Tiptonian

Reference generic chassis, I am with gr.king. Surely a well-designed standard cast chassis with a variety of bottoms and wheels is sensible from a development cost point of view. However, why stop at four designs? Why stop at 0-6-0s? Why stop at LNER (though I appreciate it is gr.king's area of expertise)? Anyone for a Fowler 3P 2-6-2T?!

With thanks to member Phil Sutters, as of 6/8/17, G.W. Models is as follows:- Address:- 11 Croshaw Close, Lancing, West Sussex, BN15 9LE. Telephone:- 01903 767231.

Not quite! The wheelbase is common (4' 101/4" + 4' 101/4") and so is the wheel diameter (3' 3"). Also, in the picture in post #1, B3 Woolmar appears to be sporting B4 style wheels. Did other B3s have these wheels? If the chassis of a model did not cover the full length of the loco, the centre section could be common, but the B4 has longer overhangs, and the cylinders are further forward, also necessitating longer connecting rods. It would be a case of either a complex "mix and match" of a chassis and different bits added to it to make the chosen model, or two completely separate sets of tooling. For a high quality model, the latter would probably be simpler. For a less-detailed less accurate "Railroad" model, the mix and match could work better.

Yes, of course they do deserve crediting for their work. I have been a photographer on various subjects (but not railways) since the mid 60s, and am therefore fully aware of the efforts involved, but have not been bitter when, over the years, a few of mine have appeared unexpectedly. I admire your knowledge of the subject concerned. However, I think the poster of the photos made it quite clear in post #88 that he would have given full credit and more details if he was able to do so.

Norton 961, hoping you get to read this. My previous comment was made purely within the narrow context of the quote above it. It was not intended to criticise you for posting pictures of locos other than W4s. On the contrary, sourcing such good quality colour photos of any industrial locos was no mean feat. What you provided was interesting and valuable. Please, keep posting. If my comments caused distress or offence, I sincerely apologize.

People who are interested in industrial railways do care if it is an R2 or W4. One would not say to a GWR fan that it's just a GWR 4-6-0 and they don't really care if it's a Grange or a Star. Think of the forum pages of criticism if Hornby released their W4 in the livery of an R2 loco with different details.

I should not be replying to this thread as I have no expert knowledge, but I would suggest looking into Resitex products, and in particular, the Resifine paint. This is the "go-to" paint for the exterior of residential mobile homes. http://www.resitexcoatings.co.uk/products.html

According to the article "The Dowlais Giants" by Haydn Watkins in Railway Bylines Annual No.2, Pant was the fourth D-class (0-4-0T) built in 1914. It was re-built as an 0-6-0T in 1927.

That is an excellent idea. Of all the model railway videos on youtube, there are very few on basic detailing and improving, or re-modelling in the manor of Corbs, Sandhole, Relaxinghobby and all the other highly imaginative "bashers" on here.

Hunslet 15" has 3' 7" 10 spoke wheels on 5' 0" + 4' 6" wheelbase. There is an article and a basic drawing in Model Railway Constructor September 1986. Hope this helps. -Al.

So would a "Modern Image" layout in EM gauge with Code 100 rail on 34mm concrete sleepers be more accurate and look better? Certainly, if you look down from an over-bridge onto a modern main line, the rail looks very deep and "code 100-like". At this point, I had better casually don a tin hat and saunter in the direction of a protective wall.

Nice! After Corbs's suggestions, a slight increase in cab height and decrease in funnel height would also help. Be careful with boiler bands; they often turn out too thick. It might be best to let the modeller apply them. As far as the chassis limitations will allow, follow what Gibbo675 says. He has probably forgotten more about locomotives than most of us will ever know! Thought you might like to see this. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-nbr-lner-y10-0-4-0-no1011-tender-steam-locomotive-113243654.html .........but yours is more cute!. Corbs. I hereby award the prize for word of the week to you for the word "embiggend"! Bernard TPM. Have you checked out the link posted by Steamport Southport? There are also 0-6-0T versions of the GKN locos Tom, I wish you the very best of luck with an interesting project.

Just measured some of my Dapol wheels, the 3-hole type bought in packs of 20. They varied from 25.82 to 25.98 mm. Hope that helps.

Looks like an Avonside B4 to me. (I know, I'm ages too late as usual!). Now, if Hornby made one of those my wallet would be in serious trouble.........make the motor and gears small enough, and the Avonside B3 (very cute) could go on the same chassis.

I think all this froth is very silly. Then again, they do say 'if you can't beat them, join them'. How about RTR battery powered 2.4GHz radio control? INCOMING!

I apologize in advance if I am saying something silly or have missed the obvious, but have you tried removing the loco body and clamping or propping it up vertically, i.e. standing on its cab with the smokebox pointing up. Whatever method used (self-locking tweezers or blue tack on cocktail stick) would then be gravity assisted. Also, if you take the body off, you could check if the smokebox front is removable from the rest of the body. If that came out, the whole job would be much easier.

Austin 1100. Best small car suspension ever. Even better than Citroen GS in my opinion. No car ever brought a bigger smile to my face than floating along in one of these. If I could have one today, I might even enjoy driving again. Thank you for posting these gems, and I don't just mean the car!

Very limited experience with Scalelink a number of years ago. 2 out of 12 needed the square hole cleaning out due to almost invisible (to my eyes) flash. After that, all 12 were perfect. I also would be interested to hear the experience of other people with these wheels.

With of the cost of moulds, it will never happen because it is not viable, just like RTR industrial tank engines, retailer driven commissions and Peco 00 scale-sleepered track........

Rather late I know, (I usually am), but by way of encouragement, have you seen your "views" figure? At 4,754 in less than one month, I would say that there are many others enjoying the thread, me included. Keep up the "bashing"! Best wishes, Al. Edit to suggest a name. Looking at the size of it, how about Hercules, or Atlas?

The alteration has made a big difference. Excellent work, Corbs. That is a fine looking WR locomotive.

Corbs. I really rate and appreciate your work, but the WR 2-8-2 tender looks too big, as if it has been drawn to a larger scale than the loco. If you look at a drawing of the 47xx, you will see what I mean. This is meant constructively, as I could never match your talent with the keyboard or the razor saw! Best wishes, Al.

Eh? I hope not. I only "know old stuff", but most diesel locos up to class 50 and including HST were about 12' 10", and a lot of steam locomotives were over 13'. Only 0-4-0Ts and 0-6-0Ts were down to 12'6" or less. Are our railways shrinking?

The only thing I could find probably falls into the 'lower quality diagrams' catagory. It is in the book "Britain's World of Steam" by Paul Catchpole (a Locomotives International publication) page 59, under the type Ferrum 47.

At the risk of missing the obvious, what is wrong with 2+2 seating in the 8'8" wide lower deck? Buses and coaches are only 8'4 1/2" (2.55m). The only reason I can see for resistance to this type of unit is the complexity (and hence, cost) of the structure involved, there being very little room for an underframe. The main strength for the double deck section would have to be the mid-deck sides. Interesting, expensive, but certainly not insurmountable.