rowanj Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 I have just been catching up on the recent posts. My goodness, this Railway Modelling is serious stuff, isn't it? Makes Brexit look like child's play. For those seeking prototype fidelity, look away now from this post. Even I can't dream up an excuse for these two to pass Little Benton, so Tyneside has somehow been translated to East Anglia. These locos have a bit of sentimental value, so I dig them out from time to time. The BEC J17 was the second kit I ever built - a birthday present from my then-girlfriend, now my wife of 45 years. It originally ran on a Triang chassis, then had Romfords fitted, then had the chassis ground out to take a motor/gearbox, and now runs on a Hornby Jinty chassis. The K5 was an early carve-up of a GBL K3, and is, frankly, a bit of a mess, but it runs OK on a modified Bachmann V1/3 chassis and just about passes muster from normal viewing. It was actually at Blaydon shortly after rebuilding, but too early for my period, and was probably still in LNER livery when it headed south. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 10 hours ago, St Enodoc said: I might be talking complete poppycock (quiet at the back there...) but perhaps in carrying out your mods to the pony track you've inadvertently taken some weight off the drivers? 2 hours ago, Denbridge said: I think wheel profiles make a big difference. I fitted Romford wheels on some RTR chassis a few years back. They were noticeably better haulers than the original models. The more recent Hornby models have better wheels than older models. 1 hour ago, davefrk said: Talking about RTR loco haulage, I think the problem is the shiney chome plated wheels that modern models have. I have a few Bachmann 4Fs which people have complained about their lack of haulage power, mine have Gibson EM steel wheels fitted and they can easily take 60 wagons round Wharfeside. Another model which is often complained about is the Bachmann Jubilee, mine again fitted with Gibson wheels but not yet detailed or weathered (still not!) can be seen below walking away with thirty coaches though I have to say all the Bachmann coaches have had brass bearings fitted due to the sharp pinpoints of the Gibson wheels chewing away the plastic bogie to the point of a couple of wheels rubbing on the coach floor!!! The Hornby coach bogies are a better plastic so they don't need that work yet. I don't like to pile the weight into RTR locos as I feel it is mechanical cruelty but I do make sure the rolling stock is free to roll and I prefer to be kind to loco mechanisms by making sure the scale length trains are well within the loco's capacity. Kit built locos are different, one usually has an idea of what they should be capable of, the record holder for the moment is a fully sprung unweighted DJH 8F which has taken for a walk all 117 wagons that were on the layout that night so it's more usual load of thirty five wagons should make it last more than a couple of years. Just my thoughts, Dave Franks Thanks for thoughts guys. The weight is where it should be John and the rear pony is free to flop about in the vertical direction (no sniggering at the back). The loco IS better with the weight added but still can't manage 11 up the bank. I have previously improved a Bachmann Jubilee which does have weight in it as manufactured - but packed into the smokebox making them front heavy. There is just room to get an approx 4mm thick piece of lead behind the motor, up against the inside of the backhead (ie squarely over the rear driver) and that increased its haulage power up the bank by two coaches (eight instead of six). The theory about wheel profiles is a good shout - that's sound logic if that is indeed the difference between the current and previous Hornby offerings. I'll check that out as I can compare with my 46256. 30 coaches is indeed impressive behind a Bachmann Jubilee ... but up a 1-in-90 incline? (I've compromised slightly on the Shap layout - it should of course be 1-in75 - due to the need to lose the height again round the back of the layout) More nice photos, thanks Tony. Of course the blue Ford Anglia is an anachronism for the late 1950s (it is plated up as my Dad's 1967 E reg) ... but at least it isn't flying above Glenfinnan viaduct. 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2019 3 hours ago, Denbridge said: I think wheel profiles make a big difference. I fitted Romford wheels on some RTR chassis a few years back. They were noticeably better haulers than the original models. The more recent Hornby models have better wheels than older models. Agree. Many years ago I had a couple of Triang (or Triang Hornby - it's all just a name to me) Hymeks which were excellent looking machines but could not remove the skin off a rice pudding let alone pull any sort of load, even with some careful ballasting. But after Eames turned down the powered bogie wheels to a proper (BRMSB) profile the change in performance was startling. So no difference in the metal used but the simple change to getting a decent profile and a properly machined running tread on the wheel made all the difference. (The same happened with an EE Type 3, notwithstanding its grossly inaccurate bogie - wheels lathe turned and performance totally changed.) 