Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I think your opening sentences sum it up well. They provide a flavour but not a definitive position. The most common variations seem to be in the exact carriage types. There were amendments during the course of timetables - I have some LMR and WR ones that are festooned with amendments. New stock was being introduced all the time, old stock withdrawn and stock in between moved from one service to another. Sometimes it took a while for the books to catch up. I have looked more at principal expresses than local services and what I have found there is that things on the whole are a pretty close match. Variations include, for example, Thompson stock replacing Gresley or BR Standard stock being introduced, as well as what appear to be strengthening carriages at busy times. Lots of photos were taken on Saturdays, when things were often different.

 

At least with the major expresses, I am getting to the stage where the carriage workings often tell me the photo caption is wrong. This is especially true of East Coast Pullmans in the diesel era but also of other services. I was looking at a book of Eric Treacy photos the other day. He was notorious for not writing down dates or trains. One photo was captioned as the morning King's Cross-Glasgow train - a quick comparison to carriage workings indicated it was much more likely to be the Norseman.

 

Caption writers are often caught out by headboards too. I have lost count of the number of Saturday trains captioned as being the Elizabethan because the engine has the headboard when they clearly are not of that train (which did not run on Saturdays after a date I now forget in the early 1950s). The Saturday 'Bristolian' hauled by a King is another one. 

Thanks Robert,

 

As always an informative and lucid post. 

 

Regarding CWNs, I suppose they represent an 'ideal', often not realised in everyday service. The ones I have are covered in hand-written alterations.

 

My take (for what it's worth) is that I'll definitely use the appropriate CWNs as a guide, but make-up my trains much more based on prototype pictures (despite many having notorious captions). This means, of course, that many might illustrate Saturday workings.

 

Out of interest, I've tried to have a go at identifying the following trains (without success). All are taken at around the time of Retford's depiction and at and around Retford. We could have great fun making up some of the trains..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This last one (below) dates from 1961, and is described as a 'York-Scarborough' working; yet it's heading south at Doncaster, with an ex-Tourist Buffet as the first vehicle.

 

 

Any ideas about all the above, please? 

 

And, not a Mk.1 roof rib in sight. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Clem]

17 minutes ago, Headstock said:

There are definitely two sets involved in the workings though and the 12.57 pm off Derby to Grantham is a set with 210 twins.

But that's going the other way to the photo. The 12-57pm from Derby seems to have a (presumably GC) T(10) and two twins which have BT(5)s which aren't 210s. In fact I'm not sure off hand what diagram those twins are.

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, Chamby said:

1955 pages...   That’s 25 posts for every year between the birth of baby Jesus and myself.   

 

That’s a remarkable accomplishment, did you ever anticipate the thread taking off like it has, Tony?

To be fair it would be about 1500 pages if only people would learn to quote messages properly.  I find it frustrating to find that four new pages have appeared in one day, but that some pages only contain about three entries with the message they are replying to quoted in its entirety. 

It is normally where several people have quoted Tony's detailed entry with multiple images, in full and only one or two sentences added in reply.  

But hey, I can get irritated by trivial stuff.  I blame lockdown.

[Headstock]

36 minutes ago, Clem said:

But that's going the other way to the photo. The 12-57pm from Derby seems to have a (presumably GC) T(10) and two twins which have BT(5)s which aren't 210s. In fact I'm not sure off hand what diagram those twins are.

 

Evening Clem,

 

the forum keeps crashing before I get time to finish a post.

 

But that's going the other way to the photo

 

 It will come back again, it doesn't run to Grantham never to return!

 

The 12-57pm from Derby seems to have a (presumably GC) T(10) and two twins which have BT(5)s which aren't 210s. In fact I'm not sure off hand what diagram those twins are.

 

There are two sets operating on this working, my copy has one set annotated to BT (6) - CL(2/5), repeat. The set you refer to is ex GN, one twin ended up in the dido.

 

I'm not saying there is a connection, just noting that the Grantham Derby trains were operating articulated sets at this time both in reality and in the CWN's.

 

If you follow it through, 12.45 pm had two sets operating on that working too.

 

 

[Headstock]

 

1 hour ago, Clem said:

But that's going the other way to the photo. The 12-57pm from Derby seems to have a (presumably GC) T(10) and two twins which have BT(5)s which aren't 210s. In fact I'm not sure off hand what diagram those twins are.

