[Lockdown traffic and services]

I was at Peterborough services last Sunday evening, and it was overwhelmed with visitors

[A view of/on RTR conversions to EM/P4 - part 1]

4 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

 

...

I actually found it easier and less hassle to build a replacement etched chassis for the loco (modified a Comet 2-6-0 chassis). Same with a Bachmann 64XX chassis more recently (although I didn't bother dismantling that, I just put it to one side and rang High Level).

 

For P4, for anything other than a very basic 0-4-0 or 0-6-0, I'm sufficiently put off the whole conversion process to prefer to go straight to an etched chassis.

 

 

I've had much same experiences, I feel relieved that I'm not alone!

I tried to use AGW side frames packed out  from Bachmann chassis with plastic strip, it worked sort of, and was better than packing out with washers, but really wasn't good enough. Perhaps a want of experience on my part.

Now I'm doing a Comet chassis for the Bachmann Jinty. It's going well enough but motivating myself when every day is just another is a problem.

I still have issues with AGW wobbly wheels, that's still work in progress. 

4 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

 

 

[A view of/on RTR conversions to EM/P4 - part 1]

1 hour ago, Brassey said:

The holes on those Hornby J15 rods look massive!  AG crankpins are 1.5mm; I think Ultrascale are the same.

 

I not aware that the S4Society do conversion sheets though articles do appear in the magazine and forum.  This is probably because received wisdom is to compensate everything.

 

Peter

EMGS do a number of conversion sheets, in my experience they are applicable to P4

[Jidenco LMS 12t 1-Plank]

The photos above seem to be a little underexposed but I get the impression that the joints aren't clean.

I use a fibre glass brush to clean up and rosin cored solder, with a 25W iron.

I start by tacking the joint in the centre of the run and then add two more tacks towards each end . That stops expansion which will cause distortion. Then I add more rosin and just join up the tacks with no more added solder unless it's really important to do so. It is important not to melt all the solder in the joint and at least one, and preferably two, lengths of solder should be set at any one time.

If I were the OP I think I would practice on two pieces of brass strip before I'd go further with the kit.

Tony Wright did two DVDs on locomotive construction which include soldering techniques and there are probably tutorials on YouTube.

Cheers

[LNER Y...something?]

N20 motors with integrated gearboxes won't fit between the frames for OO, they are ok for EM & P4.

You can get N20 without the gearbox and they do fit HL gearboxes. 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/182870714017

Cheers

[Another Naval Build - Supermarine Attacker FB.2]

2 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Actually, there were parts on the Harriers that went back to the 1930's Hawkers such as biplane Fury's.....

Do tell.

[Another Naval Build - Supermarine Attacker FB.2]

46 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Apart from the Spitfire, Supermarine's fighters were a pretty rubbish lot. The RAF and FAA seem to have had very few 'duds' post-war, and almost all of them came from Supermarine. 

Most of the problems the RAF and FAA had were with the early versions of the Avon; they were awful. The US wouldn't touch it with a bargepole preferring the much more reliable Sapphire for license  production. The US wouldn't finance the Hunter for export to Europe until it had got to Mk4 because of anxieties about reliability.

 

Basically the RAF made a premature decision that the Avon was to be the future engine in the late forties and got it wrong and didn't have the courage to say so.

[Another Naval Build - Supermarine Attacker FB.2]

In the early fifties there was a line up of them at Stretton, though I never did see one fly. 

The main runway at Stretton is now under the M56.

 

Looks like a good build

 

Cheers