Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anyone out there able to help, please?

 

Despite only attempting to load small photographic files, RMweb keeps telling me I cannot load more than 10MBs.

 

Odd, in that I've not long ago loaded 15 images, and this time I only want to load three.................. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2020 at 21:03, Theakerr said:

I came across this video a while back because I had watched some good stuff from Belfast Jack on Vimeo.   Now on U-tube in 'HD' it has some superb shots of Kings Cross and surrounds.  Note, if someone else has posted this video and i missed it I apologize for 'double posting'

 

 

 

Wonderful video from an age long gone. Filth, smoke, soot, steam, gloom, doom, trains, track signals and other paraphernalia everywhere etc etc

 

Sometimes I think all (well most) of our layouts are just too squeaky clean !!

 

It's nigh on impossible to effectively reproduce this atmosphere on our layouts - though many have a fair bash at it. Has your signalman got a megaphone to bawl through ? 

 

Brit15

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyone out there able to help, please?

 

Despite only attempting to load small photographic files, RMweb keeps telling me I cannot load more than 10MBs.

 

Odd, in that I've not long ago loaded 15 images, and this time I only want to load three.................. 

 

 

Have you checked the file sizes of the images you are trying to load?

Frank

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyone out there able to help, please?

 

Despite only attempting to load small photographic files, RMweb keeps telling me I cannot load more than 10MBs.

 

Odd, in that I've not long ago loaded 15 images, and this time I only want to load three.................. 

 

 

 

Have you added a photo to a post, then deleted it and tried to add another?

 

I had that once as a problem and I think the RMWeb "counter" for file sizes doesn't seem to deduct deleted images.

 

I ended up doing a completely new post and then it was happy to let me add a fresh 10MB.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

Wonderful video from an age long gone. Filth, smoke, soot, steam, gloom, doom, trains, track signals and other paraphernalia everywhere etc etc

 

Sometimes I think all (well most) of our layouts are just too squeaky clean !!

 

It's nigh on impossible to effectively reproduce this atmosphere on our layouts - though many have a fair bash at it. Has your signalman got a megaphone to bawl through ? 

 

Brit15

 

My layouts have all that. It is a shame that it is all in my imagination and only I can see it but that is probably as close as we are ever going to get.

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'I find the 2mm FS incredible as it is too small to see detail'

 

How much 'detail' do you wish to see?

 

273841706_01CopenhagenFields.jpg.e8d52e602dfaa044faa6f32f2ac54b03.jpg

 

1213911840_05Ivybridge.jpg.f34c9c87f5284cfe8006353584396501.jpg

 

998751956_16YeovilTown.jpg.7702beaf959844a3acd95a936bbc0c82.jpg

 

2007053650_18TheGrovesTrophywinner.jpg.3f7d2da839d8bd2f284a21f9666e4414.jpg

 

1574323667_Llangerisech04.jpg.e2183fdddfb1e84ccc776466f6817b83.jpg

 

1320142744_Llangerisech05.jpg.fdf3edbb8d47c1b78e757e47e0a494f8.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Pictures are fine , but at shows unless you can get front row, you just can't appreciate.

 

I did buy a N wagon kit to see if worth going but even in my 20s I thought too small for me.

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I mentioned in a previous post how the cab roof came off one of the latest Hornby Prairies I'm reviewing.

 

174668509_Hornby61XX6110R372107.jpg.48c60860650a010f75c804879f992874.jpg

 

At least it gave me the opportunity of taking a picture of the cab interior (the cab roof is now fixed back on). 

 

Detail like this is staggering, and all the more remarkable in that it's all but invisible with the roof replaced! What more can we expect from our RTR manufacturers?

 

 

Any more pictures out there showing these handsome Prairies? 

 

 

91E8B814-0A99-43CC-91B8-C9513D420D46.jpeg.aeb28249ef19effc5efc57474c8dbf6f.jpeg
 

Here’s the Hornby 61xx prior to weathering. Unfortunately the cab roof on mine is definitely fixed! I usually change the glazing and open the rear shutters too, but this one might not be viable 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the photo suggestions.

 

The file sizes were very small.

 

It seems to have worked this time, thankfully. 

 

I wonder if anyone can help in the following respect, please? I mentioned the near-parity in price now between equivalent N Gauge and OO Gauge locos (or my observations could be wrong, of course).