 

I forgot to mention, I have to type super fast before, WHAM.

 

The T (10) is indead ex GC matchboard stock, I have photographs of working 100, it had a T (10) earlier.

[Clem]

22 minutes ago, Headstock said:

There are two sets operating on this working, my copy has one set annotated to BT (6) - CL(2/5), repeat. The set you refer to is ex GN, one twin ended up in the dido.

Yes, you mean GN diagram GN218RR. I have a photo of 69818 on the dido with it E44071/2.

 

I think I need to try to get some annotated CWNs. You know the exactly the origin of the carriages, I'm only guessing. I finding there is something very satisfying matching the CWNs up with the photos, matching a snapshot with planned passenger formation. I have a couple of 210s to build, plus a couple of Gresley SP 310s although it's difficult getting them going with them with so much other stuff to do. And couple that with not being a fast worker. I'm retired and their still doesn't seem to be enough time! But I feel the passenger side of my layout will only fully come to life once I've got a couple GC and a couple of GN carriages in the mix.

 

BTW, do you know if anyone does etched sides for a Gresley BT(5)?

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Robert,

 

As always an informative and lucid post. 

 

Regarding CWNs, I suppose they represent an 'ideal', often not realised in everyday service. The ones I have are covered in hand-written alterations.

 

My take (for what it's worth) is that I'll definitely use the appropriate CWNs as a guide, but make-up my trains much more based on prototype pictures (despite many having notorious captions). This means, of course, that many might illustrate Saturday workings.

 

Out of interest, I've tried to have a go at identifying the following trains (without success). All are taken at around the time of Retford's depiction and at and around Retford. We could have great fun making up some of the trains..........

 

Any ideas about all the above, please? 

 

And, not a Mk.1 roof rib in sight. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Most of the engines have AWS and the later emblem on the tender. Are these images from later than the Summer 1957 timetable? It makes a big difference on the East Coast and GN Main Line as there was a timetable revision and significant changes to carriage workings in September 1957.

[micklner]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mick,

 

I'm nor denying that the Hornby A4 bodyshell is excellent (the best RTR A4 in that respect, ever), though SE Finecast A4s can be knocked-up into something acceptable. 

 

You mention the weight, which, in the case of the cast metal loco is certainly an advantage. However, it's not just the lack of weight (in comparison) which militates against the Hornby A4 in my opinion; it's the motion. It's really puny, is incorrect in proportion and as for those upward-pointing slidebars; well............

 

I know it's been said before, but (for my particular needs) RTR ECML big steam-outline locos are just not powerful enough, even with extra ballast.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

In the case of the LNER version , sorry you cannot even see 3/4 or more of the motion, its hidden by the valances. Agreed its nothing wonderful  without the Valances, from what I remember of the Finecast verson is it that much better ?

 

Other than when its stationary, the motion can hardly been seen as well on any model, its a simple blur . The body and level of detail on any model by far the most important part of any model, if if its poor, the model will always be poor, no matter what it pulls well or not. 

 

In this case the Hornby version wins by miles, the same applies to the vast majority of current r.t.r as well, especially when compared with whitemetal models ,well designed  etched kits are again miles better than lumpen whitemetal kits. When was the last new whitemetal Loco kit issued ? .

 

We should think ourselves very lucky with the r.t.r models available.They save a huge amount of time in building , reasonable costs compared to kits, and allow anybody (with or without skills ,time and equipment)  to have a good looking model railway , sorry again this hobby its not all about kit building and has'nt been for many  years now.

 

Without r.t.r would this hobby, be a popular as it is now ? I doubt it very much.

 

IMHO.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Yes, you mean GN diagram GN218RR. I have a photo of 69818 on the dido with it E44071/2.

 

I think I need to try to get some annotated CWNs. You know the exactly the origin of the carriages, I'm only guessing. I finding there is something very satisfying matching the CWNs up with the photos, matching a snapshot with planned passenger formation. I have a couple of 210s to build, plus a couple of Gresley SP 310s although it's difficult getting them going with them with so much other stuff to do. And couple that with not being a fast worker. I'm retired and their still doesn't seem to be enough time! But I feel the passenger side of my layout will only fully come to life once I've got a couple GC and a couple of GN carriages in the mix.

