Wright writes.....

[micklner]

3 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Hi Andy

Can I suggest you paint the motion bracket - it makes the valve gear look so much better. And as Tony says the lean on the left hand return crank is the wrong way.

Andrew

It looks like the Crank on Sun Castle is either loose or broken. It is upside down in the photo.

It is a real pain to convert to face the other direction. A new slot has to be cut into a quite hard metal small diameter crankpin , then the big problem , the Mazak Crank relies on two very thin pins to locate it onto the crankpin and the to stop it spinning when moving, once screwed down tight . Break even one of the pins and its useless. You have then to buy the whole valve gear to obtain a new crank  @ £20  a time . One guess who knows.

 

 

 

As Hornby have decided to do the same versions as my Bachmann conversion builds , I can safely wait and see how the prices go on their LNER versions, when released !!. The original W1 is look forward too however !!

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks mate, dried out tea bags, painted black/grey, with some string tied around. I usually just use smiths tarps as I photocopied the 10 I had into about 60.... if anyone needs tarps.... 

 

Now dried out teabags is not something I'd have guessed: brilliant idea , they look really good!

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, micklner said:

It looks like the Crank on Sun Castle is either loose or broken. It is upside down in the photo.

It is a real pain to convert to face the other direction. A new slot has to be cut into a quite hard metal small diameter crankpin , then the big problem , the Mazak Crank relies on two very thin pins to locate it onto the crankpin and the to stop it spinning when moving, once screwed down tight . Break even one of the pins and its useless. You have then to buy the whole valve gear to obtain a new crank  @ £20  a time . One guess who knows.

 

 

 

As Hornby have decided to do the same versions as my Bachmann conversion builds , I can safely wait and see how the prices go on their LNER versions, when released !!. The original W1 is look forward too however !!

Those two look excellent, Mick,

 

One question, if I may? Is the AWS battery box (underneath 514's cab) moulded as part of the Cartazzi truck? If it's separate (and glued on?), can it be levered off?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[micklner]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Those two look excellent, Mick,

 

One question, if I may? Is the AWS battery box (underneath 514's cab) moulded as part of the Cartazzi truck? If it's separate (and glued on?), can it be levered off?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Yes a seperate moulding , removing normally leaves a "lovely " bare metal/glue debris mark on the Truck to repair , a bit awkward to get too !.

Ooops  I forgot to remove it !!.

Edited November 2, 2020 by micklner

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

Thanks for your comments. I always fear putting stuff on here because of the long list of improvements that will inevitably come! But I do appreciate the constructive criticism - that's how one improves. I've gone through your list and sorted some of them as below. 

 

Thanks also for your comment to Mick about the AWS box. Mine should have AWS (in 1958) but you reminded me that I need to add the bang plate which I've now done. I also painted the motion bracket as suggested by Mick.

 

Andy

 

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Though 'wiggly' shouldn't really apply to the handrail. 

Agreed - I've tweeked it. Still not perfect but better.

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

A couple or so (constructively-critical) points if I may? The smoke deflector (at least on this side) seems to be a bit too far inboard, leaving too wide a platform between it and the valance (the valance also appears to be bent, over the cylinder). 

How did I manage that on the smoke deflector and even more incredible how did I not notice it! It was correct on the other side and is now correct on this side. The bent valence will have to stay I'm afraid as it's a function of the join between the resin and the original Bachmann footplate which I found difficult to get perfect.

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Please alter the angle of the return crank on this side - it's 90 degrees beyond what it should be. 

I have tightened it up and it's not quite so far out now. But, I broke one return crank when making the mods to the valve gear and I've had to raid a Bachmann A1 to get a spare. I'm not risking another one because to put the new slots in to get it spot on because as Mick says, it's a tricky job and one that I'm likely to get wrong. Bachmann spares are so expensive that my approach is to buy a tatty old loco off eBay which I rob as required. All my RTR pacifics have the same problem and so it will remain.

 

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

And, those bogie wheels.............! 

We've discussed this before. I must have a blind spot because they look fine to me. Markits wheels are expensive and I'm not splashing out £10 a time to covert all my RTR pacifics for something which I barely notice.

 

 

[micklner]

40 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for your comments. I always fear putting stuff on here because of the long list of improvements that will inevitably come! But I do appreciate the constructive criticism - that's how one improves. I've gone through your list and sorted some of them as below. 

