Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

your O4/7 looks great, I have a couple of questons about the construction, could you point me in the direction of your thread.  Not being in to model railways for a while, I seem to have misplaced its locaton.

Errrmmm...... I haven't got a thread. I'm not sure how to start one to be honest (although I've not tried that hard). Perhaps I should do one instead (or as well as) invading Tony's brilliant thread.

Andrew, I'm always happy to answer anything if I can help in any way. It's put together similar to the Bill Bedford O4/5, if you've had any experience of that. Although it has the limitations of a 3D print, for a small amount of work you get a very decent model out of it and it's a snip at £45. I'm hoping at some stage in the future to replace the chassis but this is fine for the time being.

 

Clem

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hmm, all this modern image stuff with lamps just above the buffer beam. Spare a thought for us trying to model the Caledonian. Lamps were on the cabsides, smokebox top and rear bunker or tender,  with a lens to both the front and rear and had a rotating filter so that either lens could show a white,  green or red lamp. 

 

For example an ordinary passenger train would show a green to the right and a white to the left in the direction of travel, reds to the rear and a red on the end of the train. Add to that a route indicator with 64 theoretically possibly positions centrally on the smokebox top or bunker/tender lamp iron. ( read Operating the Caledonian by Jim Summers , there are pages of diagrams ) 

 

Knowing this and being able to model it are two entirely different worlds. 

 

I have had a go. I messed about with hooks and magnets. The hook bit sort of works, but I have to take the loco off the layout and put it on the bench with a good light, the right specs and a pair or tweezers to swap them round. Then they fall off as you try and put the loco back on the track. And vanish . harumpff...... 

 

Problem is I have an end to end layout not a roundy one. So I just have to accept that my lamp codes are right for an official train movement, but incorrect for getting a train back to the other end kind of movement.  

 

I did try and make a lamp with a pair of rgbw leds back to back. Hmm, thats 7 wires out of each lamp. If I ever move up to gauge 1 it might be a solution. 

 

So I am left with a compromise. I'd agree, correct lamps do add to a layout. Getting it right half the time is better than none of the time, but until one of us cracks the problem and finds a really neat and tidy solution to swapping correctly coloured lamps round I'm just going to have to live with being wrong half the time. 

  • Like 6
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Errrmmm...... I haven't got a thread. I'm not sure how to start one to be honest (although I've not tried that hard). Perhaps I should do one instead (or as well as) invading Tony's brilliant thread.

Andrew, I'm always happy to answer anything if I can help in any way. It's put together similar to the Bill Bedford O4/5, if you've had any experience of that. Although it has the limitations of a 3D print, for a small amount of work you get a very decent model out of it and it's a snip at £45. I'm hoping at some stage in the future to replace the chassis but this is fine for the time being.

 

Clem

 

Thanks Clem,

 

 It just goes to show just how quickly  you can switch off and take yourself away from the general model railway discourse, if you get a bit bored with it all. Fortunately, you always have things of interest and other goodies up your sleeve that I find inspiring. My faulty memory assumed that a Shangri La of model railway goodness was lurking somewhere on the boards. Not to worry, one can but dream of Nottingham Victoria.

 

Some questions with regard to your O4/7

 

Q1 The O4/7 boiler cab looks to be married to the Bach runningboard. Did you alter the shape of the cylinder wiggle or is it a version with the corrected wiggle?


Q2 How much of the chassis did you retain or discard for EM gauge?


Q3 Did you re-gauge the wheels, or replace?


Q4 How much of the running gear did you retain?

 

Q5 did you alter the angle of the cylinders, if they are not replacements?


Q5 Are these things available, when did you order and how long is the waiting time?

 

The O4/5 is of interest to myself. I will have to dig out my research for one last splurge of locomotives in 2020. I haven't a lot off time so I shall look at something else if acquiring one is a protracted affair. I think the O4/5 was an Annesley locomotive but it could have been Colwick.

 

Either way, as I have the day off tomorrow, your efforts have inspired me to do some modelling for the first time since early October.

 

Many thanks.

Edited by Headstock
add space
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Darryl,

That's very welcome news. Is it possible to get access to these photographs through the LNER society or directly?