1 1 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: Agree. Many years ago I had a couple of Triang (or Triang Hornby - it's all just a name to me) Hymeks which were excellent looking machines but could not remove the skin off a rice pudding let alone pull any sort of load, even with some careful ballasting. But after Eames turned down the powered bogie wheels to a proper (BRMSB) profile the change in performance was startling. So no difference in the metal used but the simple change to getting a decent profile and a properly machined running tread on the wheel made all the difference. (The same happened with an EE Type 3, notwithstanding its grossly inaccurate bogie - wheels lathe turned and performance totally changed.) Magnadhesion is (was) your friend. 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said: Agree. Many years ago I had a couple of Triang (or Triang Hornby - it's all just a name to me) Hymeks which were excellent looking machines but could not remove the skin off a rice pudding let alone pull any sort of load, even with some careful ballasting. But after Eames turned down the powered bogie wheels to a proper (BRMSB) profile the change in performance was startling. So no difference in the metal used but the simple change to getting a decent profile and a properly machined running tread on the wheel made all the difference. (The same happened with an EE Type 3, notwithstanding its grossly inaccurate bogie - wheels lathe turned and performance totally changed.) I've had a similar experience with Ultrascale wheel replacements on Lima diesels. Even though you're losing the traction tyre. and with the case of the Western, only getting two driven axles (equivalent to a Pug!), the haulage capabilities don't seem to be seriously affected. In general, I find the whole weight/adhesion/pulling power issue to be fairly non-intuitive, often throwing up results that aren't necessarily what you'd expect, suggesting that the tricky fundamentals of wheel profile and tyre constituency play a significantly bigger part than just adding more weight over the drivers. Al 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 hours ago, davefrk said: Talking about RTR loco haulage, I think the problem is the shiney chome plated wheels that modern models have. I have a few Bachmann 4Fs which people have complained about their lack of haulage power, mine have Gibson EM steel wheels fitted and they can easily take 60 wagons round Wharfeside. Another model which is often complained about is the Bachmann Jubilee, mine again fitted with Gibson wheels but not yet detailed or weathered (still not!) can be seen below walking away with thirty coaches though I have to say all the Bachmann coaches have had brass bearings fitted due to the sharp pinpoints of the Gibson wheels chewing away the plastic bogie to the point of a couple of wheels rubbing on the coach floor!!! The Hornby coach bogies are a better plastic so they don't need that work yet. I don't like to pile the weight into RTR locos as I feel it is mechanical cruelty but I do make sure the rolling stock is free to roll and I prefer to be kind to loco mechanisms by making sure the scale length trains are well within the loco's capacity. Kit built locos are different, one usually has an idea of what they should be capable of, the record holder for the moment is a fully sprung unweighted DJH 8F which has taken for a walk all 117 wagons that were on the layout that night so it's more usual load of thirty five wagons should make it last more than a couple of years. Just my thoughts, Dave Franks Hi Dave The tank wagons, what is the origin of them, please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefrk Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 ICI liquified ammonia tankers. Tank barrel and ends from EMA (Plastruct) temporarily held together with blu-tac, wagon chassis from Dapol (possibly temporary), castings from Lanarkshire Models. Photo by Tony Lambert. End supports drilled,tapped and bolted to the Dapol chassis as glue doesn't work on shiney plastic.... Tank saddles just hanging loose for the moment. Tank filler/dome still to be made and cast and walkway/ladders still to be etched, just wish I had more time. Hope that helps, Dave Franks 8 1 1 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted October 21, 2019 Author Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said: Would they have still been in that colour scheme In the late 50s Tony’? Or will they be undertaking a re paint? There's no way I'm repainting those, Jesse, They're painted so well. I might contemplate changing the numbers to early BR-style. However, though the GN main line depiction on LB is fairly tight to 1958, the MR/M&GNR bit is much more flexible (Rule 1!). The period represented is the last decade of the line's existence; thus at the start of the period, Nationalisation has just taken place, so a lot of stock will still be in 'Big Four' condition. Regards, Tony. