mike morley

I will certainly be attending fewer exhibitions than I used to and will make sure there is plenty to justify the journey before I set off. I had assumed that would be a widely-held view and that it would prompt exhibition managers to up their game in the hope of attracting those who shared that opinion. That does seem to have happened with the bigger and specialist shows but having looked at the line-ups, both layouts and trade, of a lot of the smaller shows I am concerned to suspect that the opposite is the case and they are dumbing down, presumably to reduce expenditure, rather than trying to attract what custom there is.

Scalelink whitemetal kit. Nicely cast, no flash, only a few casting lines to scrape off. Rear axle was too short but easily replaced with a piece of brass tube.

You wouldnt be the first to forget to allow for the thickness of the metal (Including numerous kit designers!) but the height shouldn't be a problem - you could lose a few millimetres off the top of the gearbox and several more off the firebox throatplate. Don't forget to drill a hole for a locating peg in the back of the saddle tank and another hole for it to locate into in the firebox throatplate.

If you aren't happy with it - and the fact that you are asking the question indicates you aren't - then stop now and build something that you are happy with. My first foray in EM was intended to be a model of Dinas Mawddwy, in the upper reaches of the Dyfi Valley. The prototype was long and straight, but I didnt have room for long and straight I so made it long and curved. To accommodate the curve I had to move a siding from one side of the running line to the other. Then I realised that the layout would fit the available space a whole lot better if I made it a mirror-image. I built the baseboards and track, laid, wired and tested it and was about to start ballasting when I realised that the layout had evolved too far to still be regarded as a model of Dinas Mawddwy. I lived with it for about six months more, using it regularly and enjoying doing so, but unable to shake off the feeling that what I was building was not what I wanted. At that point I scrapped the layout and have never once since felt I made a mistake by doing so.

That motor looks a bit on the large size, considering where it's got to go. I've not used one myself, but I know everyone who's used Tramfabriek motors speaks very highly of them and one would be a much better bet, assuming you can get a suitable gearbox to go with it. Whatever motor/gearbox combination you end up with, precious millimetres can be gained to accommodate them by filing away the back of the saddle tank and the front of the firebox, as you can see I've done here with mine. (Getting it out to photograph it made me realise it hadnt progressed as far as I thought. When I put "The footplate, cab and firebox are one unit and the boiler, tank and smokebox another" I should have put "will be one unit") The K Class's firebox and saddle tank have also been filed out. I also filed a little off the shoulders of its gearbox and could have taken quite a lot more off, had it been necessary. It might be with the Old Class I because having both locos out together makes me realise its firebox is narrower than the K Class's by about a millimetre. Another difference between the two is the brake gear. The K Class had early pattern brake gear, with the pull rods tucked up under the footplate, well out of the way, while the Old Class I has later, more conventional brake gear with the pull rods lowdown and behind the wheels. Manning Wardles are extremely low slung and it wasnt easy arranging the pickups in the minimal space twixt chassis and railheads on the K Class. Having to thread them through the brake gear as well will make doing the pickups on the Old Class I even more difficult. As you are finding out, being a fan of Manning Wardles isnt easy!

I started one about a couple of years ago and it ground to a halt when part built. The problem I had with it was that it was designed in the very early days of compensation, before the nature and dimensions of the hornblocks and guides became standardised. As you may have already discovered, the guides for this loco are what, for want of a better description, I'll describe as only single-sided and they are also etched from brass that's a bit on the flimsy side. Plan A was to replace them with High Level hornguides and blocks, but that was when I discovered that the cut-outs in the chassis were slightly bigger than is normal nowadays. In theory the High Level guides would just, and only just have fitted - there is about half a millimetre all round, which in my opinion isnt enough - but I also found that the coupling rods had slightly different centres to the chassis and would have meant that in practice High Level hornguides would have ended up with a millimetre on one side and waving in the breeze on the other. Bigger than usual hornguides was obviously what was required and construction ground to a halt while I sought some. I eventually decided Exactoscale hornguides and blocks would do the job, but by then the kit had been put on the back burner and has stayed there ever since so I've not yet been able to confirm that they really are the solution. With regard to the rest of the kit, its all fairly straightforward, any problems being caused by the fact that it is such a tiny loco! It's going to be powered by a Mashima 1016 mounted horizontally in the boiler and driving through a High Level Roadrunner+ in the firebox. The footplate, cab and firebox are one unit, the boiler, tank and smokebox another. I've got the same arrangement in a Peter K Manning Wardle "K" Class I built a few years ago so I know it works. The "K" has got an 80-to-1gear ratio which I found to be a bit much, so I've got a 60-to-1 for the Old Class "I". There is plenty of room for more than enough lead in the saddle tank and means the "K" is capable of some quite remarkable feats of haulage! I see no reason why the Old Class "I" shouldn't do the same. Good luck!

I've never seen one anything like as lightweight as that - presumably because it only had to lift comparatively light bales of hay or straw. What I particularly like about it is that it ought to be quite easy to fabricate a model of one from scrap etch, unlike the more substantial industrial types which need either casting facilities or the skill and equipment needed for 3D printing.

Not guilty! I was certainly at ExpoEM last weekend, but I wasn't demonstrating anything and the only time I mentioned slate wagon loads was very briefly to Geoff Kent who, amongst much else, had some superb brick wagon loads on his demonstration table.

Has the winner of the Chairman's Challenge been announced?