Andy

Andy

 

I'll pm you presently - always assuming the superslow narrowband here doesn't give up the ghost completely.

 

D

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That, in my view is remarkable. Can we assume it's unusual?

I reckon it's absolutely normal. Certainly in the 1952 summer timetable, which would be about when this photo was taken near Carbis Bay, all passenger trains on the St Ives branch ran as class B not class A, including the Saturday Down Riviera which I suspect this is (10 coaches off the 1030 Paddington, departing St Erth at 1715 and arriving at St Ives at 1735). Placing the lamp on the footplate rather than the smokebox was very common, if not necessarily official. There was also one empty stock working on Saturdays that would have carried class C lamps and, interestingly, a couple of empty workings shown as class B. I've no idea why that was.

Edited by St Enodoc
1735 not 1745 - fat fingers
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Brinkly said:

Going back to weathering techniques, I repainted this trio of Bachmann 16 ton mineral wagons using Ammo by Mig products. 

 

This was my first go at weathering, however, I think the results are quite convincing so far. I need to finish weathering the chassis and look at adding powders but they are coming along. 

 

IMG_2741.jpg.f61f96961a26ee927fa5f7035925ede7.jpg.adf8aa38c932616cf340568d0a72c670.jpg

IMG_2742.jpg.e10dce607f57a2d8f8a73a66ab7c18df.jpg.066f5ef533ee11b61cc1cae8ba9d51ac.jpg

IMG_2743.jpg.db901e38cd7b9a368f5ad11fb331c19c.jpg.2dccd701e2b956bc02d3d0dfb56746bb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Best wishes

 

Nick

Those are absolutely like the real thing great work Nick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clem said:

Errrmmm...... I haven't got a thread. I'm not sure how to start one to be honest (although I've not tried that hard). Perhaps I should do one instead (or as well as) invading Tony's brilliant thread.

Andrew, I'm always happy to answer anything if I can help in any way. It's put together similar to the Bill Bedford O4/5, if you've had any experience of that. Although it has the limitations of a 3D print, for a small amount of work you get a very decent model out of it and it's a snip at £45. I'm hoping at some stage in the future to replace the chassis but this is fine for the time being.

 

Clem

 'Perhaps I should do one instead (or as well as) invading Tony's brilliant thread.'

 

Good morning Clem,

 

My understanding of 'invaders' is that they're always unwelcome. That is definitely not the case here!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dave John said:

Hmm, all this modern image stuff with lamps just above the buffer beam. Spare a thought for us trying to model the Caledonian. Lamps were on the cabsides, smokebox top and rear bunker or tender,  with a lens to both the front and rear and had a rotating filter so that either lens could show a white,  green or red lamp. 

 

For example an ordinary passenger train would show a green to the right and a white to the left in the direction of travel, reds to the rear and a red on the end of the train. Add to that a route indicator with 64 theoretically possibly positions centrally on the smokebox top or bunker/tender lamp iron. ( read Operating the Caledonian by Jim Summers , there are pages of diagrams ) 

 

Knowing this and being able to model it are two entirely different worlds. 

 

I have had a go. I messed about with hooks and magnets. The hook bit sort of works, but I have to take the loco off the layout and put it on the bench with a good light, the right specs and a pair or tweezers to swap them round. Then they fall off as you try and put the loco back on the track. And vanish . harumpff...... 

 

Problem is I have an end to end layout not a roundy one. So I just have to accept that my lamp codes are right for an official train movement, but incorrect for getting a train back to the other end kind of movement.  

 

I did try and make a lamp with a pair of rgbw leds back to back. Hmm, thats 7 wires out of each lamp. If I ever move up to gauge 1 it might be a solution. 

 

So I am left with a compromise. I'd agree, correct lamps do add to a layout. Getting it right half the time is better than none of the time, but until one of us cracks the problem and finds a really neat and tidy solution to swapping correctly coloured lamps round I'm just going to have to live with being wrong half the time. 

'I'm just going to have to live with being wrong half the time.'

 

But that is definitely more desirable than being wrong ALL the time (by omission).

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Hmm, possibly, but more likely a generalisation. I get the impression that the hobby has fractured in to two camps which have tended to polarise approaches and attitudes.

