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.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Of course, nothing can beat the appearance of P4 wheels in tight perspective........

 

1308923487_LondonRoad02.jpg.be16f56955654ed6b0208ba5a8dd36b4.jpg

 

London Road.

 

1580012838_SandfordBanwell02.jpg.ea19c7e1940a01f3b7a9c8c23e223b64.jpg

 

1042471313_SandfordBanwell19.jpg.5353cd039f912f6390ea22a310e634c9.jpg

 

And Sanford and Banwell.

 

I might also add that the running on both these P4 layouts is impeccable. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Whilst this is true, The excellent photographs massively magnify the fact .... and even then I contend that it is the width of track which makes the main impression and not the wheels themselves.

 

Martin Goodall on Burford is modelling his track in P4 whilst using EM wheels for reliability. It would be an interesting exercise (if it were possible which it perhaps isn't) to see who could tell without very detailed study - whilst the layout was operating and running a schedule - if the wheels were P4 or EM, and for that matter  if the track gauge was EM or P4? I suspect very few.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

 

Whilst this is true, The excellent photographs massively magnify the fact .... and even then I contend that it is the width of track which makes the main impression and not the wheels themselves.

 

Martin Goodall on Burford is modelling his track in P4 whilst using EM wheels for reliability. It would be an interesting exercise (if it were possible which it perhaps isn't) to see who could tell without very detailed study - whilst the layout was operating and running a schedule - if the wheels were P4 or EM, and for that matter  if the track gauge was EM or P4? I suspect very few.

Thanks Tim,

 

Interestingly, when one buys Gibson bogie/pony/tender wheels, they come with axles of both lengths for OO or EM (meaning, to all intents and purposes, that the clearances are the same for both gauges - assuming OO FS?). 

 

The Gibson P4 bogie/pony/tender wheels are 'only' that. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other comment made about some older type 'finescale' wheels, of course, was/is "pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tim,

 

Thanks (as usual) for your erudite comments. 

 

I don't think the term 'steamroller wheels' is pejorative in describing what the 'models' featured below are carried on; in fact, I think it's entirely apposite! 

 

468089070_Andrianna02.jpg.cddd239945fbbc699972235a3c2d04f2.jpg

 

1804697689_Andrianna04.jpg.507edc5839be4c6aa68696bef06f22cd.jpg

 

2102767836_PeteMarshall12DPS.jpg.32f9784b72a3783e3e87b388cc91de7c.jpg

 

1233506841_PeteMarshall14.jpg.a3683b1987bf110bcdad4ed56b6bc4f6.jpg

 

616440382_PeteMarshall28.jpg.4115336e36e1c4773a18f6f8164af2eb.jpg

 

Coarse (very!) scale 'models from the late Pete Marshall's extensive collection. 'The childhood I never had because my parents couldn't afford it' was what he used to say. 

 

What I find truly astonishing is that these crude examples of bent tinplate can, in some cases, command higher prices than a superb hand-built equivalent (though 'equivalent' is hardly the right description - opposite' might be better!). 

 

In a shot like the one below, it's impossible in this overall view of part of the M&GNR to tell what gauge it is, even given that it's 4mm scale.....

 

1231106558_4Fonlocal.jpg.317ced6a25388c1b7aec56983c650539.jpg

 

One doesn't even notice the treads/flanges.

 

60113.jpg.47a452e0f2ff6c48c980a9e6630b9f1f.jpg

 

Where it is more apparent, a good 'dodge' is to fit finer bogie wheels (which, in a perspective shot like this are most-apparent). The bogie wheels on this Crownline A1/1 are Gibsons, but the drivers are older-style Romfords.

 

284304635_A260538andV260862.jpg.8a0de961213dedbd83d8a3a458380847.jpg

 

It works as well on modified RTR locos. The approaching Bachmann A2 also has Gibson bogie wheels, and the Bachmann V2 (which is not my property) has Markits leading pony wheels. The 'cruder' trailing pony and tender wheels are retained, because they're far more difficult to see from 'normal' viewing angles. 

 

1993158617_Trainsrunning36V2onScotchgoods.jpg.beb254344f4cf5491a5bb3ab2328b03b.jpg

 

This Jamieson V2 has Markits pony wheels, but older-style Romford drivers (which my flash gun has rather highlighted). Seen from this angle, I don't think anyone should call the wheels on this loco 'steamrollers'. The main thing is they work!

 

Of course, nothing can beat the appearance of P4 wheels in tight perspective........