I've been walking towpaths again (the Stratford on Avon Canal this time) This is a post-restoration milepost, found on the stretch between Stratford on Avon and Wilmcote. This is an older type, found north of Wilmcote and obviously dating from when the canal was in GWR ownership. It was one of several I passed and as all the others were unadorned I assumed they were simply used as posts supporting cast plaques or similar that indicated the miles, the plaques having been stolen by scrap dealers or souvenir hunters. Then I came to this one and realised the rails themselves had been the mileposts and that, unlike most other canals, the GWR marked every quarter mile. Frequently found on bridges over railways as well as canals. I vaguely remember etched versions of these being available at some time in the dim, distant past. Scalelink? Smiths? EDITED TO ADD THAT SMITHS DO THEM ON THEIR SS1 PRINTED CARD SHEET. IF ANYONE DOES DO AN ETCHED VERSION, I'VE NOT YET TRACKED THEM DOWN.

The sand intended for children's playpits is usually ultra-fine, as is the sand sold in pet shops for pet reptiles. I've seen chinchilla dust recommended many times but I've found it can vary considerably in grade.

It's unclear whether A1 are still going, but even if they are their focus has been on just narrow gauge for some time.

Building wagon kits can be a slippery slope. I've only ever modelled very minor branches or ultra-light railways, none of which were ever likely to have been supported by more than one or two coal merchants and unlikely to have had more than two or three wagon-loads of coal a week between them. So how come I'm well on the way to having enough PO wagons to run a Jellicoe Special?

I used Klear on the run-round loop of my exhibition layout and dilute Copydex for the rest and while it was perfectly okay at the time after a few years it was noticeable how far more of the ballast secured by the Klear was flaking off than the rest.

What is or isn't the current situation with the old overflow car park across the other side of the roundabout?

The post-construction scrub-up with the usual Cif and a toothbrush has inevitably resulted in the plywood baseboard getting wet - not saturated but more than merely damp. Is it best to let it dry off slowly in a cool shed or quickly in the sun?

Cast your minds back, oh, nearly four years to the debate on this thread about whether standard gauge wagons had slates loaded lengthways or crossways, and the accompanying frustration that none of us could find a decent photograph to resolve the matter. 'Welsh Steam' by Gwyn Briwnant-Jones. Page 51. A picture of a Barclay 0-4-0 well tank shunting at Port Dinorwic. Very prominent in the left foreground is a birds eye view into the interior of four standard gauge wagons carrying slates loaded crossways. I think that means I've got some wagon-loads to replace . . .

That's a Saxby and Farmer box. Found all over Britain but most common on the former Brighton lines.

A bigger, more sophisticated version that used to pump water up to Petworth House can be found at https://coultershaw.co.uk/waterpower/ It now powers a quite spectacular fountain beside the road at Coultershaw Bridge.

Firstly, did standard-gauge stub-points simply fall out of use or were they outlawed? Also, would my hunch that stub catch/trap points were both more numerous and longer-lived than actual turnouts be correct? Secondly, photographs of plain track with half-round log sleepers are not exactly common but you don't have to look too hard to find a few. However, I have never seena picture of pointwork with half-round, log sleepers. Were split logs ever used for pointwork? Finally, how to model such track? My previous attempt used barbecue skewers for the sleepers (left round. I'd intended to hide the lower half in slots cut in a suitably thin layer of cork underlay) with small holes drilled drilled to take fine brass pins. The heads of the pins and the underside of the flat-bottomed rail were heavily tinned and the two sweated together with a seriously hot iron applied to the angle where the web of the rail meets the foot. That was the theory, anyway. In practice I found that while thin layers of sheet brass or nickel-silver might sweat readily enough, rail is an entirely different proposition, particularly when there is at least one track gauge in close proximity to channel away a lot of heat. A lot of joints didnt take at all and even more were extremely weak. I also found that the amount of heat required and the length of time it had to be applied to achieve even that much resulted in a good few scorched or charred sleepers. For this attempt I initially considered building the track upside-down, with the iron applied direct to the tinned underside of the rail. The trouble with that idea was that I'd effectively be building set-track. Instead I thought I' start off the same way, with everything upside-down, but would only solder one rail in place, creating the classic herring-bone, I'd then turn it the right way up and position it where I wanted it on the layout before using the original heavy sweating method to attach the second rail. The high failure rate didnt ought to matter this time. Only a few joints should need to hold for me to be able to gently lift the track without it losing its shape so I could then turn it over and securely solder the rest of the joints from underneath. I'm not planning anything exotic - just an ancient, little-used siding or two and (possibly) the relevant points and/or trap-point.

One thing I have noticed that has puzzled me is that a good percentage of weighing machines did not share the same centre line as the weighing table. The amount of offset varies, some extreme ones being close to the corner of the table. Does anyone know why?

The thread Chris linked to reminds me of something that I've wondered from time to time - is there a website, index or similar that offers any guidance as to when the various enamel adverts were 'valid' (if that's the word). We'd all spot the error immediately if, say, a layout set now featured an advert for a Ford Sierra - or, come to that, a layout set in the 50's featured an advert for a Ford Sierra - but go back to the era of enamel adverts and I for one certainly couldnt identify any anachronisms.

Took advantage of decent weather for a cycle ride along the canal to Leighton Buzzard and back. Mileposts of traditional and modern type, Bridge numbers traditional and modern We tend to forget that canals also had goods sheds and some of them can be rather more picturesque than the railway variety. The sad remnants of an occupation bridge, a couple of hundred yards north of Leighton Buzzard. There's a timber version in even worse condition, in the final stages of being reclaimed by nature, a couple of miles further north. Most canals had a corporate architectural style, just like the railways. The Grand Union certainly did, but while their lock-keepers cottages might all have been of the same, easily-recognisable style, they varied tremendously in size and nature. The one at Leighton Buzzard is the smallest I've seen, but it's also the most picturesque. Finally, not on the canal at all but in a park I took a detour through on my way back. Water fountains used to be commonplace, but you rarely see them now and I've never seen one like this. It's three feet tall and the cup at the top is about nine inches across and eight inches deep.