!
  5. RT models do a J94 chassis, High Level & Comet/Wizard both do a 14xx. I accept that neither is specifically aimed at the DJ body, but can be altered to fit reasonably easily. The question is, are the enough 'modellers' who would go down this route to actually make it viable? I agree the costs are different when paying for a run of something for which tooling exists, but even so a lot of people (examples up thread of those who prefer the Hornby J94 as it actually runs well every time, rather than the DJ model which is far more accurate in body shape & detailing terms). I'm not aiming to be derogatory to those who would use RTR and have no intention of building chassis' - this is a broad church and we should all do what we actually enjoy in our spare time! But the sales for RTR and sales for kits are in completely different leagues.
  6. My point was the the reversal at Leeds necessitated a swap. A through route therefore doesn't need that. The said, I have no knowledge of the West Coast main line - did they swap at Crewe by default? York wasn't set up for loco swaps on the East coast. Why not run through?
  7. The only Mk1 catering vehicle I've seen photos of in the Thames-Clyde and Waverley (also the only one referenced in the carriage workings I've seen) are the D25 RKBs, which were built in 1961 and seem to have been put on these services straight away when new. I agree that the LMS versions do add a bit of variety though. However, oddly, there are quite a few photos of the Mk1 D25 but with an LMS open next to it (odd in that they had only just got the rakes to fully Mk1s, with no dropped buckeyes or gangway adapters in use, only to bring one back in). One other thing - how are you considering the London - Scotland services to have been run? In reality, they reversed at Leeds which also gave a replacement loco. They were generally in the hands of Scots and Jubilees until the A3s and Class 45 Peaks arrived at Holbeck. Would a loco swap still be envisaged? Or a larger loco if not? Duchesses were trialed on the Settle & Carlisle in the mid 50s, and used a few times on railtours in the mid 60s - but I don't think these were allowed on the southern section of the Midland mainline due to weight restrictions?
  8. Thanks - not quite, from what I can see that has beaded tanks - 42770 had snaphead rivets and was unbeaded. The same basic style of Fowler body on a Deeley underframe though. I do have all the bits for this project, just awaiting the round tuit!
  9. I think roof joints are in the same category as brick courses ad several other things - with the '3 foot rule' there are a lot of things which have no discernible texture or relief, but because we are looking from 3 foot rather than 200ft+ our brains expect to see it. Alongside this, the way dirt forms in or around these features is easy to replicate if there is a change in surface, but pretty difficult if not. Looking good though Ian, thanks for sharing! and for sharing the journey, it may be that different people choose different routes - but you showing us what you're producing takes out a lot of repeated experiments.
  10. Nobody is good at everything, and the products are excellent. This isn't to say anyone should or has the right to be rude, and sometimes things are difficult to translate in emails... I get my Markits stuff via 247 Developments, other outlets available. Not all stockists stock everything (247 don't stock all the wheels - you can do the maths on the size of the range as to why this is seen as impractical) - but most will add extra bits to their next order with them if requested.
  11. Not a detailed view, but a good plan image of the goods shed from the 'Ilkley memories' facebook group.
  12. Excellent, thanks. I have seen that one before, but as you say definitely better that way than assuming I/we had and not doing! It may well be new to other readers too. It looks like the same one in the collection available from the scalefour stores. Undated - but can be narrowed down. The telegraph poles poles got replaced with different arms sometime after 1956, but by 1956 the tall roof vents had already gone. It is definitely post war to have the blackout 'white paint' to aid low light visibility, it has the BR gas lamp head, and the double arm signal was installed in 1948 (taller than the one it replaced). The original higher section of roof was still raised in 1939 but lower by 1948. I thought I had a photo or two dated 1953 but they aren't immediately to hand. *all this is going by dates of other photos, but does seem to stack up.
  13. 58066 certainly got some use in the middle of 1958 - there are several photos of it, and references to it, when Manningham borrowed it from Royston. Presumably they had a shortage of push pull fitted locos at the time, and it was used on the Worth Valley but also to Ilkley during this spell. I'm quite happy if they don't do this one though. I'm currently in the process of trying to at least match the quality of the Bachmann ejector (as used on their 1F, and applicable to some but not all 1Ps)!
  14. Aside from the potential spanners into the timescales, one thing that this lacks is the end of only 'essential' travel. Ignoring the punters packed on heritage railways & public facing volunteers for a moment, for those volunteering there are generally quite a few low risk options (until everyone gathers in the pub!) - but only if you can travel to get there. Football matches assume both sets of fans can go, but doesn't state it, so could be home/local supporters, who could be spread out, etc.
  15. It is surely a move from the financial perspective - they want to stop paying furlough, increase tax revenue by getting people back to work, and get people working more efficiently/effectively by not having the distraction of home schooling. I don't think the first phase or two will have anything to do with allowing us to have 'none essential travel', nor mass gatherings. As had been said up thread, even if our government follow the trump gung ho approach that doesn't mean much of the public would follow suit. I expect to be keeping my head down & making modelling hay for a while yet.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.