 

Thanks also for your comment to Mick about the AWS box. Mine should have AWS (in 1958) but you reminded me that I need to add the bang plate which I've now done. I also painted the motion bracket as suggested by Mick.

 

Andy

 

Agreed - I've tweeked it. Still not perfect but better.

How did I manage that on the smoke deflector and even more incredible how did I not notice it! It was correct on the other side and is now correct on this side. The bent valence will have to stay I'm afraid as it's a function of the join between the resin and the original Bachmann footplate which I found difficult to get perfect.

I have tightened it up and it's not quite so far out now. But, I broke one return crank when making the mods to the valve gear and I've had to raid a Bachmann A1 to get a spare. I'm not risking another one because to put the new slots in to get it spot on because as Mick says, it's a tricky job and one that I'm likely to get wrong. Bachmann spares are so expensive that my approach is to buy a tatty old loco off eBay which I rob as required. All my RTR pacifics have the same problem and so it will remain.

 

We've discussed this before. I must have a blind spot because they look fine to me. Markits wheels are expensive and I'm not splashing out £10 a time to covert all my RTR pacifics for something which I barely notice.

 

 

Markit Bogie wheels, when I last looked were nearly £11 for two axles on one site . Ludricous price , not for me either (as said before on numerous occasions !!).

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for your comments. I always fear putting stuff on here because of the long list of improvements that will inevitably come! But I do appreciate the constructive criticism - that's how one improves. I've gone through your list and sorted some of them as below. 

 

Thanks also for your comment to Mick about the AWS box. Mine should have AWS (in 1958) but you reminded me that I need to add the bang plate which I've now done. I also painted the motion bracket as suggested by Mick.

 

Andy

 

Agreed - I've tweeked it. Still not perfect but better.

How did I manage that on the smoke deflector and even more incredible how did I not notice it! It was correct on the other side and is now correct on this side. The bent valence will have to stay I'm afraid as it's a function of the join between the resin and the original Bachmann footplate which I found difficult to get perfect.

I have tightened it up and it's not quite so far out now. But, I broke one return crank when making the mods to the valve gear and I've had to raid a Bachmann A1 to get a spare. I'm not risking another one because to put the new slots in to get it spot on because as Mick says, it's a tricky job and one that I'm likely to get wrong. Bachmann spares are so expensive that my approach is to buy a tatty old loco off eBay which I rob as required. All my RTR pacifics have the same problem and so it will remain.

 

We've discussed this before. I must have a blind spot because they look fine to me. Markits wheels are expensive and I'm not splashing out £10 a time to covert all my RTR pacifics for something which I barely notice.

 

 

Thanks for the positive response, Andy,

 

Bogie wheels? Yes, it's been discussed before, by you, me and others.

 

It's just that I find both Bachmann's and Hornby's bogie/pony wheels so awful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for the positive response, Andy,

 

Bogie wheels? Yes, it's been discussed before, by you, me and others.

 

It's just that I find both Bachmann's and Hornby's bogie/pony wheels so awful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I can imagine bogie wheels coming up in your conversations with Hornby, regarding their forthcoming models.  

 

Did you win that one, Tony?

[Erichill16]

Afternoon All,

You may (or probably may not) remember I’ve been refurbishing a DJH J10 and have finally got round to finishing it. Just crew, lamps and fire irons to add. It a model I started in the late 80s whilst at university. The refurbishment started out because it just didn’t run very well and I lost interest in it so never really got completed. In the end I did a bit more than just replace the motor but with the law of diminishing returns and the fact you can’t polish a turd, this how it looks now. I’ve used one of the DJH gearbox motor combos Tony has been recommending/using and I’m really pleased with that aspect of the rebuild. The body could be better but didn’t want to strip the body down to its component parts. I’ve already plenty of kits to start and that really wasn’t the object. 
Regards, Robert

Edited November 2, 2020 by Erichill16
Grammar

[PMP]

On 31/10/2020 at 17:29, robertcwp said:

I have been looking at carriage roofboards.

 

Sankey Scenics do a wide range, one of which is for the Flying Scotsman. The sheet also includes gangway endboards with the train title. Does anyone know, please whether the 1957 Summer Flying Scotsman and other titled trains such as the Elizabethan would have carried such end boards and, if so, what colour they would have been then?  This is for Retford. The trains already have roofboards if I recall correctly but not endboards. Because of tweaks to the formations of some trains, not all carriages in the sets are boarded at present.