 

1185355343_20FarishPrincessCoronationBRblue372-18601.jpg.092d5b9998a29ea53222611ed9a400ee.jpg

 

The above is a Farish  N Gauge 'Princess Coronation' in (obviously) BR blue (being an ex-streamliner shouldn't it have a sloping smokebox in this guise, and a smaller spectacles?). Does anyone know the RRP of this, please?

 1073983340_Shap21746224.jpg.bd91c68eb36fa65ac24f5bb09d907f80.jpg

 

256589858_Shap22346224onUpRoyalScot.jpg.9f777784781f0c5dbc2bbe0c191d53dd.jpg

 

And a Hornby OO RTR equivalent running on Shap (I think the only thing which has been done to this is my untangling the motion on one side after it tried to tie itself in knots at Glasgow last February!). Does anyone know the RRP of this, please?

 

Comparisons are odious, I know, and when one looks back of the respective predecessors of these models, both of these are light years beyond those. 

 

However, admittedly in close-up, the motion/wheels' flanges on the N Gauge version do seem to me to be quite over-scale in comparison (though the valve gear might fly to bits if made to scale; as the OO one tried to!).

 

I think it's also fair to say, that both locos represent a very high RTR current standard.  

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PMP said:

91E8B814-0A99-43CC-91B8-C9513D420D46.jpeg.aeb28249ef19effc5efc57474c8dbf6f.jpeg
 

Here’s the Hornby 61xx prior to weathering. Unfortunately the cab roof on mine is definitely fixed! I usually change the glazing and open the rear shutters too, but this one might not be viable 

 

Thanks Paul,

 

The slidebars on your example seem to be nearer the horizontal, as they should be.

 

98288136_Hornby61XX6110R372104.jpg.421f270ab6e38b901af7eb48b8499255.jpg

 

On both the examples I have, the slidebars/crosshead/piston rod slope down towards the rear........................ Both sides.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

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

I wonder if anyone can help in the following respect, please? I mentioned the near-parity in price now between equivalent N Gauge and OO Gauge locos (or my observations could be wrong, of course).

 

1185355343_20FarishPrincessCoronationBRblue372-18601.jpg.092d5b9998a29ea53222611ed9a400ee.jpg

 

The above is a Farish  N Gauge 'Princess Coronation' in (obviously) BR blue (being an ex-streamliner shouldn't it have a sloping smokebox in this guise, and a smaller spectacles?). Does anyone know the RRP of this, please?

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

According to the Graham Farish website, the RRP for the N gauge Coronation is £184.95. 

Edited by Atso
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I wonder if anyone can help in the following respect, please? I mentioned the near-parity in price now between equivalent N Gauge and OO Gauge locos (or my observations could be wrong, of course).

 

1185355343_20FarishPrincessCoronationBRblue372-18601.jpg.092d5b9998a29ea53222611ed9a400ee.jpg

 

The above is a Farish  N Gauge 'Princess Coronation' in (obviously) BR blue (being an ex-streamliner shouldn't it have a sloping smokebox in this guise, and a smaller spectacles?). Does anyone know the RRP of this, please?

 1073983340_Shap21746224.jpg.bd91c68eb36fa65ac24f5bb09d907f80.jpg

 

And a Hornby OO RTR equivalent running on Shap (I think the only thing which has been done to this is my untangling the motion on one side after it tried to tie itself in knots at Glasgow last February!). Does anyone know the RRP of this, please?

 

Comparisons are odious, I know, and when one looks back of the respective predecessors of these models, both of these are light years beyond those. 

 

However, admittedly in close-up, the motion/wheels' flanges on the N Gauge version do seem to me to be quite over-scale in comparison (though the valve gear might fly to bits if made to scale; as the OO one tried to!).

 

I think it's also fair to say, that both locos represent a very high RTR current standard.  

 

Always happy to indulge in a little bit of Duchess detail, Tony!

 

According to the records, 46226 was blue till May-54; smokebox to normal Nov-55 so it would appear that the N-gauge offering is indeed anomalous in that respect.