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) You might add an 'E' to the numbers using an ex-LNER transfer, Tony. That was very common in the immediate post-nationalisation years. Pregrouping carriages were generally slated for early withdrawal and not painted Crimson, although the brown might be touched up or patch painted. We run two of the matchboard 3rds on Wickham Market - they're a very distinctive (if somewhat ugly) carriage. I have a number of clerestories as well as these were the most numerous of the different types which were cascaded. Edited October 21, 2019 by jwealleans 8 1 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tony Wright Posted October 21, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, LNER4479 said: Thanks for thoughts guys. The weight is where it should be John and the rear pony is free to flop about in the vertical direction (no sniggering at the back). The loco IS better with the weight added but still can't manage 11 up the bank. I have previously improved a Bachmann Jubilee which does have weight in it as manufactured - but packed into the smokebox making them front heavy. There is just room to get an approx 4mm thick piece of lead behind the motor, up against the inside of the backhead (ie squarely over the rear driver) and that increased its haulage power up the bank by two coaches (eight instead of six). The theory about wheel profiles is a good shout - that's sound logic if that is indeed the difference between the current and previous Hornby offerings. I'll check that out as I can compare with my 46256. 30 coaches is indeed impressive behind a Bachmann Jubilee ... but up a 1-in-90 incline? (I've compromised slightly on the Shap layout - it should of course be 1-in75 - due to the need to lose the height again round the back of the layout) More nice photos, thanks Tony. Of course the blue Ford Anglia is an anachronism for the late 1950s (it is plated up as my Dad's 1967 E reg) ... but at least it isn't flying above Glenfinnan viaduct. Of course, the problem of limited haulage capacity on Shap can be solved relatively easily.................. Pity about that prominent obese NEM pocket and the lack of front (proper) coupling. As you say, 'work in progress'. Or do (as you do most successfully) what the real railway did and double-head. Going downhill is a doddle, but (I assume?) all trains must either climb or descend again in the fiddle yard dependent on the direction of travel. This 'Brit' looked beautifully-natural, but lamps? Speaking of lamps, and the opportunity to fix them all on by December, as requested I've been in touch with Andy and he'll do the pictures for BRM at the Peterborough Show. It'll be interesting to see how the (three) different photographers approach taking pictures of Shap. Regards, Tony. 19 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 21, 2019 3 hours ago, davefrk said: ICI liquified ammonia tankers. Tank barrel and ends from EMA (Plastruct) temporarily held together with blu-tac, wagon chassis from Dapol (possibly temporary), castings from Lanarkshire Models. Photo by Tony Lambert. End supports drilled,tapped and bolted to the Dapol chassis as glue doesn't work on shiney plastic.... Tank saddles just hanging loose for the moment. Tank filler/dome still to be made and cast and walkway/ladders still to be etched, just wish I had more time. Hope that helps, Dave Franks Thanks Dave There are not many people who model tank wagons. Here is one I built from a bit of pipe (from B&Q), plastic card and a Parkside (I think) chassis. The manhole came from a Trix tank wagon. I was going to try and upgrade the Trix wagon like I have done some old Tri-ang ones by replacing the chassis with a Parkside one. The barrel was too short. Here it is with some refurbished Tri-ang B tanks. 11 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel_H Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 01/10/2019 at 21:41, dibber25 said: No, Neville lived in Whitley Bay but he was an avid collector of railway photos related to the North-East. (CJL) He still does, and still is.... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post grahame Posted October 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said: There are not many people who model tank wagons. I've certainly had a bash at a few - mostly chemical tankers. And as usual all are N/2mm: Above are BP vinyl chloride monomer TDA tankers that have scratch built bodies and chassis with Y25c bogies. They need some weathering although the real ones did seem to be kept rather clean. Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) is a colourless organochloride compound with a sweet smell and is highly toxic, flammable and carcinogenic. It is a chemical intermediate, not a final product, but is chiefly used to make polymer polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which is stable and nowhere near as acutely hazardous as the monomer. It is stored as a liquid and containers used for handling it at atmospheric temperature are always under pressure. Transporting VCM presents the same risks as transporting other flammable gases such as propane, butane (LPG) or natural gas and for which the same safety regulations apply with the transport vessels specially designed to be impact and corrosion resistant. These TDA wagons were built in 1971 at Ashford with a GLW of 92t. Above are Fauvet-Girel built 88t pressurised TCA tank wagons for Fisons Fertilisers (batch STS 78654-78679). In the mid 1980s they were transferred to ICI (agricultural division). They are a simple adaptation of the Farish TEA tanker with continuous sole-bars cut from plasticard, adapted Gloucester GPS bogies and etched brake wheels. This is quite an old model and showing it's age. Above is an LPG TTA wagon bashed from a Peco 15ft chassis with part of a Farish TEA body, TPM etched hatch details and plasticard end override protection. Eleven batches of a fairly standard 40-45t LPG tank wagon were produced 1967-86 by various builders and owned and operated by a variety of companies. They do not have ladders and tank top catwalks