Clem

Before anyone says it, I know. 'Keep up!', you'll tell me. I didn't realise most of the points I made had already been answered! It's just that this thread runs at a pace that is too quick for my legs. One other thing I should add to my original post: My layout, set on a very busy but secondary route, in general has smaller locomotives than many of the main line express layouts. This is where High Level come into their own.... for the locomotives where space is limited or where there is space under the boiler.

Not throwing brickbats but a set of instructions - always sent from Chris Gibbon at High-level which consists of a general tips page (applying to all versions of gearbox) plus one specifically for the model of gearbox bought, really covers most of your problems. First I carefully open out the frame holes for the axle bearings whilst still in the fret using a broach, checking as I go along to ensure that as soon as the holes are big enough to allow the bearings in for a push fit, no more metal is removed. Secondly of all I don't force the worm on to the motor. I ream it out to 2mm which gives it a close but adjustable fit and fix in place with lock tight when at the specified place (lock tight applied from the outer end of the shaft to avoid any danger of getting the stuff in the motor). This avoids the use of a vice to force it on. If anyone wonders about the reliability of the worm on the shaft, I've done a good few without any failing. Thirdly, when the frame is folded, to ensure it's square use a small engineers square and clip in the etched spacer for the bottom part of the frame. Once satisfied, solder a cross wire as instructed to keep it rigid whilst soldering the fold lines. Hey presto, a square, robust framework ready to add the rest of the gubbings. Fourthly, the idler shafts are cut to the length (the width of the gearbox from plus a little) from the 2mm bar supplied using a carborundum (spelling?) disc before adding and fixing in with epoxy. (My personal theory is that Tony doesn't like them for this reason ). The reason why epoxy is used is obviously the gears are nylon. Graham, I'm not wishing to criticise, but you have made the job more difficult than it needed to be. Referring to the instructions would have made the job so much easier. The only bit not included in the instructions is the worm fit, which is my own method as I've found his more recent worms far too tight to fit on without the kind of risky drastic action you described. The only other problems I've encountered with them are the motor fixing points on some models (high flier for example). In order to orientate the motor to give the narrowest body fit, I normally have to file the screw holes in the frame work (the ones at the sides to allow for motor replacement) towards the centre by about 0.5mm each. I do this before I take it out of the fret, checking the motor against it. Once you've done a couple and got used to it, they really are a doddle and at less than half the price of the less flexible DJH models, they are surely worth a the extra bit of effort required? And if you build it with reasonable care, you get a sweet runner every time.

10,000!!! Building at one per day that would take getting on towards thirty years. I think he might have some trouble with numbers..... or a very active imagination.

I think they started fitting the new arrangement about 1955. My recent K3 conversion (61833) has the later - and incorrect - version. I fitted about 1980 before I knew all the subtle differences you could find within classes. 61379 Mayflower was common as muck around Nottingham even though she was an Immingham engine but for some reason or another I always missed seeing her. I never did. I've heard she was a bit of a duff one.

Fair point, Tony.

I understand your preference Tony, but I've found that if you build a High-Level gear box taking care to follow the tips and instructions that come with it and ensuring it is square etc. it invariably results in very sweet running. They don't take long to knock up and the advantage of being able to be hidden more easily than the DJH boxes. The folk I've spoken to that use them - me included - swear by them (not at them!). As I said, I do understand your preference but it's only fair to have the case made for the other side of the story heard.

Hi Arthur, If you need to find a home for those two LNE ironstone hoppers, I can give them a home... and I can promise you they would get built (that is, if you're sure don't want them). Clem

As I mentioned earlier, so did I. To be honest, I was only there for a week and don't remember too much about it, except that that it was about leadership in management and I actually really enjoyed it. It was part of a 6-week post grad management training course. The following week I was in Gornal (Dudley) with the pole erection unit. (great name for it!). What I remember of that was a bunch of local kids watching us replace a telegraph pole chattering away and asking us questions but I couldn't understand a word they said. The very heart of the black country accent and it might as well have been a foreign language for all I could tell.

Snap! (not quite the same). I did my management training there for BT.

That looks lovely Tony. I remember 64219 very well. It was the last J6 at Colwick and didn't arrive until March 1960. For a short while 64257 was still around but that went in the Summer of 1960 whilst 64219 lasted until November the following year if I remember correctly. You certainly captured the look and feel of a J6 perfectly and I love the detail. If I was thirty years younger, 7mm wouldn't half tempt me!

Kits for these very iconic LMS hopper wagons would be delightful. They came in two main varieties, the 8'6" high and the 7'9" high. I've scratch built a couple of the 8'6" type but I found it quite a long process and I could do with about 10 more. A good kit would be so welcome. So if your nagging is effective, by all means please nag nag nag. I think Cambrian might be a good place to start as they've fairly recently brought out an ex-GW ballast hopper.

Ha ha! Yes, I was never in any doubt, Tony!