 

1308923487_LondonRoad02.jpg.be16f56955654ed6b0208ba5a8dd36b4.jpg

 

London Road.

 

1580012838_SandfordBanwell02.jpg.ea19c7e1940a01f3b7a9c8c23e223b64.jpg

 

1042471313_SandfordBanwell19.jpg.5353cd039f912f6390ea22a310e634c9.jpg

 

And Sanford and Banwell.

 

I might also add that the running on both these P4 layouts is impeccable. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller

 

For me the 'point' is the pleasure and enjoyment derived from making something rather than any play value, but each to his/her own. Others may well prefer the operational aspect but I'd suggest there is no mandatory directive to follow in any hobby.

 

After all hobbies generally don't have a point or main object, but are an enjoyable way to spend and occupy your leisure time on a subject and activity that is of personal interest.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

Clive,

 

Whilst I enjoy playing occasionally, I do find I tire of it relatively quickly nowadays and do not find it particularly more-ish.

 

Primarily I love the modelling aspect, which is why I am perhaps more tolerant of iffy running than many.

 

What I do find I like is watching (and I suspect would thoroughly enjoy operating given the chance) is a well worked out time table of running with plenty of real railway interest - maybe this is a form of playing? Again I suspect that this enjoyment is intellectual as much as anything .... along with seeing a job done skilfully and well. From an observers point of view I do find watching skill in whatever form it takes somewhat mesmeric.

 

The great thing about model railways, is that there does seem to be a niche for most tastes, skill levels and approaches. As such, just because tinplate is not for me I don't particularly judge or criticise it .... it is what it is and under its own terms seems to me to be excellent.

 

Time methinks to stop talking about me! .... not really all that interesting to be truthful.

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

Good morning Clive,

 

I used to 'play' cricket, and, as a child, I 'played' with my toy trains. Both were great 'fun'.

 

I now get my fun (among other things) from making models. I have done for many years. Isn't that sufficient a point to be a railway modeller? 

 

I never did drive Pete Marshall's tinplate railways. Why would I? Such stuff interests me not a jot (other than as historical quirks), so I'm afraid I'd never regard it as 'fun'.

 

I rarely operate model railways, unless it's when guests are here. Then it's 'fun'. As is the conversation and banter (as you know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

I fully accept that this may be an over reaction so apologies .... but .....

 

'steamroller wheels',  ..... bicycle wheels?  The term steamroller wheels has always seemed to me to be a tad rude even in jest .... bicycle wheels doesn't quite cut it as a commensurate riposte! Furthermore, steamroller is a bizarre description for a finally crafted and elegant piece of modelling - which is what Markits 00 finescale wheels are.

 

00 fine scale might have deeper flanges, but these are hardly visible on a layout. As far as wheels are concerned, when comparing fine scale 00 with P4, I contend that on a layout you have to look hard to see the difference and even then you need to be close up. When stock is moving, the differences become irrelevant. Perhaps it is the close up Photograph which should be held responsible for the bruhaha.

 

If you are creating a model for a display cabinet or placing a loco wheeled in P4 directly next to one using 00 Finescale for detailed comparison, you might choose the P4 due to visual preference -  but that is not the comparison being made on layouts.

 

I do think that 18mm track work is visually better than 00 and that a loco viewed head on has a better (more prototypical) stance within the wider gauges, but neither of these things has anything at all to do with 'steamroller wheels'. I also contend that as far as the wider gauges are concerned,  you are going to be very hard pushed to tell any difference visually between EM and P4 on separate layouts - unless again you artificially set one directly next to the other - and even then many will struggle.

 

For what it is worth I model in P4 primarily because I find it intellectually satisfying, in much the same way that I model details which often you would be hard pushed to see and arguably add not one bit to the overall impression. I do this purely for my own enjoyment. It does not effect one jot my admiration and enjoyment of other layouts in other gauges ... and interestingly there are a fair few P4 modellers who model at the same time in other 4mm gauges ..... horses for courses?.

I for one would be extremely happy never to hear the pejorative term 'steamroller wheels' again. :senile:

 

Good morning Tim,

 

I don't think that anybody uses the term 'steamroller' wheels in connection with Markits wheels, or OO finescale. It is usually reserved for the generic bogie wheels fitted RTR locomotives. They are there to do a job, to allow the locomotive to negotiate set track curves laid haphazardly on the kitchen floor. I'm quite happy to use the term, because what it is describing is a product quite deliberately designed to compensate for rough track conditions, they literally ride over anything, just like a steam roller. I don't think that is an insult, more of a description of their function.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tim,

 

I don't think that anybody uses the term 'steamroller' wheels in connection with Markits wheels, or OO finescale. It is usually reserved for the generic bogie wheels fitted RTR locomotives. They are there to do a job, to allow the locomotive to negotiate set track curves laid haphazardly on the kitchen floor. I'm quite happy to use the term, because what it is describing is a product quite deliberately designed to compensate for rough track conditions, they literally ride over anything, just like a steam roller. I don't think that is an insult, more of a description of their function.

