Jump to content

thegreenhowards

Members
  • Content Count

    1,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thegreenhowards

  1. John, As you say, Kirk kits seem excellent value until you realise what you need to complete them. I bought mine from H&A at the Stevenage show this year. When he added the metal bits to finish it off the price doubled and I nearly put it back. But in the end I bought the wheels and buffers and left the screw couplings. I’m still not sure what I’ll use for couplings but I’m not prepared to pay nearly £10 for one pair - it’s extortionate! I'm working on accurascale to sell theirs In 7mm as they do in 4mm. The 4mm ones are £1 each (and excellent) so even if it doubled for 7mm that would be affordable. Andy
  2. Thanks John, I had a look for grab handles and drew a blank so that’s a useful link. The trouble is the price - £12 for 12. O gauge is frighteningly expensive! I think I’ll stick with .45mm wire bent up. As for transfers, it seems to be between Fox and HMRS. I’m inclined to go with Fox as I like waterslide but if anyone had any other suggestions I’d all ears. Andy
  3. Progress report on the BT. I tried to follow the ‘Jonathan Wealleans method’. This means first painting it in Halfords filler primer, then teak undercoat, then picking out individual panels in different shades of brown to represent varied shades of teak. Then I went over the whole lot in a brown wash varied with different shades and added small amounts of Humbrol 10 to give some darker grain. I think my wash was a bit thick as I’ve lost much of the variation between panels, but the result still looks better than my previous attempt, so I’m reasonably happy. It’s darker than some as I’m trying to represent an early ‘50s look when the coach would have been c.25 years old. Next time I’ll use a thinner wash. The interior has been done with balsa and card seats and some Mike Trice wall ‘decoration’ which I downloaded and blew up to 7mm. To finish it I need to do the glazing, add some door furniture and some foot boards on the bogies/ solebar. Then transfers - Any suggestions as to the best bet for LNER numbering in 7mm? Andy
  4. Thanks for the help on SEAGULL’s tender a few pages back. I decided it was easier to start again than dismantle the tender that I had, so I dug a second kit out of the roundtuit pile and made up this tender from that. It’s had the bottom beading removed, the streamlining reduced round the front of the tender, the top of the tender cut down either side of the corridor connector and the faring reduced in height all along the length of the tender. From what I can ascertain this last item was done to two of the three cut down tenders; the other Just had the faring cut down behind the coal division plate - this third tender was on SEAGULL in 1948 but transferred to LORD FARRINGDON in 1954. I found the reinstatement of the beading round the back of the tender a right fiddle and it’s not very neat but I’m hoping I will lose the imperfections under a coat of filler primer - which will be required to cover the poor quality of some of the castings anyway. Andy
  5. I can’t argue with that. I thought you were implying that an RTR Pacific wouldn’t haul a full length (Plastic) train and that’s what I was disputing. That sounds like a challenge which ‘Sir Nigel’ and I would be happy to accept in due course. Of course I don’t know how heavy/ stiff your rake is but I know ‘he’ will pull 13 metal coaches on the flat. I recognise and agree with the second half of that. I just wish we could recognise the lovely kit built locos and stock shown on here for what they are - fantastic examples of personal craftsmanship. I don’t feel the need to justify my kit built locos on the basis that they’re better than RTR. Just that they’re different and they’re mine.
  6. It makes a nice combination. Mine was also mainly RTR but with gangways, weathering, roofboards etc. The RK (Comet) and RTO (Southern Pride) were the exceptions. This was the formation of the original Mark 1 showcase train on the Heart of Midlothian.
  7. Hello everyone, I just wanted to let you know that the Bluebell Railway (where I'm a volunteer) is having a Virtual event this weekend and it includes a model railway section. I'm please to say that Gresley Junction will feature in 'part two' which airs at 1000 on Sunday. I'm afraid that it's the video that followers of this thread will have already seen, but you might like a refresher and there should be some other layouts to look at. https://www.bluebell-railway.com/steaming-through-60/?utm_source=The+Bluebell+Railway+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6cc5d9ac4c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_06_12_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_47b78ff044-6cc5d9ac4c-377725781 I was working on a new video for the event, but I didn't get it finished in time, so I will air that on here in due course. Andy
  8. Hatfield, because that's where I've based my timetable for Gresley Junction and the range of services was superb. Any further North and one largely loses the quad arts.
