Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Les1952

  1. On 31/07/2021 at 20:53, it's-er said:

    Probably more readily done than you might imagine!  Come to think of it, have you or I never done something similar at some point in our lives?  Just a pity when it appears indelibly in print, and there's nowhere to hide!


    John S


    As part of my examination work and ICT teaching I was required to proofread to at least 99.9% accuracy- one character error in 1500 words. But mistakes do creep in...


    A few years ago I had the annual job of preparing the show programme for our local operatic society's shows and then sending it off as a pdf file to the printers.  At one point the prompt informed me that I'd mis-spelled her name in the current programme.  I pointed out to her that she herself had proofread it as had 5 others, then looked back over previous programmes to discover the same mistake had gone unspotted for the previous four years...


    Said prompt had also proofread the earlier programmes.  It is very easy to fail to spot something important.




    • Like 2
    • Agree 3
  2. 1 hour ago, TomE said:

    Interesting to note Les that yours appears to be missing the cover for the gear tower shown in the instructions, but absent on mine also. 




    Nothing left on the workbench when I put the loco back together so I can only assume it doesn't have one.




  3. Loco runs nicely enough straight out of the box on the test track, so as I haven't an analogue oval or rolling road to run it in on I decided to chip it straight away and run it in with chip in place.20210801_094505.jpg.875c00dd8e7799e8eab8edbd805bf759.jpg


    This is a Lokpilot micro 6-pin decoder and fits straight in.  Between 50% and 100% more than a Bachmann chip but I prefer them.  Aside from all else I had one in stock, removed from an OO loco that I'd had sound fitted.


    It can just be seen in the cab if you look hard enough but is less visible than the board it has replaced.  Now running in on the test oval with no issues.  About 30 mins and it is now smooth down to a slow jog....




    • Like 3
  4. 20210731_200249.jpg.23ada90c8a7b4e541f22e0ab9a4d7192.jpg


    Now turned up at the other side of the room on the floor.  A very loose fit (falls out when I invert the loco)  so not a surprising escapee.  I'll glue it in place tomorrow.  I'll set up the test track and run it in tomorrow and look out a shortie chip for it.


    Definitely looks like a 56xx, probably more so than my Bachmann OO one.  How do I justify it on Croft Spa (an East Coast Main Line layout)?   Travelling North light engine on its way to Stephenson & Hawthorn at Darlington for an overhaul...



    • Like 4
  5. 20210727_144015.jpg.0a45c7cf6c79e70c41fdc509561f3c7c.jpg


    All crated up nicely and easily (except there's always one wingnut that doesn't want to thread onto the bolt) and now packed in the car ready to start off at Silly o'Clock for Potters Bar.  There's an awful lot of space in front of the layout in the car- amazing what difference the boards each being a foot shorter makes to the packing arrangement.


    Now to get an early night- long day ahead.




    • Like 1
  6. 11 minutes ago, billy_anorak59 said:

    For what it's worth - I'm about 95% sure that the 'Exhibition Train' shown in the first pair of photographs is en-route to the International Railway Congress Exhibition at Willesden, held May 26th-28th 1954.

    (The position of the Standard Class 5 in the cavalcade fits too, along with the pristine van - I reckon that's 73050 (later to become 'City of Peterborough' - see http://73050.co.uk/page15.html) 

    The upshot of all this rambling is that I'm now pretty sure that this gives us a known condition of the locomotive (on both sides), and at a known date - and hence an accurate basis for any model of 10100.


    ...Personal opinion of course! :yes:



    But with this information having surfaced AFTER tooling is done, how many of us would be prepared to swallow a price rise to cover retooling costs, given that there won't be a massive number of models to share those costs between?


    Just a thought


    • Like 1
  7. On 25/07/2021 at 11:39, landscapes said:



    Looking at prototype photos of the Clan Class Locomotives I decided my model after weathering still looked a bit to clean so additional weathering was added to bring it in line with the prototype photos.