 

There are without doubt still fine, well observed, 'serious' layouts being built that reflect modelling tradition and real world accuracy. But on the other hand is the growth of RTR and the building of 'fun' casual layouts with less accurate real life portrayal, that often feature animated gimmicks and do not attempt to reflect observation of real railways (although they feature trains).

 

And, of course, these days is the mantra and attitude that all effort and participation should be rewarded and everyone is deemed 'winners'. That's just the way society is now. It's often considered that hailing someone a winner might upset and discourage others from participation. I understand that in some schools sports days have been banned or all participants in an event are now given a prize with no winner considered or announced.

My intention wasn't to generalise, Grahame.

 

My point was mainly with regard to the layouts shown on TV of late. Though I only watched a tiny bit of the programmes (my blood pressure is fine, but there are limits!), the impression I got was that observation of the prototype wasn't just low on the list of priorities, it wasn't even on it! Everything I saw was based on imagination - in some cases, the most vivid. 

 

Now, I believe imagination is essential in railway modelling, but there are limits. When I was a boy, I imagined that the Duchess of Montrose my mate and I ran on track pinned to the floor of one of the rooms in his family's home was on 'The Royal Scot' (which we'd seen at Crewe). This was despite the fact that it only towed a maximum of five tinplate carriages, and only flew round a relatively small circuit. Later on, we'd attempt to run all sorts of named trains (when Hornby-Dublo released its super-detailed carriages), despite the fact that none was correct. Our imagination allowed us to 'believe'. Nowhere in our 'imaginings' did we have rocket ships, prehistoric beasts, Arthurian legends, volcanoes and enchanted trees - there must have been more absurdities, but my level of tolerance didn't stretch to any more viewings. 

 

I think you're right about polarisation with such 'extremes'. Despite the obvious increase in the hobby's profile, I'm not sure it's been all to the good. Not with regard to observation, certainly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The whole problem with headlights is that we are into a 'Where and When' question. A standard list of train classifications and the lamps to be carried was issued by BR in 1950. This was amended on at least three occasions before the carrying of headcodes was abandoned at the start of 1976.

 

Hello Eric

 

Fully concur with you there. The attached two RC Riley pics (taken from a poor photocopy of a Trains Illustrated Summer Annual) serve to illustrate the situation.

 

Empty stock between Paddington and West London or Old Oak Common had its own code as in the first pic. ECS from or to elsewhere used the 'normal' code as shown in the second. Any loco driver I have spoken with has always said that (for example) lamp over right buffer means the driver's right hand buffer when moving in a forward direction. Left hand means driver's left hand.

 

Brian

 

 

IMG_5759.JPG

IMG_5760.JPG

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Thanks Clem,

 

 It just goes to show just how quickly  you can switch off and take yourself away from the general model railway discourse, if you get a bit bored with it all. Fortunately, you always have things of interest and other goodies up your sleeve that I find inspiring. My faulty memory assumed that a Shangri La of model railway goodness was lurking somewhere on the boards. Not to worry, one can but dream of Nottingham Victoria.

 

Some questions with regard to your O4/7

 

Q1 The O4/7 boiler cab looks to be married to the Bach runningboard. Did you alter the shape of the cylinder wiggle or is it a version with the corrected wiggle?


Q2 How much of the chassis did you retain or discard for EM gauge?


Q3 Did you re-gauge the wheels, or replace?


Q4 How much of the running gear did you retain?

 

Q5 did you alter the angle of the cylinders, if they are not replacements?


Q5 Are these things available, when did you order and how long is the waiting time?

 

The O4/5 is of interest to myself. I will have to dig out my research for one last splurge of locomotives in 2020. I haven't a lot off time so I shall look at something else if acquiring one is a protracted affair. I think the O4/5 was an Annesley locomotive but it could have been Colwick.

 

Either way, as I have the day off tomorrow, your efforts have inspired me to do some modelling for the first time since early October.

 

Many thanks.