and are filled and unloaded from valves located under a sliding hatch on the lower sides of the tank. These final two above are built from NGS kits of TTA chemical tanker kits with small diameter barrels on a 15ft airbraked chassis. The white one appears to be based on the ‘standard’ 1965 Charles Robert design for chlorine tanks. Several batches (1965 TRL 51410-51434, 1966-7 TRL 51561-51585, 1967-8 TRL 51649-51723), owned by Tiger Rail, were built initially for ICI, but were later transferred to Hays Chemicals in 1985. The black caustic soda non-pressurised version with conical ends, that the kit alternatively builds in to, appear to be a similar Charles Roberts design and built in 1967 (TRL 51586-51648). G 19 2 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theakerr Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Re haulage capacity, check the back set of driving wheels? I have a Hornby Black 5 and a friend has a Battle of Britain (I think, 4-6-0 anyway one of them wrong green locos that all look the same) of about the same time period as your loco. I upgraded my Black 5 with a Brassmaster Kit and it looked great but it struggled to manage 5 Bachmann Mk1s. whereas my footballer, also a 4-6-0, will pull 9/10. Had a good look at it and found that the back set of drivers are on some sort of sprung suspension system that perhaps improves electrical contact but the spring load is so light that effectively it is a 4-4-0. Examination of the Hornby drawing confirmed this set-up. My friend had been complaining about his Battle of Britain, on checking it was the same sort of suspension. Hornby seem to have eliminated this set-up on more recent models although I have no idea what recent means. One of this winters projects is to see if I can modify this arrangement. 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Whizz Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) On 19/10/2019 at 23:10, Headstock said: Edited October 21, 2019 by Willie Whizz Reply started in error and can't work out how a post can be deleted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted October 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said: Use hide post. I asked the same question recently and that was the given answer. Once hidden there isn't an unhide so be careful. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougN Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 19 hours ago, Woodcock29 said: Tony I bought a part built D&S NE Newspaper van a couple of weeks back whilst in Canberra for the BRMA Convention - an interesting vehicle - seems like there was only one built, it was a test case but the NE only built 6 wheel vans for this traffic thereafter. Hope I can build it as well as the one above? I also have one of the 3rds illustrated above which I bought many years ago - its in the roundtuit drawer! During the convention weekend I also bought an unbuilt D&S non-gangwayed elliptical roof composite. as well a a range of other NE stock, including a part built a D&S NE horsebox and a part built Chivers 4 wheel NE CCT - something I've been looking for for a while. Regards Andrew Andrew, if you need any info sing out as I am slowly assembling NER information. I am glad you have a few interesting projects to go on with, I have just about completed the Dave Bradwell J39 chassis, but I have a heap of things to finish off which came from the same convention. I am most interested to get on with the NEr Auto coach to go with my G5 or G6. Chat soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 11 hours ago, DougN said: Andrew, if you need any info sing out as I am slowly assembling NER information. I am glad you have a few interesting projects to go on with, I have just about completed the Dave Bradwell J39 chassis, but I have a heap of things to finish off which came from the same convention. I am most interested to get on with the NEr Auto coach to go with my G5 or G6. Chat soon. Thanks Doug Andrew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post PaulCheffus Posted October 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 22 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said: There are not many people who model tank wagons. Hi I'm another one :-) Again these are 2mm (1/148 scale). To represent the Anhydrous Ammonia train that ran over Woodhead I have a rake of eight made up of 5 x TC007A, 2 xE387 and 1 x E487. TC007A E387 E487 Peco conversion BOC (one day I might actually get these finished) Cheers Paul 13 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitchin Junction Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 20 hours ago, Theakerr said: Re haulage capacity, check the back set of driving wheels? I have a Hornby Black 5 and a friend has a Battle of Britain (I think, 4-6-0 anyway one of them wrong green locos that all look the same) of about the same time period as your loco. I upgraded my Black 5 with a Brassmaster Kit and it looked great but it struggled to manage 5 Bachmann Mk1s. whereas my footballer, also a 4-6-0, will pull 9/10. Had a good look at it and found that the back set of drivers are on some sort of sprung suspension system that perhaps improves electrical contact but the spring load is so light that effectively it is a 4-4-0. Examination of the Hornby drawing confirmed this set-up. My friend had been complaining about his Battle of Britain, on checking it was the same sort of suspension. Hornby seem to have eliminated this set-up