 

BTW, do you know if anyone does etched sides for a Gresley BT(5)?

 

Evening Clem, you've only just started on the CWN's and formations malarkey, it's a vast subject and a bit like digging for Dinosaurs, in that nobody has a complete picture of everything. The advantage you have in modeling your area and I with my overlapping one, is that we are dealing with a much smaller carriage fleet than the East coast mainline for example, so you can be much more specific across a range of trains. It gets somewhat more complicated the more years you try and take on board. You could do with a percentage breakdown of passenger trains that used your route. This would make it easier to concentrate on exactly what you need and what you don't. At the moment it probably feels a bit overwhelming.

 

I have done a similar thing for passenger trains south of Leicester, so I know what the percentages of named trains are against cross country expresses, Manchester expresses, ordinary passenger and other miscellaneous trains. I know that if I have one southern set, I need two WR sets for example. The totals are then spread out between North and Southbound.

 

Because of your interest, I now Know an awful lot more about the passenger trains in your neck of the woods. I suspect that as a minimum,  you probably only require two articulated sets and only one of these needs to be dia. 210. The GN set is so untypical it drops of the percentages, the articulated steel twins being more common. Only an example but I'm sure it would be of benefit to yourself.

 

There is a rather nice thread or two in kit and scratch building were a BT(5) has been produced from a Kirk parts by Ken W. There is the Isinglass model but there are certain things about that kit you should be aware of in terms of accuracy. It may not be an issue but at least you are making an informed decision. To be fair, you could say the same about Kirk, you have made magnificent models out of them. I will post links later to avoid crash. I thought that Mousa did the BT (5) but if it was there, it is now gone.

 

 

I don't like this new link thing but the people are nice, there is another one, I will look.

 

I wonder if there would be any interest in an LNER carriage and workings thread?

Edited August 5, 2020 by Headstock

[Headstock]

23 minutes ago, micklner said:

In the case of the LNER version , sorry you cannot even see 3/4 or more of the motion, its hidden by the valances. Agreed its nothing wonderful  without the Valances, from what I remember of the Finecast verson is it that much better ?

 

Other than when its stationary, the motion can hardly been seen as well on any model, its a simple blur . The body and level of detail on any model by far the most important part of any model, if if its poor, the model will always be poor, no matter what it pulls well or not. 

 

In this case the Hornby version wins by miles, the same applies to the vast majority of current r.t.r as well, especially when compared with whitemetal models ,well designed  etched kits are again miles better than lumpen whitemetal kits. When was the last new whitemetal Loco kit issued ? .

 

We should think ourselves very lucky with the r.t.r models available.They save a huge amount of time in building , reasonable costs compared to kits, and allow anybody (with or without skills ,time and equipment)  to have a good looking model railway , sorry again this hobby its not all about kit building and has'nt been for many  years now.

 

Without r.t.r would this hobby, be a popular as it is now ? I doubt it very much.

 

IMHO.

 

Evening Mick,

 

Popularity isn't everything. I think that your modeling is much more interesting and quite often a better standard than RTR. The latter has its uses though.

[micklner]

4 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Mick,

 

Popularity isn't everything. I think that your modeling is much more interesting and quite often a better standard than RTR. The latter has its uses though.

Agreed popularity isnt everything ,but without that part of the hobby being realistic how long would the rest survive ?. I have no idea but there wouldnt be a lot of profit as a seller.

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, micklner said:

Agreed popularity isnt everything ,but without that part of the hobby being realistic how long would the rest survive ?. I have no idea but there wouldnt be a lot of profit as a seller.

 

I think that it will always survive,  people will always want to make things for fun and without a care for profit. 

[Willie Whizz]

31 minutes ago, micklner said:

I...

 

Other than when its stationary, the motion can hardly been seen as well on any model, its a simple blur . The body and level of detail on any model by far the most important part of any model, if if its poor, the model will always be poor, no matter what it pulls well or not. 

 

...

 

And when it is stationery, on most layouts most of the time it's either half-concealed behind a platform or else out of sight in a shed ...

 

I'd much rather it was accurate and realistic in appearance of course; but provided it's not grossly wrong, the "two foot rule" would make other issues a somewhat higher priority for me if I had to choose.