 

The Flying Scotsman sheet is here.

 

The Elizabethan sheet is here.

 

Thanks.

 

The coach roof boards were done from Ian Wilson prints, (Sankey were too pixelated when you looked at them closely). Roy handed the packs over and I did quite a few of them. Not all coaches in the trains either had roof boards and I don't think we ever put a headboard on. If memory serves those boards weren't included on the sheets, and very occasionally the locomotive was changed, with an upgrade for example.  Not all coaches were roof boarded to reflect images Roy showed me from books in his library. Some commercial boards styles weren't used as the spacing/wording was incorrect for Roy's era,  he took the lead on that knowledge. The other reason was due to some of the coach stock being on loan, those coaches didn't receive roof boards, and Roy identified those coaches as I worked through them. That would account for some of the variation in the consists of boarded vs non boards. 

 

If anyone got one of their coaches back with a board, sorry!, probably me not I'D'ing the coach correctly once Roy had picked those to do. The other option we were to explore was waterslide transfers, unfortunately time beat us.

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

Afternoon All,

You may (or probably may not) remember I’ve been refurbishing a DJH J10 and have finally got round to finishing it. Just crew, lamps and fire irons to add. It a model I started in the late 80s whilst at university as I want an ex GC I started out because it just didn’t run very well and I lost interest in it so never really got completed. In the end I did a bit more than just replace the motor but with the law of diminishing returns and the fact you can’t polish a turd, so this how it looks now. I’ve used one of the DJH gearbox motor combos Tony has been recommending/using and I’m really pleased with that aspect of the rebuild. The body could be better but didn’t want to strip the body down to its component parts. I’ve already plenty of kits to start and that really wasn’t the object. 
Regards, Robert

Nice loco - I think you did a great job; I built one a little while back and they don't seem to have a very good rep so it's good to see another one. Did you have to remove material from inside the boiler to get the DJH motor/gearbox to fit? The instructions with mine - even though it was bought within the last few years - was for a much older, larger, longer motor (Anchorage, perhaps?) and I had quite a lot to do to accommodate the newer one. Which axle did you drive? I drove the middle one, with the motor pointing forwards. It left a very small amount of the gearbox visible towards the rear of the boiler, but painted black it's very unobtrusive.

[Erichill16]

1 minute ago, Chas Levin said:

Nice loco - I think you did a great job; I built one a little while back and they don't seem to have a very good rep so it's good to see another one. Did you have to remove material from inside the boiler to get the DJH motor/gearbox to fit? The instructions with mine - even though it was bought within the last few years - was for a much older, larger, longer motor (Anchorage, perhaps?) and I had quite a lot to do to accommodate the newer one. Which axle did you drive? I drove the middle one, with the motor pointing forwards. It left a very small amount of the gearbox visible towards the rear of the boiler, but painted black it's very unobtrusive.

Reading in bed at moment (probably too much info!) but will take a few pictures tomorrow to answer your questions.

Regards ROBERT

[Dunsignalling]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for the positive response, Andy,

 

Bogie wheels? Yes, it's been discussed before, by you, me and others.

 

It's just that I find both Bachmann's and Hornby's bogie/pony wheels so awful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

On their big LNER locos, maybe, but I was delighted (after I got over the shock) to discover that the wheels on Hornby's Adams Radial models differ, representing the individual pattern appropriate to each of the three builders of the Lyme Regis survivors. 

 

They make a fairly decent fist of their BFB wheels, too. 

 

John

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

I can imagine bogie wheels coming up in your conversations with Hornby, regarding their forthcoming models.  

 

Did you win that one, Tony?

I didn't, Phil,

 

For obvious reasons. 

 

In fairness to Hornby (and any other RTR manufacturer), they have no legislation over what kind of trackwork the purchasers of their products use. Occasionally, a minimum radius will be recommended for, say, larger steam-outline locos, but that's far, far tighter than any 'serious' railway modeller would employ. Thus faced with the prospect of having to negotiate 'dockyard' or 'agricultural' railway curves, often laid in a dodgy manner,'chunky' bogie/pony wheels with fat treads and large flanges have to be employed. Agreed, they're far better than they used to be (most RTR drivers these days are close to RP25 profile, for instance), but since any ponies or bogies are the first to negotiate any tight trackwork, it's vital these don't derail. 

