Wright writes.....

[queensquare]

As this is one of the busiest threads on the forum, and very much focused on the practical side of the hobby I feel little shame in this blatant plug for the Warminster show on the 8th of June.

Its a small, friendly show with excellent layouts, demonstrators, trade and cakes! 

 

Jerry

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, queensquare said:

As this is one of the busiest threads on the forum, and very much focused on the practical side of the hobby I feel little shame in this blatant plug for the Warminster show on the 8th of June.

Its a small, friendly show with excellent layouts, demonstrators, trade and cakes! 

 

Jerry

Plug away, Jerry,

 

It's nice to know that Wright Writes is so busy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

I have seen both terms - mechanical stokers and coal pushers, used elsewhere with reference to the Princess Coronations. I am happy to accept that the term ‘coal pusher’ is a more accurate description in their case.  

 

However my point still stands in that the term ‘mechanical stoker’ is used in the UK rather than ‘mechanical fireman’.  For example, the device was fitted to three 9F’s (92165 - 92167) experimentally and has been described as such.  I assume that the term was adopted from across the pond, where their use was much more prevalent because of the longer runs and larger fire boxes that required more coaling than a man could reasonably be expected to handle.

Thanks Phil,

 

I'd be interested to know where your sources of reference combine 'coal-pusher' and 'mechanical stoker' as the same thing. Wherever it emanates, it's clearly wrong and completely misleading. 

 

Whether it's called a mechanical 'stoker' or a mechanical 'fireman' is irrelevant; the two devices are entirely different in their respective constructions and totally different in their respective functions, other than they both move coal.

 

My apologies if this appears to be pedantry, but the incorrect sources should be identified. As one who's written books and umpteen articles on prototype locos (not on the Princess Coronations, to be fair), it's beholden on me to be accurate with my facts (despite the odd blooper). Clearly the authors you cite are remiss in that.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[APOLLO]

Coal Stoker. These are American versions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coal Pushers. A few Britannias had pushers (though not stokers). As noted above a few 9F's had stokers.

 

DJH Brit tender (BR1D) with pusher.

 

 

 

Coal pusher (Stanier Coronation class tender)

 

 

Brit15

[Steamport Southport]

There was also the underfeed stoker used on some of the Hunslet Austerities. Designed by Porta who I believe was Argentinian.

 

https://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm

 

But I've still never seen a legitimate reference to the man who shovels coal on a British steam locomotive been referred to as a stoker. Ships yes.

 

 

 

Jason

[Bernard Lamb]

A little teaser for the weekend.

Here we have a photograph taken at a well known station.

However the viewpoint is not one that is accessible by the travelling public.

Where is it?

Certain people on here will know the answer so please hold back and see what suggestions others come up with.

My apologies for the poor photo as the light is not very good in this area and I did not have a lot of time.

I will explain what I was doing there on Sunday.

Bernard

 

[Mike 84C]

As an ex Fireman, stoker was used as a casual jockular  sort of term. As in someone who heaved a lot of coal in the firebox rather than fired the box.  If you watch Winter on Jinpeng Pass there is a footplate sequence where the fireman is firing the QJ at the same time as the  mech; stoker is running. But look at the coal ,if there's a bit as big as a finger that's a lump.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Ah, what an interesting lot of  byways there are to attract our attention on here at the moment.  Before I get back to the real railway (the one at Little Bytham that is) I'll quickly dive into one of them.  The oldest Rule Book I have is the 1877 LNWR & GWR Joint Rule Book and it very clearly uses the term Fireman in respect of the man working on a railway engine with the Driver, that term remained consistently in use in all Rule Books down to the end of steam and I have never heard of a different term being officially applied to that particular task.

 

The railway industry did of course also employ Stokers - most obviously they served on ships but it is possible (based more on information regarding rates of pay than anything else) that the also worked in other capacities such as tending the boilers in hotels and such like.  But the footplate job was very early on given the title 'Fireman' and that is the one which stuck in all official terminology.   I'll say little about a railway station other than that it is a station upon the line of route of the railway, ipso facto a 'train station' must logically therefore be upon a train.