Hi Andrew,

First of all, thanks for the kind comments and I really hope you can get back full time into modelling as the standard of your work in my opinion, is as good as it gets - I've learnt a tremendous amount from it on this thread alone and it has at times given me a kick up the backside to try to reach those standards. And that's saying nothing about your fantastic in depth knowledge and expertise which I'm sure has helped many on this thread. Anyway on to the questions:

1. The body and cab are screwed on to the running plate. I haven't altered the wiggle round the cylinders and although it grates on me, I haven't yet had the gumption to try to modify it. The stuff the running plate is made of would make it pretty difficult and I'm a little worried that it would end up in the bin. But it's going to happen sooner or later. So in answer, at the moment I'm living with the incorrect wiggle.

2,3,4 and 5 The chassis has been retained  and I've used one of Alan Gibson's conversion packs to re-wheel it (includes 3mm axles). As this arrangement is meant to be temporary, I would hope to correct the cylinder angle to point to the centre of the driving axle on a new scratch or kit built chassis. I've used all the original running gear with spacing washers (again supplied by Alan Gibson) to allow the coupling rods to fit the AG crankpins. The driving axle is different from the others in that both coupling and connecting rods have a larger diameter hole for the crank pin. For these two I cut a short piece of 2.4 diameter brass tube to bush the crankpin. Although it's a bit of sloppy fit, she runs fine.

6. Yes they are available although Bill Bedford has not updated his site yet. It's a 28 day delivery but I think my came in just over 3 weeks. There are one or two minor problems which to be fair, I haven't yet reported back to Bill but they are all surmountable with a bit of care and work. I found the O4/5 required more work smoothing out the print that the O4/7 and I'm not sure I did enough on my model of 63851. 63628, 63745 and 63851 of the O4/5s were indeed at Colwick between 1952 to 1956 but more interestingly for you, 63851 was at Annesley from 1948 to 1952 with a short gap in 1950 when it went to Colwick for the summer of that year.

So in summary, I'm living with Bachmann's chassis faults for the time being but it is something I'll get too further down the line hopefully. And I think the O4/7 print is pretty good although there are still some work - fettling and sanding - to do on it before completion. Hope this helps, Andrew. Let me know if there are any follow ups.

 

Clem

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My intention wasn't to generalise, Grahame.

 

My point was mainly with regard to the layouts shown on TV of late. Though I only watched a tiny bit of the programmes (my blood pressure is fine, but there are limits!), the impression I got was that observation of the prototype wasn't just low on the list of priorities, it wasn't even on it! Everything I saw was based on imagination - in some cases, the most vivid. 

 

Now, I believe imagination is essential in railway modelling, but there are limits. When I was a boy, I imagined that the Duchess of Montrose my mate and I ran on track pinned to the floor of one of the rooms in his family's home was on 'The Royal Scot' (which we'd seen at Crewe). This was despite the fact that it only towed a maximum of five tinplate carriages, and only flew round a relatively small circuit. Later on, we'd attempt to run all sorts of named trains (when Hornby-Dublo released its super-detailed carriages), despite the fact that none was correct. Our imagination allowed us to 'believe'. Nowhere in our 'imaginings' did we have rocket ships, prehistoric beasts, Arthurian legends, volcanoes and enchanted trees - there must have been more absurdities, but my level of tolerance didn't stretch to any more viewings. 

 

I think you're right about polarisation with such 'extremes'. Despite the obvious increase in the hobby's profile, I'm not sure it's been all to the good. Not with regard to observation, certainly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

When you were a boy, I reckon you would have viewed the models of rocket ships, Arthurian legends, volcanoes etc. very positively.  Much more exciting than those slow moving shunting layouts on show elsewhere at Warley, with grey haired old men fiddling with uncouplers using funny little sticks (allow me to reference a stereotype here).

 

As we age, we become more knowledgeable about our subject, therefore more aware of things and so more ‘picky’ (I include myself in this).... our tastes and tolerances change dramatically over time.  I hope and expect that of those who are enthralled by the railway component of those Channel five fantasy models on display both at Warley and the telly, some will make a similar journey to our own in the future.  I continue to learn new stuff each day thanks to the other modellers at Warley and other exhibitions, the modelling press and in no small part to the contributors of this thread, knowing that it makes me ‘pickier’ every day but hopefully still tolerant of those in a different place.