Hi Andrew,

 

That seems wholly reasonable.

 

Unfortunately I have heard the term bandied around in jest as a put down of 00 modelling .... and in this context I find it somewhat tiresome. 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkC said:

The other comment made about some older type 'finescale' wheels, of course, was/is "pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Mark

"pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Probably an accurate description, Mark..........

 

559543572_B16361448.jpg.0ec04ae77bba4bc617a6291b2a983a1c.jpg

 

This over-40 Nu-Cast B16/3 I built/painted has Hamblings drivers (though Gibson bogie wheels - a much later addition). 

 

305101789_60014passing61448.jpg.03a6e87a81d1deb4d47af76db33c0c79.jpg

 

It used to get a run from time to time on Stoke Summit, but, because its drivers' flanges climb over the C&L chairs on the hand-built pointwork on Little Bytham, it now lives in a box! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Hi Andrew,

 

That seems wholly reasonable.

 

Unfortunately I have heard the term bandied around in jest as a put down of 00 modelling .... and in this context I find it somewhat tiresome. 

 

I can understand how that term could be used as an insult when applied to out of the box RTR OO gauge modelling. Like any insult, it is not a pleasant thing. Beyond that context, the wheels can be identical in OO gauge and EM gauge, with only the axle spacing differing. Anybody using the term in that context would be super dumb.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I can understand how that term could be used as an insult when applied to out of the box RTR OO gauge modelling. Like any insult, it is not a pleasant thing. Beyond that context, the wheels can be identical in OO gauge and EM gauge, with only the axle spacing differing. Anybody using the term in that context would be super dumb.

 

Super Dumb sums it up in a nut shell ..... but there it is!

 

It may be used as a comeback following criticism of poor running .... but that is just silly .... the first is objective fact and the second is not! Want to avoid the criticism of poor running .... sort the running out .... or take it on the chin and move on.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

"pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Probably an accurate description, Mark..........

 

559543572_B16361448.jpg.0ec04ae77bba4bc617a6291b2a983a1c.jpg

 

This over-40 Nu-Cast B16/3 I built/painted has Hamblings drivers (though Gibson bogie wheels - a much later addition). 

 

305101789_60014passing61448.jpg.03a6e87a81d1deb4d47af76db33c0c79.jpg

 

It used to get a run from time to time on Stoke Summit, but, because its drivers' flanges climb over the C&L chairs on the hand-built pointwork on Little Bytham, it now lives in a box! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Cheers, Tony. You can certainly see where that name comes from! Shame about the B16/3 though; it's a useful locomotive, as indeed were all the B16s...

 

I've got a collection of Hamblings drivers in a box somewhere - I <think> they were in a mixed assortment of wheels that I acquired at one point. eBay listing will happen for them, I think :)

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I associate the 'Pizza Cutter' term with the 1980's RTR stock and locomotives from Lima. 'Steamroller' I associate with the RTR products of the 70's, my late father used to use the term, he modelled OO gauge and his stock was predominantly kit built and limited modified RTR using Jackson wheelsets and Romfords. I didn't associate the Hamblings wheels we occasionally sold at Kings Cross and that my father used as Pizza Cutters, probably because they were in any event better looking than the RTR alternatives. I seem to recall the K's wheel sets were quite 'flangy' too.

As someone who uses mostly RTR stock which has been modified, neither term offends me, if as Tim says some other scale/gauge fans use it as a derogatory term, that says more about them than it does about the wheels! I do change bogie and pony truck wheels in particular, and am happy to make concessions where the wheel boss isn't replicated by an after market wheel, and use a fine scale wheel of correct spoke numbers rather than the 'correct' profile rim/boss/hub. I've not tried replacing the RTR tyres on these, it might be worth the experiment.

Edited by PMP
additional stuff
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask some advice on smooth running. On my 1F I got the chassis running nice and smoothly to my satisfaction. I put a small drop of fine clock oil on each of the bearings and also the crank rod bearings, followed by some running in.