on more recent models although I have no idea what recent means. One of this winters projects is to see if I can modify this arrangement. I'm thinking that the best way to simulate prototype haulage in model railways is to have very weak (or deliberately weakened) motors in locomotives, very high inertia in locos and cars, and extremely low stiction and friction in all vehicles. Given the issue of adding high inertia, that is most easily created by weighting everything. But that does limit the ability to haul up grades. In my case I could forfeit true grades and just have all level trackage. After all one can tilt the vertical in scenic grades to some extent to somewhat fool the sideways viewers. The end result would be that all model locos would be able to pull their prototypical loads at prototype speeds - eventually - but would take a more realistic amount of time getting there. All without extra electronics. Or - getting fanciful - adding a power boost function just for gradients. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post Clive Mortimore Posted October 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, grahame said: I've certainly had a bash at a few - mostly chemical tankers. And as usual all are N/2mm: G 49 minutes ago, PaulCheffus said: Hi I'm another one :-) Again these are 2mm (1/148 scale). Paul Next time I say "There are not many people who model tank wagons." I will have be prepared to be usurped by a pair of very good 2mm modellers. Isn't Paul and Grahame's modelling wonderful. Edited October 22, 2019 by Clive Mortimore 4 15 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tony Wright Posted October 22, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) Apart from gluing together a couple of Airfix long-wheelbase ESSO tanks wagons many years ago, I cannot claim to have made any. My thanks to those who've just been showing us their efforts. Very good modelling indeed. Speaking of good modelling............................ Over ten years ago, in an effort to get a decent 4mm V2, John Houlden put this one together from a mixture of (much modified) DJH parts, Crownline parts, Comet parts and a fair bit of scratch-building. He painted it, and it ran on Gamston Bank. When that layout was burnt, John graduated to O Gauge and I found new homes for much of his 4mm stock (with a substantial donation going to CRUK). The unique V2 was not among the items sold. Instead, it was placed on long-term loan on Retford, along with many carriages, where Roy Jackson built an EM chassis for it and 'EMed' those carriages. With Roy's death, the carriages came up for sale, and all have now gone to loving homes. What of the V2? Well, it's now on Little Bytham! I've just built a Comet frame set to go underneath it, back to OO. Though this might seem heresy to the purists (and those who seek greater accuracy), but John presented it to me as a gift, and I wanted to be able to use it. When Roy built the EM chassis for it, it was with a new set of Comet (wider) frames, but retaining the original valve gear/motion. I've just done the same thing in reverse. What happened to John's original frames, I don't know, but would anyone like a Roy Jackson-built set of EM frames for a V2? Edited October 22, 2019 by Tony Wright 22 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chamby Posted October 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Hitchin Junction said: I'm thinking that the best way to simulate prototype haulage in model railways is to have very weak (or deliberately weakened) motors in locomotives, very high inertia in locos and cars, and extremely low stiction and friction in all vehicles. Given the issue of adding high inertia, that is most easily created by weighting everything. But that does limit the ability to haul up grades. In my case I could forfeit true grades and just have all level trackage. After all one can tilt the vertical in scenic grades to some extent to somewhat fool the sideways viewers. The end result would be that all model locos would be able to pull their prototypical loads at prototype speeds - eventually - but would take a more realistic amount of time getting there. All without extra electronics. Or - getting fanciful - adding a power boost function just for gradients. Tim The driving characteristics you describe can be easily programmed into a DCC chip. I have a Deltic with the inertia set so that it takes about 30 feet to draw up to a halt. It certainly makes for different driving characteristics when pulling into a station! 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, Chamby said: The driving characteristics you describe can be easily programmed into a DCC chip. I have a Deltic with the inertia set so that it takes about 30 feet to draw up to a halt. It certainly makes for different driving characteristics when pulling into a station! That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chamby Posted October 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, t-b-g said: That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense. The Deltic runs on the mainline with a fixed rake and inertia kicks in when decelerating from higher speeds. If you’re using a loco for shunting, you’d programme in different characteristics, surely. Horses for courses... I was simply responding to Hitchin Junction’s comment about a situation where he thought inertia was desirable. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now