    Photo enclosed again taken on the photo plank with a Bachmann D11/2 class which I also weathered in the background.







    VERY nice, though still a little cleaner than I remember them.....



    • Agree 1
  8. The lighting rig has reached the Beta version.




    Looking out from the operator side.   Seven feet of wooden square section goes in the car with the front still behind the access to the driver's seat, so that is the fixed length I had to play with.  mark 1 has two uprights, one at each end of the layout with a length of angle attached to each.  The angle has an M6 bolt through arranged so these are 3 inches in from the wooden bar, which has 6.5mm holes drilled through to slot over the bolts at each end.


    The lights are commercial 12 volt LED strips, four in all, attached to the bar.  The power feed plugs into one end and will be removed for transport to avoid some of the mashed plug issues I have had with other layouts.




    Looking from the layout front.  The lights are on the back of the wooden bar and shine upwards as much as downwards.  With the shed lights off the front two inches of the layout are still in the dark.  Re-think time.


    Mark II involved turning the angle iron at each end through a right angle so that the M6 bolts (extreme top left in the picture above) stick out to the rear of the angle rather than upwards.  This then turns the LED strip to be underneath the bar.  The bar is secured to the angles with M6 wing nuts.  There is still a lttle sag but it works.




    Mark II version shown above.  As I've now run out of spare modelling days before the layout's first show the lights will go in this state- as Mark II Beta version. The layout is otherwise complete but with a few extra areas to bring to life.  


    Anyone in the London area this Saturday (July 31st) please come along to Wylott's Theatre Potters bar between 10.30am and 4.30pm.  The show is entirely N gauge and Overseas prototypes but is cheap to get into.


    After the weekend I'll strengthen the joints between the uprights and the angles to stop them sagging and find an appropriate fascia to hide the bare wood of the bar.


    I look forwards to seeing a few there.



    • Like 2
  9. On 24/05/2021 at 22:15, Rich Papper said:

    Hi Les,

    Chanced upon this excellent thread while looking for something completely different and read the whole thing. Not at all my scale, era or country but love it - particularly the way you've blended the track in with the loose ballast and used the trees to dictate lines of sight to give greater depth.

    Looking forward to more, would love to see it if we ever get back to exhibitions.



    I don't know if you can make Potters Bar (Wylnott Theatre opposite the station) this Saturday 31st July or Cotgrave Welfare Nottinghamshire on 4th or 5th September but the layout will be in action on both these days.


    Very many thanks for the kind comments, particularly about trying to hide the fact that it uses Fleischmann Setrack.


    All the very best



  10. 14 hours ago, grahame said:


    It would seem rather unfortunate and possibly churlish if we were to end up with a compromised model just so it could be used on a few German layouts with 8.5" curves (and which would be unlikely to run a 1/148 scale British model anyway) especially when it has not been necessary for previous similar models (such as the Farish and Dapol class 66 and the CJM class 59).


    There are already a good many current models with the recommendation that they should not be used on curves less that 10" or whatever. And even in the real world there is stock that is labelled with advice not to transverse curves of less than X chains. But yes, of course, manufacturers can't win in trying to satisfy everyone and every possibility.









    It won't be on mine- I don't do current UK outline and don't intend to start in the future. 


    However I'm not the only one by a very large margin who has to build in tight curves.  With houses being made smaller and smaller (Still!) the space for a model railway is getting smaller and smaller.  The majority of potential young entrants to the hobby want trains to run a distance- and that means round and round.  How do I know?- talking to them by the hundred at shows and elsewhere.  Tight curves may be a curse but if the hobby is to survive into another generation then it is a curse we will have to live with.


    Incidentally my push-pull sets don't make some of the compromises of UK outline N-gauge.  The scale-length coaches couple gangway to gangway on the straight and the engineering to make this happen is out of sight.  The sharp curves are offstage- and are tighter than I would like to keep the onstage curves as large as possible.  My UK outline layouts don't go below Radius 2 apart from the colliery line on Hawthorn Dene which never had anything larger than an 0-6-0 tank with hoppers running, and where the Radius 1 curves were hidden.  R2 corners are all hidden.


