Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Steam Railways
    4mm scale/00 gauge and N gauge/code 40 track
    Playing guitar or bass in ceilidh band
    Genealogy research
    Homebrew - all grain beers
    Camra member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. An excellent comprehesive summary but I suggest one correction: The second BR crest was introduced in mid-1956 not 1958. Ian
  2. Very nicely made pointwork. But the PCB sleepers look much wider than the Easitrack sleepers. I found this when using 2mm society PCB sleepers with my N Finetrax. Does anyone make PCB sleepers which match the sleeper width of Easitrack and Finetrax? Ian
  3. That must be 34042 "Dorchester" which I believe was the only one to run in malachite livery on the S&D (it has no ownership indicated on the tender). It was repainted BR dark green in November 1951. Ian
  4. No - 5'2" minus 4'7" = 7" (not 5) No - the 64xx is a 54xx with smaller wheels........
  5. Luckily the GWR prairies do not have any outside valve gear......
  6. I think you meant coupling rods as the C class connecting rods are inside the frames and not visible on this model
  7. I use the excellent code 40 FiNetrax track and points for the visible areas on my model railway with code 80 ready made track and points in the hidden area. The FiNetrax is virtually indistiguishable from 2mm association Easitrack (except in the frog clearances) and accepts all modern British 'N' RTR. My locos and stock are all RTR 'N'. I don't use 2mm kits because they are made to 2mm/ft scale as opposed to British 'N' which is 2.0625mm/ft. This means that 'N' locos and stock are nearly 9% bigger in volume than 2mm vehicles – quite noticeable when the vehicles are in a mixed train. Ian
  8. They are not connecting rods. They are coupling rods.
  9. Are the bodies to British N scale (1:148, 2.0625mm/ft) or 2mm FS (1:152, 2mm/ft) ?
  10. A Jinty more powerful than a SR D1/E1/L1 4-4-0? No !!!!! I suspect you are comparing the theoretical tractive effort figure of the Jinty and the 4-4-0s. Theoretical tractive effort is not a measure of power it's just an estimate of the initial force (in lb.) of the driving wheel rim on the rail on starting. The 4-4-0s mentioned could produce 1000 hp which a Jinty certainly couldn't.
  11. The Gresley A3 didn't have a trailing bogie. Bogies have 4 or more wheels. Please don't make the A3 a 4-6-4!
  12. Yes - this is exactly what would have happened to the railway companies in 1923 as it did with the actual merger of the LYR/LNWR and the MR. Add to that melting pot other important railways like the GWR, LSWR, GNR, GER, NER, CR, NBR etc. etc. and .........................................!!!
  13. Is the chassis made to 2mm finescale standards i.e.2mm/ft scale 1:152 or N scale I.e. 2.0625mm/ft 1:148?
  14. In order to separate this thread from the optimistic (!) original Dapol announcement back in 2011 and the years of froth following that, I would suggest that the 2018 postings on this thread be included in a new thread titled "Dapol Air-Smoothed West Country/Battle of Britain" as the company have clearly stated that the "Modified / Rebuilt" version is not planned for development at this time.
  15. No. The "scissors" valve gear was not Stephensons. It was a version of Walschearts valve gear between the frames and was only used on the prototype GWR #40/4000 "North Star" .It was not used on further GWR locos as (a) it was found to be difficult to be set up and (b) Deeley the MR CME inferred he had patented such a design
  • 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.