 

Now back to the real world of contemporary railways and I must thank Tony for an enjoyable day at Little Bytham yesterday not forgetting the excellent cups of tea (of commendable flavour thank you) and of course the friend who transported me there along with colleagues.  But back to Tony's railway - I have long admired the aim and standard, and fidelity, of modelling on Tony's layout so it was a real pleasure to see it 'in the flesh'.  But the day also revealed something which puts the layout into the truly special category - it not only replicates the appearance and trains of Little Bytham in 1958 but crucially it can be worked (in so far as small scale allows) like Little Bytham in 1958.  This is something which not even videos can truly convey, it's only when you see it and get your hands on it that you appreciate it as a true 'model of a railway' and in my view that is the peak of railway modelling achievement.  And helped by a really intuitive control panel  for the station area which was a pleasure to work - thank you Tony:  who needs DCC with a control panel with that sort of simplicity?

 

So eulogies over, and a truly enjoyable day to remember, it was also possible to inject a little bit of real railway working practice into the day.  A signal failure meant that Rule 39(a) had to be applied to the Up Fast Home Signal - which I duly did (slightly to confusion of one of my colleagues doing the driving, but we got there), and in similar vein it was also necessary to ask if a train crossing Up Slow to Up Fast was a move booked in the timetable (it was).   Although block bells are (thankfully) not used I was also able to inform our host that a different bell signal (from that for a Light Engine) was used for an engine with one or two brakevans attached - it was 1-1-3 instead of the normal 2-3 for a light engine.  Alas I can't check this against the LNER (ex GNR & GCR Lines) Regulations in use in 1958 but it is not mentioned as a change in the briefing notes for the introduction of the 1960 'standard' Block Regulations so I presume it was in use in 1958.

 

So thanks once again Tony, a great day.

Thank you ever so much, Mike,

 

If ever a piece of correspondence vindicated what the LB team has tried to create, this is it. From a professional railwayman, it represents the highest praise indeed. 

 

In a slightly perverse way, I'm glad that Up fast starter had failed. Watching you and Ian perform Rule 39(a) was fascinating, and done with complete professional confidence. To see my big locos on long trains, checked, then accelerating away is something I've not really done before. True railway operation under the circumstances. Thank you. 

 

I'm glad you liked my 'intuitive' control panel. Nobody has mastered it so quickly or as competently. Praise for its simplicity should go to Norman Solomon, who made it to my specification. To me, it's so much more realistic than pressing buttons in order to get decoders to function. It's entirely independent of the drivers, as it should be. It's operated solely by the signalman, and you were certainly that yesterday! 

 

Now, thanks for the info on the light engine code when hauling a brakevan or two, but was the lamp code carried by the loco different? 

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

19 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Good informative posts Grahame. Gas Works - I started my engineering apprenticeship at Wigan Gas Works back in 1969 - "North Western Gas Board" back then !! It was still in production then, and had a small shunting diesel, the steam loco was still shut inside it's shed, I think it was later preserved.

 

Wigan Gas Works 1973 jut after closure. (More photos on my Flikr site below). Note how close to Town centre it was - most smell emanated from the oxide beds (right centre) where the gas was passed through iron oxide to remove sulphur etc. When the oxide was changed you put a peg on your nose !!! (Young kids today etc etc !!) Wigan NW (centre left) had just been electrified - progress !!

 

 

When the works was in production it was a living thing, hisses, clanks, whooshes, bangs, gurgles, etc (and that was just the Boss !!!), Steam Traps going off scared the living daylights out of you if you happened to be alongside one as it "went off"

 

All (well most) model railways need a Gasworks, some were huge, some tiny. The best ones I've ever seen modelled (in print only though) was the THREE on Peter Denny's "Buckingham" layout.

 

There is a nice small one here on page 11 of this download

 

https://archive.org/details/RailwayModellerAugust1963/page/n11

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks. And that's a super photo you've posted.  It shows great modelling details like the missing roof slates and portable generator/compressor. Oddly enough I included a compressor on the gas holder site I built on a layout many years ago. The DED (distributing engineers department) used lots of them towed behind vans when digging up the roads.