[Willie Whizz]

20 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

...

 

I wonder if there would be any interest in an LNER carriage and workings thread?

 

If it covered LNER and BR(ER) steam days as well, then ... yes please!!!

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

To be fair it would be about 1500 pages if only people would learn to quote messages properly.  I find it frustrating to find that four new pages have appeared in one day, but that some pages only contain about three entries with the message they are replying to quoted in its entirety. 

It is normally where several people have quoted Tony's detailed entry with multiple images, in full and only one or two sentences added in reply.  

But hey, I can get irritated by trivial stuff.  I blame lockdown.

Forgive me if I get this wrong,

 

But I was told that each page has 25 entries, irrespective of whether there are numerous photographs, repeated or not. Thus, if you look at the bar on the right of the page, sometimes it's minute towards the end of a page (indicating lots of images, repeated or not) or shorter (indicating fewer images). 

 

Perhaps someone will confirm this, please. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

44 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I wonder if there would be any interest in an LNER carriage and workings thread?

I would certainly join if there was one. I doubt it would offer anything that isn’t already covered on this thread, PN or one or two others. But it would keep a lot of useful information together rather than having the search through 1955 pages for that gem you remember a year or two ago. So on balance a good idea.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

5 hours ago, Iain.d said:

 

 

 

How does the Railmatch Malachite compare to the Humbrol Matt 101 you previously mentioned? I've bought a couple of tinlets; it seems dull compared to your photo.

 

Hi Iain

 

It's far from scientific, but I made up a swatch of Humbrol 101 (one coat on white plastic card) and offered it up to the Railmatch malachite:

 

 

It's not too far off, is it?

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Most of the engines have AWS and the later emblem on the tender. Are these images from later than the Summer 1957 timetable? It makes a big difference on the East Coast and GN Main Line as there was a timetable revision and significant changes to carriage workings in September 1957.

Good evening Robert,

 

Most of the pictures (which are subject to copyright, of course) are not actually dated, but I'd put them between 1957 and 1959. Certainly, by the latter year one might have expected many more Mk.1s to be in service. 

 

In the first picture, 60007 still has a single chimney, so that puts in no later than the end of 1957. 

 

Still, a wonderfully-eclectic mix of stock.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Robert,

 

Most of the pictures (which are subject to copyright, of course) are not actually dated, but I'd put them between 1957 and 1959. Certainly, by the latter year one might have expected many more Mk.1s to be in service. 

 

In the first picture, 60007 still has a single chimney, so that puts in no later than the end of 1957. 

 

Still, a wonderfully-eclectic mix of stock.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think it depends on which services you are looking at. The regular front rank expresses (except the Elizabethan) were dominated by Mark 1 stock other than the catering cars and dining cars by 1957 but the second tier of dated services, MFO or SO workings, reliefs, less important trains, etc would still have been largely pre-nationalisation designs. This is clear from the 1956 GN Main Line carriage workings, which include lots of unadvertised or dated relief trains.

 

I'm currently going through the Summer 1956 GN Main Line workings, in the absence of the 1957 book in my collection, and summarising the formations. 

[robertcwp]

21 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I would certainly join if there was one. I doubt it would offer anything that isn’t already covered on this thread, PN or one or two others. But it would keep a lot of useful information together rather than having the search through 1955 pages for that gem you remember a year or two ago. So on balance a good idea.

 

 

If it's BR era, there is always my BRCoachingStock groups.io group - link below.

[Chuffer Davies]

12 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

You have found a good selection of 'ribless' mk 1 roofs there. But there are plenty of counter examples. I don't have your extensive library, nor are my own photos catalogued (now that would have been a good lockdown project!) but here are a couple to prove that I'm not completely talking b......t. 

 

I concede that they're evident in less photos than I remembered. I suspect it depends on both the lighting and the quality of the original workmanship on the roof.

 

Anyway, this debate hadn't changed my mind on doing my own. I haven't yet found the time to do the important stuff like gangways and weathering on 100% of my coaches, so it's all about priorities. I take my hat off to you for the umpteen hours it must have taken you to do your fleet.

 

Andy

 

This is nothing I've ever studied before but I was intrigued by the photo's and wondered how the rooves are constructed.