  9. Tony, We've been here before, so I'll keep it brief but I can't let a comment like that go by unchallenged. In my experience, a Hornby A4 will haul prototype length (say 13 coaches) RTR trains out of the box. And will pull prototype length part metal trains with a little weight added. For example they handle my Lizzie (load 11 with 10 brass sided) or any of my typical ECML formations with 11-13 coaches including a brass catering portion. They may slip marginally on starting but are otherwise sure footed. Admittedly, this is less true of the other RTR pacifics because there is less room for weight inside the body. Andy
  10. I would certainly join if there was one. I doubt it would offer anything that isn’t already covered on this thread, PN or one or two others. But it would keep a lot of useful information together rather than having the search through 1955 pages for that gem you remember a year or two ago. So on balance a good idea.
  11. Yes, four main pieces. And the fit of the nose and the circular dome cover (?) on the top was very poor.
  12. It was the Wills A4 that I was commenting on. I don’t know if SEF have redone any of the castings. Don’t get me wrong, I like the kit but the fit of the castings was poor, so it took a lot of filling and filing and the fine detail is much better on the Hornby one. I also think the nose looks a bit squat compared to the Hornby one. Andy
  13. I rather feared that might be the case - Looks like I have some disassembly to do!
  14. A bit of a departure from the normal for me to report on. I’ve branched out into ‘O’ gauge! This Ian Kirk kit is being built partly because I fancied it and partly to run on a friend’s layout. I fancied having a go at it because his O gauge kits are built on a modular basis meaning that they’re similar to the cut and shuts I’ve been doing in OO but without the cutting. It’s quite a basic kit, but reasonably priced by O gauge standards, and it went together easily. It has no interior apart from the partitions, so I need to cut up some seats. I think balsa will be my preferred solution. But first I’m going to paint it. I intend to try teak on this one - hopefully it will be easier in the larger scale. Andy
  15. Having '22' on LB is entirely appropriate given the history. But you must admit that the disproportionate number of Mallards 'flying' around is a little tedious. After looking at some photos which David W of this parish kindly sent me, I think Seagull's tender was slightly different to 34's as on 33 the cut down side faring was carried all the way along rather than just to the rear of the coal division plate. Either way I have a problem with the Wills tender as the corridor tunnel seems too high to cut the faring back (see photo). Did you have this problem or did SE Finecast change the castings? Andy
  16. Fair point about preservation but I wasn't around in the '50s to take photos and I don't have an extensive library. There are 1950s pictures in which they are evident (e.g. several in Parkin's Mark 1 book) although I concede that in most they are not.
  17. Far more people choose to have 103 (and 22) and it gets boring (no offence Tony, your models are never boring). Neither will appear on Gresley Jn. If that makes me a reverse snob then so be it.
  18. I find the Roco couplings work well on the more modern Bachmann Mk 1s with correct height NEM pockets. They don't work on the original versions which required the cranked tension lock. I admit I don't often shunt my longer mark 1 rakes apart from on a straight run into a cassette road.