 

In this respect, the RTR boys cannot win. Their products stay on the road, but they're criticised by bods such as me! On the other hand, can you imagine the outrage generated if the RTR chaps fitted 'scale' bogie/pony wheels? 'Your products are cr@p, they derail!'.  

 

That said, for those to whom the appearance of their pony/bogie wheels is 'important', more-accurate substitutes are easily fitted. That's not to say Markits are dead scale - they're not. The flanges and treads are deeper and wider respectively than, say, Alan Gibson's equivalents, but they're always dead true, round and concentric. It's the profile of the spokes and the appearance of the bosses which makes them look so much better than the originals, plus the finer flanges and treads. Such excellence, of course, comes at a price. A price, it would seem, some are not prepared to pay. As always, it's a matter of choice.......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[bbishop]

I note that one of our regular contributors has joined the Gauge O Guild.  I'll let him "out" himself.  Bill

[thegreenhowards]

4 hours ago, bbishop said:

I note that one of our regular contributors has joined the Gauge O Guild.  I'll let him "out" himself.  Bill

That would be me I presume? Guilty as charged! 
 

I've always had a soft spot for O gauge - I just love the sense of mass but never really had the space or budget to do it justice. Recently I’ve bought a few bits of rolling stock and built a couple of kits encouraged by a friend at my club. Now we’re about to start an O gauge layout at the club (final approvals permitting) which will give me a purpose for my stock and get round the space problem. It could help the budget problem as well if I don’t go too mad!

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

That would be me I presume? Guilty as charged! 
 

I've always had a soft spot for O gauge - I just love the sense of mass but never really had the space or budget to do it justice. Recently I’ve bought a few bits of rolling stock and built a couple of kits encouraged by a friend at my club. Now we’re about to start an O gauge layout at the club (final approvals permitting) which will give me a purpose for my stock and get round the space problem. It could help the budget problem as well if I don’t go too mad!

 

Andy

I wish you well, Andy,

 

I've 'dabbled' in O gauge (I started in the scale nearly 70 years ago!), but it's just too 'big' for me. 

 

I can't deny that it has a presence, particularly in dynamics, compared with the smaller scales, but it's never been able to give me what I 'want'. That is, a tactile reminder of my trainspotting days along the ECML when steam still remained supreme. That's not to say it can't be done in O Gauge. However, it requires enormous resources, not least in terms of space and purchasing powers - two essentials way beyond my capabilities in 7mm Scale. I've done it in OO (with great amounts of help), but imagine doing Little Bytham in O Gauge. Double the footprint, give or take; say, 60' x 22'? How much would over 200 locos, 300 carriages and in excess of 400 wagons cost? Not to mention my ability to make that many in O Gauge (the largest locos I've built in O Gauge are a Stanier Five and a BR Standard Five). No, impossible! 

 

Where a person is prepared to scratch-build a large amount, then the fiscal restrictions aren't so severe. 

 

One great ER modeller in 7mm Scale is Barrie Walls. His various Wallseas have shown what's possible.............

 

 

 

Because of the sheer sizes needed to give a 'realistic' run, Barrie had to 'go outside', at least in part. Even then, train lengths were compromised, resulting in a six-car 'Yorkshire Pullman' (just over half its scale length, at least south of Doncaster). Impressive, nonetheless. 

 

Where a huge amount of money is available, what's possible in 7mm can be mightily-impressive. 

 

John Ryan's Over Peover springs to mind................

 

 

 

 

The three locos above were professionally-built from DJH kits (though the incidences of the W1 hauling a short Pullman train are way beyond any research I've undertaken). The Pullman cars are all RTR from Golden Age.

 

 

Even though the room housing Over Peover is enormous, outside loops are still needed to get the required length of runs. 

 

 

 

A large number of locos and much of the stock has been provided by Golden Age. 

 

As I say, given a huge fiscal resource..................

 

A book on this layout has recently been published (I provided some of the material). Given the resources, it's a pity that more of the trains weren't made more-accurately, and the scenes based on actual prototypes ('The Elizabethan' composed entirely of Mk. stock, including a Mk. Buffet Car, with a Gresley BG!), but it's the owner's prerogative, after all.