 

I'm not sure whether to feel complimented or insulted re my 46224! It is in fact one of the older Hornby offerings from approx 15 years ago, which I picked up second hand for about £60. It has had quite a bit of work done to it including replacement rear frames and pony truck modifications to replace the 'from a previous age' swinging rear frame arrangement, plus quite a bit of extra detail added at the front end, as the following picture shows:

 

DSC08950_crop1.jpg.3f2d5cc030c24b954e1a23e269fa3f9f.jpg

Bogie front cut right back, additional plastic added to reduce gap above bogie wheels (which have been replaced with Gibson ones), lightening hole added forward of cylinders, together with anti-vacuum valve, bogie transom plate added, grab handle above front steps and - very specifically - cylinder by-pass valves arrangements added as part of draincocks assembly (only fitted to (4)6220-6224 and later removed on some of them).

 

In doing this work, maybe I've brought it nearer to the standard of the current offering (and saved myself circa £100 in the process) and thus 'fooled' you?

 

I think the point you're making is just as valid nonetheless!

 

(She's since had a coat of gloss varnish which has really lifted the blue colour but now really needs at least a bit of weathering. The crew would also appreciate some cab doors and a fall plate.)

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

This is an 'open question', but is there a prejudice in some quarters with regard to N Gauge locos and rolling stock? A prejudice involving prices? Some more-recent N Gauge equivalent locos/rolling stock appear to me to be approaching price-parity with their OO cousins. Yet, though they're far better than of yore, the detail tends to be (out of necessity) 'cruder', especially valve gear/motion and wheels. I don't really know, since I've never been an N Gauge modeller, but what does a Farish 61XX cost these days? Or, are they still made? 

 

The only place you can get an N gauge Prairie at the moment is second hand. The Farish model hasn't been made for years and is of the old Poole era tooling. The Dapol small prairie hasn't been made for some time either, but has finer detail than the Farish model. It does however date from Dapol's early steps into N gauge and along with the Dapol M7 suffers from poor speed control.

 

Yes, there's prejudice amongst some modellers towards N Gauge. Model main-land Europe or North America and it gets worse. At numerous exhibitions I've heard people dismissing a layout simply because it's N Gauge or 2FS. The same people have then gone on to watch a distinctly less than average OO gauge layout rather than a decent N gauge one.

 

Locomotives are now a similar price to their 4mm equivalent. Whilst they use less raw materials and cost less to ship, they take just as much time to design, build and paint. I'd guess that a typical run of N Gauge models is smaller in number meaning costs can't be spread over a larger number of models. N Gauge modellers do still have the edge over OO Gauge when it comes to the price of RTR rolling stock.

 

N Gauge does loose out when it comes to kits - there's no doubting that there's much more available in the larger scales regardless of if your interest is locomotives, wagons or passenger stock. I personally think steam locos look better in the larger scales. Building robust and accurate valve gear at 2mm:foot isn't easy, especially for commercially sold models.

 

Mechanically, I don't think N gauge has ever been far behind. Indeed, for much of the 1980s and 90s N Gauge diesels were steps ahead of what was available from Lima and Hornby at the time. All wheel pick-up and all wheel drive from a central motor was standard in N gauge whilst OO Gauge modellers were having to put up with pancake motors.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the some of the 2FS & N Gauge gems such as Chee Tor, Copenhagen Fields, Fencehouses, Acton Main Line and Stoney Lane depot are on a par with many of the 4mm layouts that often appear in this thread.

 

I do feel the often repeated "it's too small" is just an excuse. I've seen plenty of N Gauge and 2FS models that have more detail than 7mm scale versions of the same item. The smallest item that can be fitted by someone to a 7mm scale model is no different what can be fitted to a 2mm model. The only difference is that it may be a brake block in the smaller scale and a rivet head in the larger scale.

 

Steven B.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Always happy to indulge in a little bit of Duchess detail, Tony!

 

According to the records, 46226 was blue till May-54; smokebox to normal Nov-55 so it would appear that the N-gauge offering is indeed anomalous in that respect.

 

I'm not sure whether to feel complimented or insulted re my 46224! It is in fact one of the older Hornby offerings from approx 15 years ago, which I picked up second hand for about £60. It has had quite a bit of work done to it including replacement rear frames and pony truck modifications to replace the 'from a previous age' swinging rear frame arrangement, plus quite a bit of extra detail added at the front end, as the following picture shows:

 

DSC08950_crop1.jpg.3f2d5cc030c24b954e1a23e269fa3f9f.jpg

Bogie front cut right back, additional plastic added to reduce gap above bogie wheels (which have been replaced with Gibson ones), lightening hole added forward of cylinders, together with anti-vacuum valve, bogie transom plate added, grab handle above front steps and - very specifically - cylinder by-pass valves arrangements added as part of draincocks assembly (only fitted to (4)6220-6224 and later removed on some of them).