 

Yesterday I learned about the non-lamping of wagons in sidings, and the complexity of lamping Caledonian trains. Two more things to be more knowledgeable/picky about when I visit the next exhibition!  I must be getting older...!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

My point was mainly with regard to the layouts shown on TV of late. Though I only watched a tiny bit of the programmes (my blood pressure is fine, but there are limits!), the impression I got was that observation of the prototype wasn't just low on the list of priorities, it wasn't even on it! Everything I saw was based on imagination - in some cases, the most vivid. 

 

 

Yes, although those type of fantasy, fun, less observed and frivolous type layouts aren't the sole preserve of a TV programme (that does encourage it by the setting of the themes for layouts to be built to). I've seen others of that genre, though less at exhibitions and more on other forums and, I understand, social media.

 

But it's good that the profile of railway modelling is currently high (not just through the TV programme but also with celebrity modellers now championing the hobby) and hopefully it will encourage others to participate. And, as Chamby suggests, maybe some of these new entrants will become more knowledgeable, better at observation and great railway modellers over time.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 27/11/2019 at 09:00, Tony Wright said:

'what is the difference (ignoring the beavertail and the side lettering) between the West Riding set and Coronation set?'

 

Other than the details you mention, there was no difference - as was the spare set, which carried no side-brandings, but announced which train it was by roof-mounted boards. There were four sets made - two 'Coronations', one 'West Riding' and one spare.

 

The formations were the same. Occasionally, one sees pictures of the spare set substituting for 'The Silver Jubilee', even though the seating arrangements and dining arrangements were not the same. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thank you Tony, I was hoping that was the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still plugging away at a little modelling with some generic 4-wheel coaches in N/2mm. I've trimmed off the moulded buffers, faced the ends with some thin plasticard and added new brass buffers which turned up in the post this morning:

 

DSC_8479.JPG.f950c5fc29deff345a3076e8ff19d59b.JPG

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, grahame said:

I'm still plugging away at a little modelling with some generic 4-wheel coaches in N/2mm. I've trimmed off the moulded buffers, faced the ends with some thin plasticard and added new brass buffers which turned up in the post this morning:

 

DSC_8479.JPG.f950c5fc29deff345a3076e8ff19d59b.JPG

 

Surely the buffers were turned up on a lathe.

 

Hat, coat, gone.......... and don't call me Shirley.

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew,

First of all, thanks for the kind comments and I really hope you can get back full time into modelling as the standard of your work in my opinion, is as good as it gets - I've learnt a tremendous amount from it on this thread alone and it has at times given me a kick up the backside to try to reach those standards. And that's saying nothing about your fantastic in depth knowledge and expertise which I'm sure has helped many on this thread. Anyway on to the questions:

1. The body and cab are screwed on to the running plate. I haven't altered the wiggle round the cylinders and although it grates on me, I haven't yet had the gumption to try to modify it. The stuff the running plate is made of would make it pretty difficult and I'm a little worried that it would end up in the bin. But it's going to happen sooner or later. So in answer, at the moment I'm living with the incorrect wiggle.

2,3,4 and 5 The chassis has been retained  and I've used one of Alan Gibson's conversion packs to re-wheel it (includes 3mm axles). As this arrangement is meant to be temporary, I would hope to correct the cylinder angle to point to the centre of the driving axle on a new scratch or kit built chassis. I've used all the original running gear with spacing washers (again supplied by Alan Gibson) to allow the coupling rods to fit the AG crankpins. The driving axle is different from the others in that both coupling and connecting rods have a larger diameter hole for the crank pin. For these two I cut a short piece of 2.4 diameter brass tube to bush the crankpin. Although it's a bit of sloppy fit, she runs fine.

6. Yes they are available although Bill Bedford has not updated his site yet. It's a 28 day delivery but I think my came in just over 3 weeks. There are one or two minor problems which to be fair, I haven't yet reported back to Bill but they are all surmountable with a bit of care and work. I found the O4/5 required more work smoothing out the print that the O4/7 and I'm not sure I did enough on my model of 63851. 63628, 63745 and 63851 of the O4/5s were indeed at Colwick between 1952 to 1956 but more interestingly for you, 63851 was at Annesley from 1948 to 1952 with a short gap in 1950 when it went to Colwick for the summer of that year.

