Adam

Hi Tim, Nice work. You may feel it unnecessary, but the single biggest improvement that could be made to those Dogfish and Catfish would be substituting some etched handwheels. the real things are quite chunky so the ones to go for are the Stenson Models (ex-Colin Craig) examples: https://www.stensonmodels.co.uk/product-category/all-products/4mm-products/handwheels/ You can see the end result with these two (I'm sure I have some images of these fully weathered somewhere, but you get the effect). These particular Catfish are modelled examples loaned to the SR from t

Hi Justin, You’re right, the real thing was longer, a 12’ wheelbase but I like the smaller, shorter one you’ve done. There’s another version elsewhere on the forum:

You jammy beggar. I've no use for four of the things, but several of the SECR types - more or less identical but with rather cute dropside doors in the middle two panels - made it to BR and, well, it'd be rude not to do one. Adam

Not much later - the precursor of the Dogfish, Trout and Catfish designs was produced by Leeds Forge less than a decade afterward the P7 and at least some of those (some for the SECR, for example - that'd be a fun conversion from a Hornby Trout if I could lay hands on one) had vac' brake. There was at least one P7 rebuilt with a vac' cylinder at the end because there's a picture of it in MRJ 257. The P22s should never have been built in my view - especially as Met Camm that built most of them had inherited the Leeds Forge designs via Cammell Laird - but I've never understand the doings of Swin

Graham - what retains the wheel set in this case is the wire spring - it’s attached by friction to the carrier and is held by the holes in - this particular instance - one of the hopper support ribs and another that’s folded out from the back of the solebar. The bridle has - or should have - no particular part to play, much like the real thing. I can’t say how well that works in 7mm but it seems to work fine in 4mm where the basic concept is more or less standard for wagon springing. Adam

It didn’t! The bracket holding it cantilevered it outside the solebar. As the wagons were relatively narrow that was ok. Adam

Thanks - the gallery that picture is in is well worth a look too. Some nice Forest of Dean images and lots of South Wales freight. Meanwhile, I’ve posted some of my travails with a Southwark Bridge Models GWR P7, the ancestor of the Herring. Hard work, but more here if you’re interested: Adam

My current, and ongoing, project is a Southwark Bridge Models (available from Roxey) GWR P7 ballast hopper, the type that the later Herring were based on. These are - characteristically - 'Swindon' though based on a commercial design (the LSWR and GNoSR had similar vehicles). I don't know about the GNoSR, but the South Western went on to more sensibly sized and a bit more operator-friendly things. Not so the GWR which upgraded them and perpetuated their folly with the Herring. But they did last until '63 so... This is not a bad kit as such, but I think that it's been s

While I've nearly finished a model of the Herring's predecessor, the P7 (a right fiddle), I thought you might like this picture of a real Herring at Coleford. The interior is especially helpful, I think. Adam

Even allowing for the angle and the challenges of space it needs to be bigger: mottes are meant to dominate and that doesn’t clear the roof line of the goods shed by nearly enough. The forced perspective would be more effective if the representation showed the whole thing. to get the height in the space you’ll have to increase the angle of the slope of the motte, but the present arrangement looks more cutting than Castle. Modern - damaging - tree growth would make disguise a bit easier and perhaps that’s a way forward? To allow that to have happened earlier? Adam

I like the timbered buildings which look quite convincing. The right hand building, however, and I presume it's meant to be a stone building, looks a bit odd and the main reason for this is that the Wills mouldings used are really intended for stone buildings and have been used upside down. The bits you've mounted at the bottom are called 'hood moulds' or, alternatively, 'drip moulds' which explains their purpose - to keep water from running down the wall out of the window. Used as cills like this, you'd find that the water would get trapped in the bottom of the windows. The pattern Wills

I’m sure that the effect you describe is a simple trick of the light as the loco is lit from the rear. First that’s because that’s Peckett’s normal approach (and that of most builders). Second, plates themselves aren’t all that thick and the fit of the valve casing is not tight enough to necessitate a step. I’m sure they were restricted in the size of rollers available to them and that’s the reason for the chosen mode of construction. Adam

Hello Dave, I've done one of these - and the resulting thread is here: There's a good picture of Lord Salisbury here: What Peckett did with their larger locos can be seen in the picture above - they constructed saddle tanks of overlapping rings, the centre always on top. I ignored the rivets half-etched on the pre-rolled tank (WHY!?) which in any case are the wrong pitch and used Archer rivet transfers instead. One thing to watch for is the rather soft grade of brass used, but the kit is not too bad otherwise. Adam

A mix - the basic markings are CCT, the data panel from Railtec and the stencilled ‘Stoneycombe’ pieced together from a sheet of suitable stencil lettering, origin forgotten. Adam

Sorry, I've been out this morning. The Herring action starts here (five years ago, amazingly). Hope this helps.