I've never commented on a model in the way I'm tempted to at the moment....... I'll just say that it's even worse than my WSM J6 which is still in OO and rarely sees light of day. I can't help but adding that the proportions of cab and tender are just so yuck and the cab roof looks like a bomb shelter roof!

Ah, it's so good that you are back into the clubroom. Are you making progress on the J2 at the moment? This Indian variant is a bit of cause for concern, isn't it. It's a conundrum as at some stage I fear we'll all just have to go with the idea that the virus is here for good and return to a half-way house to normality whilst being on the alert for new variants. I understand there's also another new one, the Egyptian variant. The only thing we can do is get on with it at the moment and hope for the best.

Good evening Frank. Thanks for the kind comments. To be honest, I feel like a bit of a fraud. I really can't take credit for Chris Gibbon's High Level gearboxes and the smooth running of Mr. Mashima's motors, not to mention Stewart Hine's Pentrollers. But I suppose you work with what you learn to trust and a few years ago I set my stall out on that combination. Are the club rooms open at Shipey MRS yet? If so how are the Clayton and Leicester SG gangs?

As promised, here is K3 61833 on her first public run on a down Burton goods whilst J39/1 crosses on an up Burton.

Well I've finally got this (below) little monkey off my back. I started the new chassis for it in September and being an old Wills kit, the body also needed a fair bit of surgery. By the end of October I had produced a smooth running, no cylinders sprung 0-6-0 chassis and then..... it all went a bit haywire. I should say I went a bit haywire. With the cylinders tacked in place, no matter how I looked at it I couldn't see how I would get the clearances for EM and in normal circumstances, I simply persevere to find solutions to these type of problems. But suddenly I found my motivation - and my confidence - had disappeared and in fact I completely lost interest in modelling. I seriously thought that it would never get finished. This situation lasted several months but in February and March, I started picking up and got back into the groove by doing some scenery and a couple of sprung O4 chassis, one for a Ks kit (63729) and one for a rejigged Bachmann (63829). Finally, after that I thought 'OK, I'm ready to tackle this.' Quite a bit of head scratching and fettling of parts later et voilà! I have to say it's been uphill pretty well all the way. After I got it running, I spent a week trying to figure out why I was getting a short circuit on one part of the layout. It turned out to be 2 culprits, the front pony and the brake hanger base on the middle driving axle. I am quite pleased with it as it was the first outside cylinder and valve gear engine I built in OO about 40 years ago and although it has a number of inaccuracies (mainly the cab but also the tender), it's a loco that I'm very fond of. The prototype was a Colwick engine from 1950 until it was withdrawn in 1961 but it did get around. I have a photo of it (somewhere) in the mid 1950s on a Cambridge Buffet express to Kings Cross. I'll post a video of the model in action later....

Hi Tony, Bingham is just down the road from us (about 7 miles). Let me know when it is, and I'll make sure I go and come over for a chat.

Yes, you're correct Andrew, I have modelled 63851. And it's the next one due for the treatment! It's been converted to EM just by pulling the wheels out and it runs OK with a load but it clunks through point work in a most unprototypical way. The pony has been brought forward and reversing rod done but the rest of the mods necessary weren't attempted during the conversion. Having done 63829, this will need doing later in the year. A few other jobs on the layout are more urgent. After coming to Colwick from Annesley it stayed along with another O4/5 until the big freight loco reorganisation of January 1956 when a significant number of Colwick's O4s went to Mexborough in return for WDs. The O4/5s stayed at Mexborough until withdrawal in 1959 when their boilers came up for renewal and the sub class was rendered extinct.

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. Are you getting access to your club's premises yet? I'm looking forward to when we can start having exhibitions again. The O4 dome on the Bachmann looks to me to be close to being correct for a number of the unrebuilt engines but from the early 40s onwards the 'utility' dome was fitted and this is seen on the majority of the unrebuilt O4s in the 1950s. The utility dome has a flat top and is slightly conical in profile. I've been hoping someone would do an accurate casting (Graeme (King) do you do one?). I only noticed when I looked at the side on still of the Bachmann dome that it starts to dip in the wrong place at the back. From the front it looks pretty good for that type of dome. 63829 was one of the very few O4/3s at Colwick to have one of these, most having the utility type as I've attempted to replicate on my K's O4/3 63638 below. And I agree about the injector pipe - and also the brake pull rod. I used the Bachmann brake hangers and blocks on 63829 and they're actually too short and will need replacing. That's why I've not fitted the pull rod. 63638 also needs injector pipes and pull rods.. Putting it context, 63829 was a bit of an experimental stab in the dark - to see how easily a scratch chassis and motor could be readily made to fit the Bachmann body, and how difficult the task of removing the solid mass between the frames and the reprofiling of the running plate would be. I've also tried to alter the angle of the Bachmann cylinders and slide bars but that turned out to be quite awkward and I only achieved limited success. Good to hear you're doing one of Annesley's unrebuilt O4s. Quite a few of Colwick's mid-fifties O4 allocation were at Annesley in your period, so I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's finished and finding out which it is.