 

 

The model is a bit basic and impressionistic (I wouldn't be happy with it these days) but it served a purpose. It was built for my ‘Hedges Hill Cutting’ N/2mm layout, over 25 years ago, and made from Plastruct girders crossed braced with wire around a cut down Twiglets container. The top should be slightly domed although obviously it wasn't something I bothered with back then. Hopefully the next one will be much more accurate and closer to the prototype.

 

G

 

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

15 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

There was also the underfeed stoker used on some of the Hunslet Austerities. Designed by Porta who I believe was Argentinian.

 

https://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm

 

But I've still never seen a legitimate reference to the man who shovels coal on a British steam locomotive been referred to as a stoker. Ships yes.

 

 

 

Jason

Some years ago I was asked to review the journals (log books) of Alfred Jarman, a "fireman" on the LNWR . With the help of my wife, we looked into his history as I had been asked to put together a piece for the LNWR Society Journal, although it was never used. Here is part of what I wrote that may be relevant to this discussion.

 

"The next Census, in 1891 shows that he now lived at 57 Market Street, Nantwich with his mother (now widowed) and brother.  His profession is listed as “Cleaner in Engine Shed”. Aged 18, he was presumably now employed at Crewe by the L&NWR.

By 1901 he had moved to 40 Nelson Street, Crewe as a boarder.  Now 28, his profession is listed as “Railway Engineer Stoker”.  The head of the household was Daniel Hughes, described as an “Engine Fitter. This house, only a few hundred yards from the site of Crewe South Shed, still exists.”

 

The 1901 Census information was presumably supplied by the head of the household, himself probably an employee of the LNWR at Crewe , so familiar with the staff descriptions.  The first journal the LNWRS had been given dated from 1915, but we couldn't find him in the 1911 census so don't know his job title at that time. 

 

Perhaps "stoker" was a usual Victorian/Edwardian job title, later changed to fireman.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson
Spelling

[Tony Wright]

When was ASLEF founded?

 

Had 'stoker' still been in use, it would have been ASLES. 

[The Johnster]

According to the history on it's own website, it was formed in 1880.  Interestingly, it never achieved a closed shop for it's grades; there were always some locomen who were members of the NUR, which accepted all railway grades including footplate, and not of ASLEF.  This led to resentment during ASLEF only industrial action, especially of course if they crossed picket lines, which some did.  It was considered by some ASLEF men that NUR footplatemen were less entitled to any beneficial outcome from an ASLEF action that had improved wages or conditions for the whole grade.  Few if any men were members of both unions.  

 

During my time in the 70s on the railway, ASLEF was noticeably more aggressive and 'action-ready' than the NUR.  There were several strikes and work-to-rules during this period that I was involved in, as an NUR member.  The NUR's policy was usually not to support any ASLEF action directly, but to tell it's members to attend for work, meaning that the railway had to pay our wages for an unproductive day.  Some ASLEF men regarded this as treachery!  

 

Industrial relations between workers and our immediate bosses were generally pretty good at this time, despite what your social history professor would have you believe about the 70s, though there were the odd firebrands in both camps, but with new working practices as a result of modernisation being introduced all the time and management, understandably, constantly looking to save money and reduce staffing levels as well as looking for things to close, it was inevitable that there was going to be some conflict.  On a personal level and as someone who regards himself as a small s socialist by principle, I certainly felt it necessary to have my interests represented by a union, though, and had no problem with the 'closed shop'; 'they' would have walked all over us otherwise.

 

I have always associated the term 'stoker', at least in railway locomotive usage, with coke firing in the very early days, though now I think about it I have no idea if this is correct, and would be happy to be put right!  The union preserves the use of the archaic 'engineer' for the driver, which in more modern times is American usage; I would never have used it to describe the bloke who drove the loco in my time on the railway in the 1970s.  Casey Jones was an engineer, Joe Duddington was an engine driver, but both did the same job and were noted for fast running.  An engineer in my time was somebody who worked in an office and designed things (locomotives amongst them) scientifically using his knowledge of physics and mathematics.  He wore a white coat and carried a clipboard, because stove pipe hats and frock coats went out with Brunel...  Stokers worked on ships or with stationary boilers.

Edited May 11, 2019 by The Johnster

[Andy Hayter]

and maybe stationary boilers is the key since a works like Crewe will have had quite a number of such boilers as power sources etc.