 

I've checked today with Wendy Anderson who is a major force in carriage and wagon preservation based out of the East Lanc's Railway.  Wendy has advised that the join in the roof panelling on a Mk1 coach is a weld line.  As Tony has suggested, in 4mm this is going to be almost invisible and if represented at all would be nothing more than a hair line.  It is certainly not a rib or anything close to it. 

 

Regards,

 

Frank

[bbishop]

8 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's where I've got to with my LSWR corridor coaches:

 

 

Still a fair bit to be done in terms of final detailing and decals. but (even though I mean  to build an additional brake) I felt that I needed the reward of seeing them running on the the layout, or else motivation would stall. The coaches were airbrushed in Railmatch malachite and I'm now awaiting a delivery of HMRS transfers so I can add the sunshine lettering. These must have looked fantastic in the immediate post-war years.

 

Al

 

Al, are you sure about the coach ends being green?  I thought only the Bournemouth sets had green ends - everything else was black.  I can e-mail Mike King and ask him, if you like.  

 

I've answered your later question on livery from Mike's book.  The Southern Railway was experimenting with various green liveries from 1935.  In 1936 or 37 a bright olive green (called Dover Green) was chosen but Bulleid didn't like it and it wore badly, so in 1938 he introduced malachite.  Bill

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

In the case of the LNER version , sorry you cannot even see 3/4 or more of the motion, its hidden by the valances. Agreed its nothing wonderful  without the Valances, from what I remember of the Finecast verson is it that much better ?

 

Other than when its stationary, the motion can hardly been seen as well on any model, its a simple blur . The body and level of detail on any model by far the most important part of any model, if if its poor, the model will always be poor, no matter what it pulls well or not. 

 

In this case the Hornby version wins by miles, the same applies to the vast majority of current r.t.r as well, especially when compared with whitemetal models ,well designed  etched kits are again miles better than lumpen whitemetal kits. When was the last new whitemetal Loco kit issued ? .

 

We should think ourselves very lucky with the r.t.r models available.They save a huge amount of time in building , reasonable costs compared to kits, and allow anybody (with or without skills ,time and equipment)  to have a good looking model railway , sorry again this hobby its not all about kit building and has'nt been for many  years now.

 

Without r.t.r would this hobby, be a popular as it is now ? I doubt it very much.

 

IMHO.

Good evening Mick,

 

In my view the SE Finecast A4 motion is much more-substantial and realistic than Hornby's. 

 

I'm sure this has been aired before, but many things are cyclic.

 

May I offer three different A4s............?

 

 

This was an original Hornby CHARLES H NEWTON, in LNER black. I close-coupled the loco to the tender, discarded the original bogie wheels and replaced them with Markits and asked Ian Rathbone to paint it in BR green as 60008. 

 

What lets it down in my opinion is the motion, especially those slidebars pointing the wrong way. And the plastic (attached to the body) slidebar supports disappeared years ago. 

 

I will not deny that the body is an excellent representation of an A4.

 

 

Here's something of a hybrid. It's a modified/detailed Bachmann body, sitting on a SEF set of frames and towing a modified SEF tender (featured earlier). 

 

Ian Rathbone painted this. 

 

I'd hope you'd agree, the motion is much more-substantial. 

 

 

And now a SEF A4 loco, this time towing a Crownline tender. Granted, it's more 'chunky' than the Hornby body, but lumpen? Of course, this will pull rakes that the Hornby A4 can only watch. 

 

Again, it's Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

I have to disagree with your assertion (by implication) that the body on a model is more important than the chassis. I'd suggest that the two are of equal importance, and if (all other factors being equal) a loco can't pull the equivalent maximum load of its prototype, then I'd assert that no matter how 'pretty' it might look, it's a 'poor' model. 

 

And, when locos are in motion, that doesn't always mean high-speed dynamics. Gresley gear is wonderfully-aesthetic in motion, and capturing that movement in model form is essential to me. Hornby's A4 'fails' on two counts in that regard in my view. For one, the return crank on one side leans the wrong way, giving a weird dynamic effect in motion; and, two, that slidebar angle is just wrong. I don't have any A4s with valances, so the correct movement is vital.

 

I'm not denying that modern RTR is to a standard now that very few can equal, let alone better. And you're right, kit-building is not everything, but neither is RTR. 