 

I then turned my attention to fine detailing the body with the chassis sitting towards the back of my workbench. On completion I assembled everything and had a play. After a while I found the running getting a little 'sticky'.  Now .... as nothing had changed from the original set up I deduced that some of the filing dust/scratch brush dust might well have got in to the mechanism. I stripped the chassis down and gave everything a thorough clean. I seem to have been right in my diagnosis as the chassis is running smoothly again.

 

Should I look to lubricate again? and if so using what? I am pretty sure that the oil attracted the contamination and I can see no reason why this will not happen again over time.

Edited by Lecorbusier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Should I look to lubricate again? and if so using what? I am pretty sure that the oil attracted the contamination and I can see no reason why this will not happen again over time.

 

 

Lubricants, should be good for a gauge wars type punch up! :)

I've used WD40, not sprayed direct from the can! Peco's electrolube again is a good bet in my opinion, and Labell used to do some brilliant lubricants but haven't seen any for years!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Can I ask some advice on smooth running. On my 1F I got the chassis running nice and smoothly to my satisfaction. I put a small drop of fine clock oil on each of the bearings and also the crank rod bearings, followed by some running in.

 

I then turned my attention to fine detailing the body with the chassis sitting towards the back of my workbench. On completion I assembled everything and had a play. After a while I found the running getting a little 'sticky'.  Now .... as nothing had changed from the original set up I deduced that some of the filing dust/scratch brush dust might well have got in to the mechanism. I stripped the chassis down and gave everything a thorough clean. I seem to have been right in my diagnosis as the chassis is running smoothly again.

 

Should I look to lubricate again? and if so using what? I am pretty sure that the oil attracted the contamination and I can see no reason why this will not happen again over time.

 

Morning Tim,

 

the problem is, that stripping down and cleaning and then reassembling in the manner that you describe, could have inadvertently cured a myriad of problems that you were potentially unaware of. Your problem could have had nothing to do with contaminated lubricant at all. Alternatively, the potential contamination may have been to one component that could have been sorted without a complete strip down. If you fear contamination, then keep your chassis (is that a banned phrase?) away from the workbench. I must admit, I tend to do this by default when not working on the undergubins (tech phrase) This is definitely to keep it safe from harm, my workbench has been known to get a little, shall we say, work stained on occasion. I know of a couple of modellers who keep items like this in a separate room when not working on them, to prevent airborne flux contamination!

Edited by Headstock
ADD,
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Tim,

 

the problem is, that stripping down and cleaning and then reassembling in the manner that you describe, could have inadvertently cured a myriad of problems that you were potentially unaware of. Your problem could have had nothing to do with contaminated lubricant at all. Alternatively, the potential contamination may have been to one component that could have been sorted without a complete strip down. If you fear contamination, then keep your chassis (is that a banned phrase?) away from the workbench. I must admit, I tend to do this by default when not working on the undergubins (tech phrase) This is definitely to keep it safe from harm, my workbench has been known to get a little, shall we say, work stained on occasion. I know of a couple of modellers who keep items like this in a separate room when not working on them, to prevent airborne flux contamination!

Thanks Andrew,

 

When cleaning the 'chassis' I found that the axles when sliding through the horn blocks after they had been dropped out of the guides were sticky and when in the wrong position caught slightly ... as if there was a small piece of grit locking things. By spinning the wheel it all freed up again, but would catch occasionally. After cleaning this no longer happened. However, without any lubrication it runs smoothly but not as loosely as it did with. I am concerned about not using a lubricant due to potential longer term wear issues.

 

The clock oil I have used to date is the one sold by Eileens

Superfine_Clock__4f6324a18d621.jpg.e483a99871756bd2e33bbc4981590bf8.jpg

Edited by Lecorbusier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PMP said:

Lubricants, should be good for a gauge wars type punch up! :)

I've used WD40, not sprayed direct from the can! Peco's electrolube again is a good bet in my opinion, and Labell used to do some brilliant lubricants but haven't seen any for years!

Nothing to do with gauge wars, but WD-40 isn't a lubricant.  It's a water-dispersant and/or releasing agent and actually isn't the best at those roles either.  It only works as a lubricant at all because it is is oil-based.  But I'll admit it's useful as a do-everything-tool-in-the-toolbox. 