[Denbridge]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

According to the history on it's own website, it was formed in 1880.  Interestingly, it never achieved a closed shop for it's grades; there were always some locomen who were members of the NUR, which accepted all railway grades including footplate, and not of ASLEF.  This led to resentment during ASLEF only industrial action, especially of course if they crossed picket lines, which some did.  It was considered by some ASLEF men that NUR footplatemen were less entitled to any beneficial outcome from an ASLEF action that had improved wages or conditions for the whole grade.  Few if any men were members of both unions.  

 

During my time in the 70s on the railway, ASLEF was noticeably more aggressive and 'action-ready' than the NUR.  There were several strikes and work-to-rules during this period that I was involved in, as an NUR member.  The NUR's policy was usually not to support any ASLEF action directly, but to tell it's members to attend for work, meaning that the railway had to pay our wages for an unproductive day.  Some ASLEF men regarded this as treachery!  

 

Industrial relations between workers and our immediate bosses were generally pretty good at this time, despite what your social history professor would have you believe about the 70s, though there were the odd firebrands in both camps, but with new working practices as a result of modernisation being introduced all the time and management, understandably, constantly looking to save money and reduce staffing levels as well as looking for things to close, it was inevitable that there was going to be some conflict.  On a personal level and as someone who regards himself as a small s socialist by principle, I certainly felt it necessary to have my interests represented by a union, though, and had no problem with the 'closed shop'; 'they' would have walked all over us otherwise.

 

I have always associated the term 'stoker', at least in railway locomotive usage, with coke firing in the very early days, though now I think about it I have no idea if this is correct, and would be happy to be put right!  The union preserves the use of the archaic 'engineer' for the driver, which in more modern times is American usage; I would never have used it to describe the bloke who drove the loco in my time on the railway in the 1970s.  Casey Jones was an engineer, Joe Duddington was an engine driver, but both did the same job and were noted for fast running.  An engineer in my time was somebody who worked in an office and designed things (locomotives amongst them) scientifically using his knowledge of physics and mathematics.  He wore a white coat and carried a clipboard, because stove pipe hats and frock coats went out with Brunel...  Stokers worked on ships or with stationary boilers.

In addition, the Southern Railway didnt have drivers. They were known as Engineman.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thank you ever so much, Mike,

 

If ever a piece of correspondence vindicated what the LB team has tried to create, this is it. From a professional railwayman, it represents the highest praise indeed. 

 

In a slightly perverse way, I'm glad that Up fast starter had failed. Watching you and Ian perform Rule 39(a) was fascinating, and done with complete professional confidence. To see my big locos on long trains, checked, then accelerating away is something I've not really done before. True railway operation under the circumstances. Thank you. 

 

I'm glad you liked my 'intuitive' control panel. Nobody has mastered it so quickly or as competently. Praise for its simplicity should go to Norman Solomon, who made it to my specification. To me, it's so much more realistic than pressing buttons in order to get decoders to function. It's entirely independent of the drivers, as it should be. It's operated solely by the signalman, and you were certainly that yesterday! 

 

Now, thanks for the info on the light engine code when hauling a brakevan or two, but was the lamp code carried by the loco different? 

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

Praise where it was due Tony - a proper job railway.

 

Alas I don't have the LNER appendix which still applied to the GN mainline in 1958. but I'm sure the May 1950 amendment from the REC applied to all Regions using the RCH lamp codes although basically all it did was re-word the description (and on the WR let it take account of there possibly being two brakevans instead of just one: the LNER Appendix might have already provided for two brakevans?) and create a different bell code (on the WR at any rate).  

 

But the important thing was that the lamping was the same as a light engine - provided there were no more then two brakevans.

 

And I couldn't resist adding this to my post-

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Denbridge said:

In addition, the Southern Railway didnt have drivers. They were known as Engineman.

Note that London underground doesn't have Drivers, it has Operators and they used to be called Motormen.

[The Johnster]

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Note that London underground doesn't have Drivers, it has Operators and they used to be called Motormen.

I think the Southern used this term for the men who drove it's electric multiple units as well, Motormen I mean.  Sounds a bit comic book; don't miss 'Dan Dare and the Motormen', perhaps an evil robotic army operating at the behest of the Mekon in order to spare the lives of otherwise expendable Treens.  