  19. Tony, You have found a good selection of 'ribless' mk 1 roofs there. But there are plenty of counter examples. I don't have your extensive library, nor are my own photos catalogued (now that would have been a good lockdown project!) but here are a couple to prove that I'm not completely talking b......t. I concede that they're evident in less photos than I remembered. I suspect it depends on both the lighting and the quality of the original workmanship on the roof. Anyway, this debate hadn't changed my mind on doing my own. I haven't yet found the time to do the important stuff like gangways and weathering on 100% of my coaches, so it's all about priorities. I take my hat off to you for the umpteen hours it must have taken you to do your fleet. Andy
  20. I would rather have overscale roof ribs than none at all. They (or butt joints if you prefer) are definitely there on the prototype. The pictures you show where they are just visible (e.g. coach behind 60103) look just right, but the ones where they are completely smooth don’t look like a mk 1 roof to me. If I thought I could reliably get that just visible finish (which I don’t) then it would be worth it for a couple of showcase coaches, but life’s too short to do all of mine I’m afraid. Matt paint for me. As for tension locks, we’ll just have to agree to differ - we don’t want to get into another debate on here. They work for me, don’t uncouple (often!), and don’t cause derailments (except on ridiculously long trains or very tight curves which I don’t have). I admit that I have seen other layouts where they do cause problems but that is normally fixable with care. Bachmann ones are not bogie mounted - they pull off the bogie pivot on the underframe.
  21. Thanks Tony, That’s just what I needed to know - if not entirely welcome from the point of view of the work required. The pictures will be very useful. I could swap the chimney over for Falcon but I think I’ll stick with Seagull if I can sort the tender out. She can work some other trains and I’ll have a go at #9 (my favourite) for the Lizzie in due course. Andy
  22. I have been having a ‘finish off projects’ session. This Wills A4 was started a couple of years ago and I gave up in frustration a couple of times because the fit of the parts was so poor. But after a lot of filing and filling with solder, it’s as good as it’s going to be. I’ll have to replace some rivet detail with decals during painting. It had no chassis, so I’ve mounted it on a Hornby example. It’s a long way short of a Hornby version in detail (and shape?), but it’s heavy and will pull very well - 24 RTR mk 1s with no problem. Tony, I have a couple of questions for you: 1. I want to model Seagull, partly to pull the Elizabethan (which is a heavy rake). My rake is the 1957 formation and you’ve previously queried my use of ‘13’ on the basis it didn’t haul the ‘Lizzie that year. Did ‘33’ make many appearances? 2. I know Seagull had a cut down tender. I’m trying to work out exactly what I have to do to model that. Is it just removing the metal on the rear of the tender which I’ve coloured black in the shot below? And then reinstating the beading. The Wills tender seems to have rather high sides which will make blending in the cut out part challenging. Do you have a solution for that problem? Regards Andy
  23. Tony, I think your list is rather over zealous and very much based on your experiences rather than on what is strictly necessary. Having said that, I agree with 3,4,5,7 and 8 and I’m 75% of the way through my fleet in doing those mods. However, once concertina gangways are fitted the coupling is virtually invisible, so I can not see what is wrong with retaining tension locks or using other clip in couplings (Bachmann pipes or equivalent) if they work. I know you don’t get on with them but in my experience they work perfectly well and they’re very convenient. I’d rather concentrate on replacing them where they’re visible - particularly on wagons. I think you admit that Modern RTR wheels are fine, so surely it’s an extravagance to replace them. If you are still doing so, I’d be happy to take them off you in exchange for a donation to CRUK! And finally the oversize (pun intended) issue of roof ribs. They are clearly rather too prominent but I’m far from convinced that I would end up with an improvement if I tackle them. Unless I take them off completely (which would be even more wrong), I don’t understand how I could achieve an even finish. I suspect I’d just waste a lot of time and end up with a mess! I find that a coat of matt ‘Roof dirt’ (from Railmatch or Precision Paints) reduces the impact considerably and that is good enough for me. Of all the above, I think concertina gangways make the most difference. They’re so easy to fit that I’m amazed that more people don’t do it. Clearly my standards are not up to yours but I sleep easy in the knowledge that my Mks 1s have been ‘improved’ more than 90% of the others out there (quite possibly 99%!). Regards Andy Note: I see Robert has posted while I was finalising this post (tea intervened!) with many of the same points. Sorry for the repetition but at least there was a different emphasis.
  24. Andrew, That is quite simply exquisite! How long does a coach like that take you? Andy
×
×
  • 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.