 

I recall discussions with O Gauge modellers who insisted that, given the same 'footprint' for a layout, it need not cost more. Which is true, but it's not comparing like with like. 'You'll need fewer locos and items of stock' I'm told, which is also true.

 

Given those 'advantages', Ian Wison has built a lovely O Gauge line, depicting an ironstone branch............

 

 

 

 

His Bridgefield Quarry is very attractive, but it's not my scene.

 

Bridgefield Quarry will be appearing at the BRM virtual exhibition over the coming weekend (along with Little Bytham and Retford). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

All your points on 0 gauge are noted. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t intend recreating something like Gresley Jn. in 0 gauge! I will keep my 00 stuff for long ECML type trains where the smaller scale is much more practical.

 

But I’m not interested in shunting planks either! In 0 gauge we’re thinking of a ‘Minories’ type arrangement about 6 metres long, with some goods activity and longer distance peak services built on top - not dissimilar to what ‘31A‘ of this parish has done in 00 with Finsbury Sq. I anticipate the maximum train size being 4-5 corridor coaches or a quad art set. With a number of people at the club providing stock that should be manageable. I’ve already started building Kirk kits.

 

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Theakerr]

A couple of info note re my experience of changing the front bogie wheels.   With the exception of diamond crossings and single slips, all my track-work is Code 100  (code 75 wasn't available when I started) and wheels on all my rolling stock have been replaced with metal sets.   Back to the front bogies, back to back setting is absolutely critical and spacing washers between .25 and .5mm on both sides are also necessary.  The latter may not seem important but I without them there is so much side play that they will de-rail pretty well on any curved section of a point.  I have also found it necessary to add a 10 thou shim on the inside of the check rail the pulls the wheels into a curve in some track configurations.

[t-b-g]

48 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

All your points on 0 gauge are noted. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t intend recreating something like Gresley Jn. in 0 gauge! I will keep my 00 stuff for long ECML type trains where the smaller scale is much more practical.

 

But I’m not interested in shunting planks either! In 0 gauge we’re thinking of a ‘Minories’ type arrangement about 6 metres long, with some goods activity and longer distance peak services built on top - not dissimilar to what ‘31A‘ of this parish has done in 00 with Finsbury Sq. I anticipate the maximum train size being 4-5 corridor coaches or a quad art set. With a number of people at the club providing stock that should be manageable. I’ve already started building Kirk kits.

 

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am plotting something very similar. Having worked almost exclusively in EM for around 40 years I fancied a change and after building one or two O Gauge items for others, I got a liking for it. Having visited a few very impressive O Gauge layouts (including one with full length ECML trains and big engines that was great fun), the liking turned into a plan! 

 

My reasoning was based on the length from the first point blade of the throat to the end of the platforms on Buckingham being 8ft, doubling that to 16ft would allow me a GCR 4-6-0 on 5 corridor carriages taking up around 8ft and leaving the other 8ft for the station throat, to fit down one side of my garage. 3 platforms, a couple of goods sidings and a loco yard.

 

A few of my previously all 4mm friends are dabbling in 7mm too. We all have different interests so there will be "proper" running sessions with GCR period locos and stock, plus a bit of Midland and also some Great Northern, then there will be other sessions where "anything goes". If I can do it with my finances, it isn't beyond the reach of anybody. Kits have been picked up second hand, part built locos bought cheap to strip down and start again. I am happy scratchbuilding too, which will save lots of cash.

 

It will be all fictitious in terms of location, so nobody can say it is wrong.

 

The hope is that with the 7mm in the garage with a reversing loop arrangement in the garden, plus Buckingham, this becomes a possible gathering place for our little "gang". At present, I can only fit about 4 or 5 in the shed but with that plus the garage, we could all get together (8 or 9) here to play trains, drink tea and talk nonsense. Those building O Gauge things but not having their own layout will be able to give them a run.

 

It is a long term plan and will be a while before anything happens but it is nice to have a new project to think about and the first 3 locos and a few items of rolling stock have been started, plus the baseboards from a very skilled woodworker are done as a trade for some work on his signals.  

[ecgtheow]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I wish you well, Andy,

 

I've 'dabbled' in O gauge (I started in the scale nearly 70 years ago!), but it's just too 'big' for me. 