 

My view, expressed many times, is that I'd much sooner see personal, inventive, creative and self-reliant modelling (just the sort of stuff you indulge in), not just the product of some distant factory, however good it might be.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

[CUTLER2579]

Quote "Good afternoon David,

 

I believe 60029's tender was the one towed by MALLARD in the '48 Exchanges.  "Quote

 

 Tony,

Mallard towed Tender Nº5323 – 1928 Corridor Type from 5/3/1948   until 12/3/1953  which was then subsequently attached to 60029 Woodcock until the Locomotive was  withdrawn on 20/10/1963.

I spoke with Bob Dawson this afternoon and he sends his regards to you & Mo.

Regards,Derek.

[micklner]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mick,

 

In my view the SE Finecast A4 motion is much more-substantial and realistic than Hornby's. 

 

I'm sure this has been aired before, but many things are cyclic.

 

May I offer three different A4s............?

 

 

This was an original Hornby CHARLES H NEWTON, in LNER black. I close-coupled the loco to the tender, discarded the original bogie wheels and replaced them with Markits and asked Ian Rathbone to paint it in BR green as 60008. 

 

What lets it down in my opinion is the motion, especially those slidebars pointing the wrong way. And the plastic (attached to the body) slidebar supports disappeared years ago. 

 

I will not deny that the body is an excellent representation of an A4.

 

 

Here's something of a hybrid. It's a modified/detailed Bachmann body, sitting on a SEF set of frames and towing a modified SEF tender (featured earlier). 

 

Ian Rathbone painted this. 

 

I'd hope you'd agree, the motion is much more-substantial. 

 

 

And now a SEF A4 loco, this time towing a Crownline tender. Granted, it's more 'chunky' than the Hornby body, but lumpen? Of course, this will pull rakes that the Hornby A4 can only watch. 

 

Again, it's Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

I have to disagree with your assertion (by implication) that the body on a model is more important than the chassis. I'd suggest that the two are of equal importance, and if (all other factors being equal) a loco can't pull the equivalent maximum load of its prototype, then I'd assert that no matter how 'pretty' it might look, it's a 'poor' model. 

 

And, when locos are in motion, that doesn't always mean high-speed dynamics. Gresley gear is wonderfully-aesthetic in motion, and capturing that movement in model form is essential to me. Hornby's A4 'fails' on two counts in that regard in my view. For one, the return crank on one side leans the wrong way, giving a weird dynamic effect in motion; and, two, that slidebar angle is just wrong. I don't have any A4s with valances, so the correct movement is vital.

 

I'm not denying that modern RTR is to a standard now that very few can equal, let alone better. And you're right, kit-building is not everything, but neither is RTR. 

 

My view, expressed many times, is that I'd much sooner see personal, inventive, creative and self-reliant modelling (just the sort of stuff you indulge in), not just the product of some distant factory, however good it might be.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Tony

 

 Dwight show how good the overall finish and design is on the Hornby version. Slidebars are poor but a covering of dark weathering improves the look.

 

Lord Faringdon, sorry nowhere as good as the Hornby version, body lacks any crispness to the detail and the Tender as said before poor plus the additional  weight, I call that lumpen quality suitable for the standard 30 or more years ago . The fit of the Valance in front of the cylinders is way out ,all the photos I have seen of the Finecast version also suffer this problem.The Dome cover is very pronounced above the main body as well also again a Finecast problem .I presume the photo has misbehaved because the lower bufferbeam area looks most strange on my computer.

 

Miles Beevor

 

Much better looking than Faringdon, howver similar faults as the previous Loco , plus the lower washout plugs as just holes. Oversized Superheater covers.  The Tender however look finer the sides at the front have been reduced in thickness ? .

 

As to motion when running each to their own opinion , I would never think of looking that closely . As to Body versus Chassis , body every time for me ,it could pull 30 coaches but if looks wrong its wrong !!!

 

As said before how many people have such layouts or needs for pulling large trains , I presume very few . R.t.r is not designed or intended for such use, so why keep mentioning it, its not a valid comparison.  R.t.r its designed for light loads and tight curves. No more no less.

 

Yes I enjoy building kits (most of the time!!) I like the challenge, it wont however stop me buying r.t.r when it covers my needs , without the challenge being needed of how to make the thing work !!

 

cheers

 

Mick