Good evening all. I hope everyone's well. I see one and all have been busy producing some lovely models. I'm just getting back up to speed. It must be the jabs. I think they put some illegal performance enhancing stuff in mine. I know I've got a bit of thing about O4s.. and sorry for being a bit wordy and windbaggy, but bear with me if you've got the patience... The Bachmann O4 is basically a very good model of the O4/1, but like so many RTR models, though basically accurate, it has a few niggling little errors and some compromises. One of the most notable errors is the running plate shape around the cylinders. It widens out for a length over the cylinders like the original but on the model it widens out for a significantly longer section than it should. Probably, the most annoying thing is that they retooled the footplate getting it correct for the GWR ROD but kept the original tooling on the LNER based locos. Other 'little' errors include the reversing rod which is far too short when compared to the real thing. Also the cylinders, slide bars and piston don't line up with the centres of the driven wheels. As well as this, the driving wheel wheelbase is shortened compared with the prototype and the distance between the leading driving axle and the pony axle is lengthened. This last discrepancy is more a compromise than error to enable the model negotiate very tight curves with the pony fouling the cylinders.Similarly the area between the frames is filled to fit in with the model's motor as designed. I run my locos on a DC layout being an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud luddite (a bit like Tony) and I use Stewart Hine's Pentrollers which are still, to my way of thinking, one of the best controllers performance-wise that I've witnessed. (You have to be very careful with them though, they easily burn out with a prolonged short). I have converted a few of the Bachmann O4s using the Bachmann chassis and when pulling a longish train, they perform well enough. However, if light engine, they seem to have a tendency to hunt slightly with a kick every so often giving them a bit of jerky characteristic. When compared to my K's O4s, they can't hold a candle to the k's locos smooth running. So for a while I've been of correcting some of the models errors, and trying out a scratch built sprung chassis for it. On top of that I've chosen one of the much more numerous O4/3s rather than an O4/1 for the prototype, Colwick's 63829. This entailed removing the ejector pipe. Anyway, here is a video of the first run of the completed model. I've re-profiled the running plate and opened out the frames and on the chassis I've made the wheelbase much more accurate to the prototype.I've attempted also to get the piston rods to line up correctly. All in all I think the changes have improved the look of the model and it certainly runs well (early days.. touch wood). I must give massive thanks to Andrew (Headstock) whose brilliant model of an O4/8 was modified similarly and was the inspiration for this little project. I'll post a few photos of the different stages of the project if anyone's interested. Clem

Hi John, Thanks. GC had the same criticism. But I was uneasily aware of this. Two points: the first is the answer I gave to GC somewhere above whereby a banner repeater is used at the other end of the cutting as is the case at Kimberley. Secondly the signal may not be permanent there. It's been in my plans to replace it at some time, by a scratch built example either the other side of the bridge or of the gallows type when other work is completed. But, for the time being, I can live with it.

Hi GC. Yes. I had to think long and hard about this one. At Kimberley, the up home somersault signal was quite unsighted by Kettle Bank bridge (not unlike the bridge here). They seem to have got around it by putting a banner repeater on the up approach to the bridge. The hidden cutting is meant to be deep and hewn out of sandstone with little chance of having a signal on that side unless much further back, in which case a banner repeater that side would also be appropriate. Having said that, after it had been installed, I did look along the track and the signal can be seen under the bridge, much the same as the Kimberley home. But, your point is well founded, I'm pushing it a bit and really this should have been sorted out when I was planning the layout. I've always been a bit bull at gate with regrets at leisure. Evening Andrew. Yes, you're quite correct. That is the very same Quatermass A2/7.... and the farmer's gone off to do his oats. I hope you're keeping well. Looking forward to being let out in the wide world again. Might even go to B&Q...

Hi, It's been a while since I last posted anything. About the start of November, I was becoming increasely frustrated with modelling. I seemed to be suffering from diminishing returns. The more I tried to get stuck in, the less I achieved. So I taken three months off (with a couple of exceptions - repairs and mucking about with scenery) and in early November I thought I'll try something different. So I've taken up learning French! I've got an O level in it but none of that stuck for more than a few weeks. Anyway, it's really quite a difficult language but I've been really enjoying it. The point is, it's given me the breathing space to develop the desire to get back into modelling again. So from just pottering around a bit and achieving very little, I've managed to do something that has made a bit of difference to the layout. Anyway, I've included a photograph and a couple of video clips of how it's beginning to shape up at the eastern end of the layout: I've tried to capture the feel of the line I knew as a child when visiting my grandparents at Kimberley. Lots of fields, paths, styles and railway! Still a long way to go but it's a start! Au revoir mes amis, bonne journée! Clem

It was *the* last one at Colwick, Tony, not arriving until March 1960. The only other J6 still surviving there by then was 64257 and that went in June1960. 64219 soldiered on alone until November 1961 and with its withdrawal brought to an end an association of the class with the shed of 50 years. That's a terrific model of her!