 

I can't deny that it has a presence, particularly in dynamics, compared with the smaller scales, but it's never been able to give me what I 'want'. That is, a tactile reminder of my trainspotting days along the ECML when steam still remained supreme. That's not to say it can't be done in O Gauge. However, it requires enormous resources, not least in terms of space and purchasing powers - two essentials way beyond my capabilities in 7mm Scale. I've done it in OO (with great amounts of help), but imagine doing Little Bytham in O Gauge. Double the footprint, give or take; say, 60' x 22'? How much would over 200 locos, 300 carriages and in excess of 400 wagons cost? Not to mention my ability to make that many in O Gauge (the largest locos I've built in O Gauge are a Stanier Five and a BR Standard Five). No, impossible! 

 

Where a person is prepared to scratch-build a large amount, then the fiscal restrictions aren't so severe. 

 

One great ER modeller in 7mm Scale is Barrie Walls. His various Wallseas have shown what's possible.............

 

 

 

Because of the sheer sizes needed to give a 'realistic' run, Barrie had to 'go outside', at least in part. Even then, train lengths were compromised, resulting in a six-car 'Yorkshire Pullman' (just over half its scale length, at least south of Doncaster). Impressive, nonetheless. 

 

Where a huge amount of money is available, what's possible in 7mm can be mightily-impressive. 

 

John Ryans' Over Peover springs to mind................

 

 

 

 

The three locos above were professionally-built from DJH kits (though the incidences of the W1 hauling a short Pullman train are way beyond any research I've undertaken). The Pullman cars are all RTR from Golden Age.

 

 

Even though the room housing Over Peover is enormous, outside loops are still needed to get the required length of runs. 

 

 

 

A large number of locos and much of the stock has been provided by Golden Age. 

 

As I say, given a huge fiscal resource..................

 

A book on this layout has recently been published (I provided some of the material). Given the resources, it's a pity that more of the trains weren't made more-accurately, and the scenes based on actual prototypes ('The Elizabethan' composed entirely of Mk. stock, including a Mk. Buffet Car, with a Gresley BG!), but it's the owner's prerogative, after all.

 

I recall discussions with O Gauge modellers who insisted that, given the same 'footprint' for a layout, it need not cost more. Which is true, but it's not comparing like with like. 'You'll need fewer locos and items of stock' I'm told, which is also true.

 

Given those 'advantages', Ian Wison has built a lovely O Gauge line, depicting an ironstone branch............

 

 

 

 

His Bridgefield Quarry is very attractive, but it's not my scene.

 

Bridgefield Quarry will be appearing at the BRM virtual exhibition over the coming weekend (along with Little Bytham and Retford). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ecgtheow]

Tony,

 

You are a bit if a stickler for correct usage of language  so it's fair to point out that you probably meant "financial" rather than "fiscal" restrictions & resources even though any reader would know what you meant. Fiscal is to do with taxation.

 

William

[Erichill16]

22 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Nice loco - I think you did a great job; I built one a little while back and they don't seem to have a very good rep so it's good to see another one. Did you have to remove material from inside the boiler to get the DJH motor/gearbox to fit? The instructions with mine - even though it was bought within the last few years - was for a much older, larger, longer motor (Anchorage, perhaps?) and I had quite a lot to do to accommodate the newer one. Which axle did you drive? I drove the middle one, with the motor pointing forwards. It left a very small amount of the gearbox visible towards the rear of the boiler, but painted black it's very unobtrusive.

Evening Chas,

Sorry for the delay but called into work at extreme short notice.

The model was originally power by an Anchorage D13 motor.

The replacement is fitted with the motor in the firebox and the gearbox further forward driving the centre axle. Though I only did it a few months ago I’m not 100% regarding how much metal I removed from the boiler but not much I think.

Picture will be on next posting!

The first picture is an old one and shows the original motor and it’s approximate position before refurbishment commenced.

the other two show where the motor/gearbox is exposed now.

Regards Robert 
Regards Robert

Edited November 3, 2020 by Erichill16
Spelling

[Erichill16]

Pictures as promised.sass#qq

[thegreenhowards]

31 minutes ago, ecgtheow said:

Tony,

 

You are a bit if a stickler for correct usage of language  so it's fair to point out that you probably meant "financial" rather than "fiscal" restrictions & resources even though any reader would know what you meant. Fiscal is to do with taxation.

 

William

Well if it wasn’t for the tax man I could easily afford O gauge!