Earlier in my career we had to explain this to the British Army when they tried to use WD-40 as a lubricant on their SA-80 rifles in very low temperatures, when it would only temporarily free up the weapon before another stoppage.  Oil thickens as temperature drops (called the temperature-viscosity coefficient) so while the can might have been warm, applying WD-40 to cold metal was as good as lubrication using Evo-stick.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Nothing to do with gauge wars, but WD-40 isn't a lubricant.  It's a water-dispersant and/or releasing agent and actually isn't the best at those roles either.  It only works as a lubricant at all because it is is oil-based.  But I'll admit it's useful as a do-everything-tool-in-the-toolbox. 

 

 

Yep, a water dispersant, hence WD and the 40 is the 40th formulation to get it right. Rumour (urban myth?) has it that the base oil is some sort of fish oil but apparently, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40 the oil is probably a mineral oil which would make it most unsuitable for model railway use. My understanding is that mineral oils will leach the plasticizer out of plastic making it brittle and crack (plastic gears, bodies, sleepers or anything it gets on). A light synthetic oil is usually recommended.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Thanks Andrew,

 

When cleaning the 'chassis' I found that the axles when sliding through the horn blocks after they had been dropped out of the guides were sticky and when in the wrong position caught slightly ... as if there was a small piece of grit locking things. By spinning the wheel it all freed up again, but would catch occasionally. After cleaning this no longer happened. However, without any lubrication it runs smoothly but not as loosely as it did with. I am concerned about not using a lubricant due to potential longer term wear issues.

 

Tim,

 

you cannot dispense with lubricant, just take precautions to avoid contamination. Grit can cause wear, lubricant prevents wear. An axle contaminated by grit will wear whether lubricant is present or not. Grit is the enemy not the lubricant. In the cases that I am aware of, where contamination has become a major issue, it is usually due to over lubrication and excessively dirty working conditions. You don't strike me as being guilty of either, I suspect you are worrying a little too much. Just make sure your lubrication points are clean before lubrication and keep your chassis away from the workbench after lubrication.

Edited by Headstock
add info
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Tony doesn’t mind me asking a question here. I have tried applying some Fox transfers to the inside of the windows on DMU (Class 120) I am building. They seemed to take OK, but later when I brushed off some dust from inside the unit using a large soft brush, one of them moved.

Class120_144.jpg

 

I suspect that it was just the water drying had sealed them in place, and the adhesive was on the rear. I did try a test first using the Fox logo at the bottom of the sheet, but I did not leave it overnight to test the seal.

Class120_143.jpg

 

I know this thread is a fountain of both knowledge and experience, so I thought I would ask here. I also started a thread on the Weathering, Painting & Transfers/ skills section of the forum:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/150917-transfers-inside-windows-reversed/

Maybe a dab of dilute PVA on the transfers using a cocktail stick, or brush them off and use some other transfers?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Jamie

Edited by Jamiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jamiel said:

I hope Tony doesn’t mind me asking a question here. I have tried applying some Fox transfers to the inside of the windows on DMU (Class 120) I am building. They seemed to take OK, but later when I brushed off some dust from inside the unit using a large soft brush, one of them moved.

Class120_144.jpg

 

I suspect that it was just the water drying had sealed them in place, and the adhesive was on the rear. I did try a test first using the Fox logo at the bottom of the sheet, but I did not leave it overnight to test the seal.

Class120_143.jpg

 

I know this thread is a fountain of both knowledge and experience, so I thought I would ask here. I also started a thread on the Weathering, Painting & Transfers/ skills section of the forum:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/150917-transfers-inside-windows-reversed/

Maybe a dab of dilute PVA on the transfers using a cocktail stick, or brush them off and use some other transfers?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Jamie

 

I can't speak for Fox transfers, but my (Cambridge Custom Transfers) window labels are intended to be applied to the inside of the window.

 

Nonetheless, I always apply a coat of Klear to the inside of the window in order to seal the transfer; once dried, the Klear is invisible.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2020 at 19:20, Michael Edge said:

You've pointed that out before but I don't think the loco was painted at all, I think it's the Hornby finish. Its possibly varnished  and lightly weathered but it was done eight years ago and I don't remember.

 

I apologise for the crudity of the photo and the lateness of the reply, but here is an original (body/finish wise) Hornby Empire of India, which does not have flashes on the locomotive, but nor does it have any on the tender. So it would appear the flashes were added at a later point to the model you have. 

 

This model is also suffering from 'missing bracket syndrome' on this side, however it is my intention to clone the one left on the drivers side and 3D print some replacements.

 

1BFBB87E-2D60-4C38-BB8B-7202889FCAF8.jpeg.c4249105cc5b624e8578888bb3b19972.jpeg

Edited by 69843

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.