 

Perhaps we are drifting OT a bit now.  It's been that sort of Saturday...

[Steamport Southport]

I think the term motormen went back to the days of the LSWR push/pull trains being called "motor" trains.

 

The M7s were nicknamed Motors. The 700 class 0-6-0 goods version was always known as Black Motors.

 

 

 

jason

[Tony Wright]

To return to the gasworks theme, Buckingham has a least two.

 

 

 

 

[CUTLER2579]

That could be Gee & Hill ?

[Tony Wright]

I've now built the N7 chassis for a friend. 

 

 

He's building the body, but the chassis defeated him. He's glued the thing together with epoxy - ugh! However, soldering would appear to be a black art to him. Why is this fundamental (metal) constructional procedure so feared? 

 

I've now got to build an L1 chassis to go underneath his glued-together ABS loco body (he's part-made the frames, which I'll need to dismantle).

 

All the above might seem to be a bit harsh on a friend's work, but if things are not done properly, failure will be the result. Being 'kind', 'considerate' and 'encouraging' are all well and good, but some 'cruel' home-truths are often necessary as well. Still, it's beholden on those who can make locos to help those who struggle with them, otherwise RTR will be the only option. 

 

Speaking of those who 'can' build locos, this little selection below is the property of another friend.

 

 

All have ostensibly been built/painted by 'professional' loco-builders. The errors are legion and none of them works properly. I have them to fix, but there's a limit. They were built some years ago and at least one of the builders has now died. 

 

I've lost count of the number of 'professionally-built' locos which have passed through my hands, mainly because they don't 'work'. Do some builders only test their creations on a yard of dead-straight track? I've had to take off drivers to give side-play by filing off the outside faces of bearings, and, as for pick-ups! It would seem that a large number of kit-built locos live only in display cases. 

 

Could this be another reason for a decline in loco-building? Folk have a go at making them, fail and then give up. They then turn to others to have locos made for them, and they don't work either. All at a high-cost.

 

I once acted as an 'expert witness' in a legal case for a friend who was rejecting locos he'd had 'professionally-made'. They were rubbish, and he won! 

 

 

 

At least there are still some out there who know what they're doing. This is Graham Nicholas' B3, made from etches and with a resin boiler. I have one to build as well, though 'prejudice' means !'ll make a metal boiler. I have to deliver it to Ian Rathbone for painting. 

 

All in all, it would appear that the majority of kit-built locos are never finished to satisfaction. A sad state of affairs, especially when the costs are considered.

 

Does anyone else have 'horror stories' with regard to models they've had made? 

 

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

All have ostensibly been built/painted by 'professional' loco-builders. The errors are legion and none of them works properly. I have them to fix, but there's a limit. They were built some years ago and at least one of the builders has now died. 

 

I've lost count of the number of 'professionally-built' locos which have passed through my hands, mainly because they don't 'work'. Do some builders only test their creations on a yard of dead-straight track? I've had to take off drivers to give side-play by filing off the outside faces of bearings, and, as for pick-ups! It would seem that a large number of kit-built locos live only in display cases.

 

 

Tony - looking occasionally at "kit-built" locos on ebay, it is surprising how many come up for sale with no motors; they have clearly been built for display (spell-check on that word just came up as "dialysis"!) only.  Perhaps the builder/commissioner never had space/time/inclination to build an appropriate layout, but in the days when a motor+gearbox costs perhaps 1/3rd of the cost of the kit, it would be understandable if they had left off these components, knowing the loco would never leave a display case.

 

I look at those four above and would hope I could achieve the paint finish of the black pair (lined green, no chance), but would be disappointed to have paid someone else for it.  Sadly there are some quite poor professional model painters/weather-ers out there - again, just look on eBay - but I would guess their service doesn't cost much less than someone truly skilled like Tom (9793) of this forum.

 

This photo above is a reminder that I still need to fit the replacement chimney, dome and buffers that you very kindly supplied for my K's O4, which you brought back to life for me at Woking last year.