 

In doing this work, maybe I've brought it nearer to the standard of the current offering (and saved myself circa £100 in the process) and thus 'fooled' you?

 

I think the point you're making is just as valid nonetheless!

 

(She's since had a coat of gloss varnish which has really lifted the blue colour but now really needs at least a bit of weathering. The crew would also appreciate some cab doors and a fall plate.)

Please take it as a compliment, Graham.

 

I was completely hoodwinked into believing it was the most up-to-date manifestation of Hornby's 'Semi'. 

 

This one below must have begun as that earlier manifestation..............

 

389943973_City18painted.jpg.df12e02775eee153e7c75c064c2cda6a.jpg

 

I've  forgotten which Hornby one this was at source, but, using a Comet conversion kit, I changed it into one of the Ivatt pair. Ian Rathbone completed it by painting SIR WILLIAM to perfection. 

 

715514482_Shap22046248atSummit.jpg.2e0e6a46548d18c8187436a247009a5b.jpg

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby? Even if it is (or even if it isn't), replacing those 'armoured train' smoke deflectors would be a priority to me (I've got a spare pair here in etched brass somewhere). 

 

You know my feelings regarding RTR/kit-built locos.............

 

387370525_Shap212Coronation46251.jpg.2d10a4281118e52cff8b59b770d460f8.jpg

 

This 'Semi' (we called all of them that, whether they were de-streamlined or not) to me has much more of a 'presence' than any RTR one, however the latter might have been improved. All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?).

 

One point: I think it should have a de-streamlined tender, with smaller cut-out at the front and no handrails towards the rear of the tender tanksides. You've not fitted the steps to the rear of the tender frames, which is correct for a de-streamlined tender. 

 

1846228411_Shap214Coronation46245onDownCaledonian.jpg.6a09b785f717421fda90e62824132fa6.jpg

 

This one is DJH, painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

Let's hope next year all of these (with the exception of 'my' 46256) will be appearing at a show on Shap. However, the signs don't look great!

 

From Atso's comment, it might appear that an N Gauge RTR 'Semi' costs more that an RTR OO Gauge one! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Thanks Paul,

 

The slidebars on your example seem to be nearer the horizontal, as they should be.

 

98288136_Hornby61XX6110R372104.jpg.421f270ab6e38b901af7eb48b8499255.jpg

 

On both the examples I have, the slidebars/crosshead/piston rod slope down towards the rear........................ Both sides.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

It isn't always easy to tell from a photo but it looks to me as though the cylinders themselves are slightly inclined.

 

My knowledge of GWR matters is strictly limited but I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had the piston rods aligned a couple of inches above the driving axle and that the cylinders were horizontal, rather than inclined.

 

A quick look at prototype photos would seem to confirm this.

 

Is there a possibility that it is the way the cylinder assembly has been installed in the mechanism that gives the variation in slope?

 

PMP's version looks much better in that respect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main thing that can put people's noses out when it comes to N vs OO prices and how close they are is the feeling of getting less for your money with the N gauge version. Simply because of the smaller size of N, one can be forgiven for thinking the cost should be lower than OO. However, the amount of fine detail being packed into N Gauge stock now is often just as much if not more than the OO counterpart.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

My knowledge of GWR matters is strictly limited but I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had the piston rods aligned a couple of inches above the driving axle and that the cylinders were horizontal, rather than inclined.

I can confirm that you are correct.

Frank

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

715514482_Shap22046248atSummit.jpg.2e0e6a46548d18c8187436a247009a5b.jpg

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby? Even if it is (or even if it isn't), replacing those 'armoured train' smoke deflectors would be a priority to me (I've got a spare pair here in etched brass somewhere). 

 

You know my feelings regarding RTR/kit-built locos.............

 

387370525_Shap212Coronation46251.jpg.2d10a4281118e52cff8b59b770d460f8.jpg

 

This 'Semi' (we called all of them that, whether they were de-streamlined or not) to me has much more of a 'presence' than any RTR one, however the latter might have been improved. All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?).