    To return to the Class 59.  The CAD isn't the final version - stated on one of the pics shown elsewhere - and the cutouts (and grilles) may be legacy items since corrected.



  11. 54 minutes ago, TomE said:

    Interestingly the CAD shown for the RoS has the correct layout for the bogies: 



    Still has the unnecessary underframe cutouts, truncated beading and extra body side ribs though. 




    I suspect  given that not everyone lays track to the same standard those frame cutouts are highly necessary if the model is to stay on the rails on some of its possible purchasers' layouts. (including my new German one with 8.5 inch curves on a 1 in 25 bank).


    Of course you could do away with them, reduce the number of sales and spread the development cost between a smaller number of models- but then there would be complaints about the high cost of the model.


    Manufacturers can't win.



    • Like 3
  12. On 18/07/2021 at 13:54, Bomag said:


    If they ever do reach that level we will have to see. Most of the problems seem to be shoddy liveries and numbering on another wise good model. This does not apply to the 142 where the model is iffy but with a nice paint job.


    I rest my case...


    • Agree 2
  13. On 16/07/2021 at 23:08, No Decorum said:

    I’d agree with most of that. You are in exalted company as Sir Nigel Gresley described the Hush Hush as a 4-6-4. 


    Given that the loco's designer described it as a 4-6-4 that should be enough for anybody.  



    • Like 4
    • Agree 3
  14. 3 hours ago, Barry O said:

    If Kr paid for others to research their locos fine.. but why should anyone try to help them..and they take no notice.




    With the amount of negativity expressed on this forum at the products of the majority of manufacturers (count them....) I'd be rather surprised if any still take any notice of criticisms posted on RMWeb......




    • Like 3
    • Agree 13
    • Friendly/supportive 1
  15. 15 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

    I wonder if it will have the correct rectangular buffers. And if not, how many people will be ready to moan and rubbish the model.


    Its Dapol.  There will be a queue of people on RMWeb lining up to rubbish it even if everything is perfection....



    • Agree 2
  16. 22 hours ago, Barry O said:

    We have an accurate Green liveried one on our Club layout ( a model of Chapel-en-le-Frith (Central)) and also an accurate Black liveried one.. both from very well researched Judith Edge kits. Neither have tension loocks or kadees fitted.. just likecthecreal thing.....


    And if they are 16.5mm gauge and 4mm scale they still have bigger errors than any others a manufacturer will make......  I'm sure the prototype wasn't 4 foot 3 ins gauge.


    Just a thought.


    • Funny 4
  17. 7 hours ago, Barry O said:

    It will sell to people who just want one..no matter how many things are incorrect about it. So the loco could have has more research on it and a bit more on the model itself .. and more people who wanted a Fell would have bought it as well.


    Eonder what would happen if another manufacturer put up a competitor?


    If that manufacturer reads RMWeb I would think there is little or no chance of that happening.....



    • Funny 5
  18. 16 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:


    Yes, but the point I was making is that I can well imagine that the Class 37 is likely to sell by several 100 x more than the Fell, with those costs being distributed across a very much higher number of model sales.

    Whatever the fascination is with the Fell, it is a niche model, the class 37 is a mainstream loco with a, so far, 61 year operating life.



    The Fell will sell to people like me- who wouldn't even look at buying a Class 37.  There may be more of us idiots around than you think- enough to make it viable.  


    A mainstream manufacturer wouldn't look at most of the things KR Models are covering.  Hush-Hush is an icon that may well have surprised Hornby by its success- but would it push them into doing a P1 for instsnce- and LNER steam is more thieir "thing"...  


    Any Class 37 has to compete with all of the (other) mainstream manufacturers wanting a slice.  The Fell doesn't



    • Like 4
    • Agree 1
  • Create New...