 

Rob

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 He's glued the thing together with epoxy - ugh! However, soldering would appear to be a black art to him. Why is this fundamental (metal) constructional procedure so feared?

 

I've shown this 'Jinty' here before; a whitemetal kit body on a first-generation Tri-ang 'sandwich' chassis.

 

 

I mentioned that I intended to refurbish it with a current-technology chassis, as the body wasn't bad at all.

 

The new chassis comprises a Comet kit, fitted with the latest Markits wheels, a High Level Roadrunner+ Compact gearbox, and a Mitsumi motor.

 

 

Having built the chassis, I stripped the body with cellulose thinners and discovered that I had assembled the kit with epoxy - well, it was nearly fifty years ago! Nevertheless, the body is well-assembled and I decided to leave well alone. I did replace the chimney and dome, and added a few extra details relevant to the chosen prototype; (how did it manage to retain destination board holders by the time it became an BR S&DJR line stalwart)?

 

 

I still need to fill the bunker, and glaze the spectacle plates, but I'm well pleased with the (almost) finished model. What I can say is that this is far and away the quietest chassis that I have built - just the rumble of wheels on rails, otherwise in drifts along like a ghost! .... and I've yet to turn a flywheel and fit it to the spare motor shaft.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

Tony - looking occasionally at "kit-built" locos on ebay, it is surprising how many come up for sale with no motors; they have clearly been built for display (spell-check on that word just came up as "dialysis"!) only.  Perhaps the builder/commissioner never had space/time/inclination to build an appropriate layout, but in the days when a motor+gearbox costs perhaps 1/3rd of the cost of the kit, it would be understandable if they had left off these components, knowing the loco would never leave a display case.

 

I look at those four above and would hope I could achieve the paint finish of the black pair (lined green, no chance), but would be disappointed to have paid someone else for it.  Sadly there are some quite poor professional model painters/weather-ers out there - again, just look on eBay - but I would guess their service doesn't cost much less than someone truly skilled like Tom (9793) of this forum.

 

This photo above is a reminder that I still need to fit the replacement chimney, dome and buffers that you very kindly supplied for my K's O4, which you brought back to life for me at Woking last year.

 

Rob

Thanks Rob,

 

I don't have the faintest idea how to access ebay (nor do I particularly want to), but friends tell me about it on occasions and I've certainly seen some very good bargains, as well as 'turkeys', which have been 'won' by friends. Like any auction, it depends on how many are bidding. Where it does seem 'daft', is where bidders pay more for a second-hand, say, kit, which can still be bought new at a lower price. D&S kits spring to mind.

 

I wonder how 'poor' professional builders, painters and weather-ers still keep in business. It would seem there's still a large market out there for kit-built locos on commission. I've lost count of the number of times folk have asked me (usually, late-middle-aged men) to build a loco for them. Were I still building professionally, my order book would be full, though I wonder just what some questioners think my rates might be. I had an A4 I'd kit-built on my stand at York, painted by Ian Rathbone. I'd actually made it for Shap, but it remains in my possession. 'Ah, I haven't got that one in that condition, and I want a model of every A4 in every livery variation' said the corpulent enquirer. 'How much?' 'It's not for sale'. 'How much to build me one like that?' 'About £1,200.00 complete and painted.' 'What!!!!!!!!'. He walked off, grumbling. 

 

Here it is, on the job for which I built it..............

 

 

 

Before it ran on Shap, it was thoroughly tested on LB, of course.

 

 

 

Has this manifestation of SIR NIGEL GRESLEY ever been available RTR? If not, he'll have to wait! 

[Dave John]

Well, it took me a good number of goes to learn the art of chassis building, and I'm still learning. Some of my early attempts may prove useful if I ever model a scrapyard. Nowadays access to advice from experienced modellers is more readily available via the internet than it used to be with just books and magazines. 

 

You asked about problems. The chassis for this DJH kit is based on agw frames. Getting it to run in a straight line, no problem. Getting it to run round a curve, more of a problem. I learned early on to only fit the central frame spacers so that you can narrow the frames a bit towards the ends to give bogie clearance on curves, particularly in EM. Cheating a bit, but it works. 

 

Painting is not my top skill and it still needs a numberplate but there is a lot of satisfaction in doing the whole thing yourself.