 

One point: I think it should have a de-streamlined tender, with smaller cut-out at the front and no handrails towards the rear of the tender tanksides. You've not fitted the steps to the rear of the tender frames, which is correct for a de-streamlined tender. 

 

Let's hope next year all of these (with the exception of 'my' 46256) will be appearing at a show on Shap. However, the signs don't look great!

 

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby?

Nope - that one (46248) is also from one of the earlier ones (I did that and 46224 together). It was actually a 46251, so needed the front end converting from sloping front footplate to the so-called 'utility front' style. You are correct - both locos would benefit from etched smoke deflectors. I'll tackle that as a job lot one day as I have recently acquired a third Duchess from the same era (this time a green one) for similar treatment.

 

46256_TW.jpg.c5c881b4e11cf6c3c1561fe688eb813d.jpg    46256_GN.jpg.9d115881eac408e73f70d75a16dbbc2d.jpg

This one below must have begun as that earlier manifestation

Your (lovely) 46256 is indeed based on the earlier Hornby offering. One of the improvements on the recent model is a much better depiction of the motion bracket beneath the running plate, the front of which correctly hides the top of the combination lever where it joins on to the valve rod. The older version looks a bit bare in this area. Note also the improved, bevel rimmed driving wheels on the recent offering.

 

One of my improvements to 46248 (and 46224) was to add and shape some black plasticard to the front frames above the bogie. Not only does this reduce the gap to a more realistic level, but I also extended it back a little behind the cylinders - that would have hidden the daylight showing through on your 46256 in this area. She also needs the lightening hole in front of the cylinders. I also cut back the bogie front more extensively, in the area between the guard irons.

 

46251_GN.jpg.c4746d1cf2ea2305c9d25f306ddef379.jpg

Whilst on the area of motion, here is a close up of my 46251. Being kit built (Model Loco, aka DJH 'special') I could fiddle about with the valve gear (something I enjoy doing!). This includes setting the radius rod in forward gear, running through the slot in the double-piece expansion link. But the real lily-gilding was to add the rocking lever for the inside cylinders (arrowed). This is actuated by the valve rod and does indeed rock back and forth (check it out next time you see her).

 

All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?)

The loco was my 21st birthday present and I made it 46251 because I went to Nottingham University. But the Model Loco kit was specifically for (4)6230-6234 and thus included the wrong tender type. I did what I could (as you have noted) but baulked at altering the shape of the front cut-out shape as that would have involved added metal across the fold in this area - I've left it as my deliberate 'Persian rug' error!

 

I'm sure all these depictions of Stanier's magnum opus (and others) will indeed meet again on Shap, some sunny day ...

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby?

Nope - that one (46248) is also from one of the earlier ones (I did that and 46224 together). It was actually a 46251, so needed the front end converting from sloping front footplate to the so-called 'utility front' style. You are correct - both locos would benefit from etched smoke deflectors. I'll tackle that as a job lot one day as I have recently acquired a third Duchess from the same era (this time a green one) for similar treatment.

 

46256_TW.jpg.c5c881b4e11cf6c3c1561fe688eb813d.jpg    46256_GN.jpg.9d115881eac408e73f70d75a16dbbc2d.jpg

This one below must have begun as that earlier manifestation

Your (lovely) 46256 is indeed based on the earlier Hornby offering. One of the improvements on the recent model is a much better depiction of the motion bracket beneath the running plate, the front of which correctly hides the top of the combination lever where it joins on to the valve rod. The older version looks a bit bare in this area. Note also the improved, bevel rimmed driving wheels on the recent offering.

 

One of my improvements to 46248 (and 46224) was to add and shape some black plasticard to the front frames above the bogie. Not only does this reduce the gap to a more realistic level, but I also extended it back a little behind the cylinders - that would have hidden the daylight showing through on your 46256 in this area. She also needs the lightening hole in front of the cylinders. I also cut back the bogie front more extensively, in the area between the guard irons.

 

46251_GN.jpg.c4746d1cf2ea2305c9d25f306ddef379.jpg

Whilst on the area of motion, here is a close up of my 46251. Being kit built (Model Loco, aka DJH 'special') I could fiddle about with the valve gear (something I enjoy doing!). This includes setting the radius rod in forward gear, running through the slot in the double-piece expansion link. But the real lily-gilding was to add the rocking lever for the inside cylinders (arrowed). This is actuated by the valve rod and does indeed rock back and forth (check it out next time you see her).