So in summary, I'm living with Bachmann's chassis faults for the time being but it is something I'll get too further down the line hopefully. And I think the O4/7 print is pretty good although there are still some work - fettling and sanding - to do on it before completion. Hope this helps, Andrew. Let me know if there are any follow ups.

 

Clem

 

Afternoon Clem,

 

Leicester South GC had an extremely well received exhibition at Bradford Industrial museum back in October. For my own part, I had put in the work and all my ducks were in line. It was a week long event, so I wanted to take a bit of a break from model railways afterwards. There are more exhibitions to come, so there will be more modelling from myself over the next year at least. I'm still hopeful that the B7 may still be in the pipe line.

 

A completely different crowd was present at the museum from that you would get at a typical model railway exhibition. Ordinary folk, more varied in age, gender and race, though interested in industrial history to differing degrees. They were so appreciative and interested in the layout, the building of the stock, the location, its workings and creation. The reaction was rather wonderful, to see that people can still be fascinated and identify with by the construction of things and operation of the layout within its historical setting. On the final day half the operating team had been replaced by kids plucked from the museums visitors, their operation was amazingly good.

 

63851 sounds like the chap I was after. If one of my colleagues pulls his thumb out, it will be bound for a new and improved loaded steel train, lots of big bad quints, a ban on puny little GWR bogie bolsters pretending to be something else. With a bit of look I can get out a second d 210 out. The first ran as smooth as silk, just clearing contact on the min radius fiddleyard three foot curve, not bad for no test running and guesstimating the swing and distance between carriage ends. Also an A5 tank to follow and hopefully some NPC's. It looks like you have inspired me to have a plan and once I have a plan.............

 

Thanks for the info, I will be sure to get back to you latter on.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2019 at 12:17, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that, but was that the norm? 

 

I've found prototype shots which show anomalous lamps (normally within station limits), and one shot with no lamp at all! However, talking with professional signalmen (yes, I'm afraid, all men) I've been told that if a train carries incorrect lamps (or no lamps at all), then it should be stopped, and corrected. 

 

I've just commented in BRILL on some pictures taken at Durham in 1960, where, in one of them, a V3 is running light engine in reverse, yet carries its 'rear lamp' above the drawhook - the position for a light engine running forwards. It's probably involved in a shunting move (within station limits), and, as long as it carries a lamp at both ends, the signalman lets it be. That certainly used to be the case during my observations at Chester where (usually) ex-GWR locos would reverse on the triangle, and the three signal boxes controlling the movement allowed the locos to change direction, without the fireman altering the lamps on each leg. 

 

I go back again to observation of prototype pictures. In every shot I've used for reference in the building of Little Bytham and its trains, the locos carry the correct lamps, in the correct position for the job they're doing. 

 

Yes, there's no smoke on the model, it's also narrow gauge, no passengers ever get on or off the stoppers and it's only the trains which move. Trains with the correct lamps!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The V.3 has probably just arrived from Gateshead light engine to take up banking duties on heavy southbound expresses & the light changed when it has backed into the siding used by the bankers .

                                                         Cheers ,

                                                                                     Ray .

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

Leicester South GC had an extremely well received exhibition at Bradford Industrial museum back in October.

Sounds like the punters made it very worthwhile in their appreciation. I desperately wanted to get up to Bradford to see it but all sorts of things conspired against it and I ended up not going. Is Leicester South going on display anywhere next year and if so when and where? I'd really like to get a much longer look at what I thought was a great layout from all aspects when I saw it at Quorn and at Spalding last year. BTW, regarding something else you mentioned in the above post, I should confess that I'm guilty of a GW bogie bolster infestation too.

Anyway, it's good to hear from you again. I play guitar in a local band and that seems to have the desired effect of keeping the modelling fresh as I have to break off from time to time to learn new songs. I don't think it hurts to do that.

 

Cheers for now

 

Clem

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, teaky said:

I know it is RTR, Tony, but knowing your 'fondness' for the Bachmann V2, I thought you might be interested in this thread: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/149557-the-new-v2-ep/

 

I saw it in the 'club' room on Bachmann's stand at Warley.

 

It looks very good, though it's still over a year away I believe.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...