 

All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?)

The loco was my 21st birthday present and I made it 46251 because I went to Nottingham University. But the Model Loco kit was specifically for (4)6230-6234 and thus included the wrong tender type. I did what I could (as you have noted) but baulked at altering the shape of the front cut-out shape as that would have involved added metal across the fold in this area - I've left it as my deliberate 'Persian rug' error!

 

I'm sure all these depictions of Stanier's magnum opus (and others) will indeed meet again on Shap, some sunny day ...

Thanks Graham,

 

With regard to 'my' 46256, I should have taken the detailing further (as you've done as described). It now belongs to a friend, and (over the last 12 or more years) he's been delighted with it. 'The customer's happy with it' seems to be a decent 'excuse' when commissioned work is critically commented on. 

 

The new Hornby driving wheels do make a big difference to the realism of that characteristic 'Big Un' look (I assume your 46251 used the Romford drivers supplied). Certainly, I used the proper Markits ones on my own CITY OF LONDON, substituting them for the Romfords supplied in the DJH kit. .

 

I also built CITY OF NOTTINGHAM from a Model Loco kit (as a wedding present for a friend), but I managed to acquire a de-streamlined tender. It ran on Charwelton, because 46251 did so in reality on a railtour to Swindon. I'm not sure where the picture of it is in operation - probably on an old BRM computer. 

 

I look forward to the day when model 'Semis' tackle Shap at a show again....................

 

Who knows, I might even borrow this one......................

 

1823648508_Duchess17painted.jpg.4837093bd04ac1987b38d3167a20f883.jpg

 

It belongs to the same friend who owns 46256 (part of the payment for his building of Bytham's baseboards). 

 

It's scratch-built. I acquired it from a friend, who'd acquired it from the estate of the deceased modeller who'd started it. A fair amount of the 'big bits' had been made and soldered together (including the frames, but no bogie/pony/tender sub-frame). However, there was no detail on it. I completed it, mainly using commercial etched/cast/milled/turned components, plus a bit of sheet metal work. The cylinders/motion are Comet (a bit 'bald' in the valve rod area). 

 

Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

The friend who gave it to me has also now died! A 'cursed' 'Duchess'? 

 

I don't think so, and it will be great to see it romping up Shap. It's packed with lead, and it doesn't half go! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh - the 26 Feb 1939 record breaker (equal of a Deltic) - very nice. T'would indeed be a delight to see her romping up Shap.

 

I feel a 'all 38 Duchesses over Shap' event coming on, much the same as we did all 35 A4s with Grantham at Barrow Hill

 

IMG_8525.JPG

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we're talking Duchesses, and knowing your encyclopedic knowledge of loco kits, ever come across one of these before?

20200920_193155.jpg.2064a247e8d19a1b295b9676c8f46c7c.jpg

It's 7mm scale, no instructions, wheels or motor - and parts from such heavy gauge brass as would probably need a blow torch to put it together. 

 

I keep looking at it every now and then...

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Whilst we're talking Duchesses, and knowing your encyclopedic knowledge of loco kits, ever come across one of these before?

20200920_193155.jpg.2064a247e8d19a1b295b9676c8f46c7c.jpg

It's 7mm scale, no instructions, wheels or motor - and parts from such heavy gauge brass as would probably need a blow torch to put it together. 

 

I keep looking at it every now and then...

Go on Graham, give in and convert to 0 Gauge you know it makes sense.

 

Jamie

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Go on Graham, give in and convert to 0 Gauge you know it makes sense.

 

Jamie

It looks a bit less complex than the Finney 7 one that I take off the shelf and look at every so often.  I really must get the 4 Midland locos that are ahead of it in the queue finished first.

 

Jamie

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Have you added a photo to a post, then deleted it and tried to add another?

 

I had that once as a problem and I think the RMWeb "counter" for file sizes doesn't seem to deduct deleted images.

 

I ended up doing a completely new post and then it was happy to let me add a fresh 10MB.

Hi

I have had the same problem put two photos on within the 10mg limits, If you then deleted a photo and try to put a second Replacement photo you are told you are over the 10mb.

 

Rather then re do the post put it on the thread then click on edit you can then load the second photo without any problems.

 

Regards

 

David

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
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.