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.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paul Cram said:

The Hornby one looks to be leaning to the right. The gap would be smaller if it was upright.

 The one below has been corrected as much as I can, it is a bit rough and ready but if you look at the first vertical line on the coach end it is as near parallel to the ruler as makes little difference and the gap of the t'home is still noticeable and is very near to 1mm if you compare with the ruler markings. Could it be that because the coach has a sharp edge finish at the bottom then that may be why it looks "flat"?

 

921769296_IMGP1116(3).JPG.d1960ec5d62c7924de34ff932fd98e1e.JPG

 

Edited by ScRSG
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Um? statuesque (adj.) (of a woman) attractively tall, graceful, and dignified (vide Sophia Loren).

 

Or does your spell-checker have a hang-up on Latin tags? Status quo?

 

It should of course read status quo, My mouse battery died at a un opportune moment. As long as you understand, should I change it?

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

Progress on the latest SEF A4.................

 

548556785_6001302.jpg.34ef0e06943be750d7ed79ff214f1e6e.jpg

 

Accepting the limitations of my building skills, there are several elements in this model which are (and will be) 'incorrect' and compromised. They're either through indolence, ignorance, resources (or lack of them) or pragmatism. 

 

I'd expect nothing else than these being commented on................... 

 

 


Tony,

 

I’m interested in that you are building an SEF kit for an A4. I think Retford could do with another A4 and I was pondering what would be the best way to achieve this.
 

The easiest way would be simply to convert a Hornby A4 to EM gauge but this doesn’t quite fit with the Retford ethos and anyway its haulage capacity may not be sufficient. I did think of an SEF A4 but I’ve not heard good reports of them and therefore I discounted this possibility. I did also think of trying to find a Pro Scale A4 but I believe these kits are difficult to build and not necessarily accurate. A further possibility is a Martin Finney A4 but I believe this has a resin boiler which puts me off.

 

I therefore wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter taking into account that I would need the locomotive to haul up to 15 coaches on the far from flat layout.

 

Sandra

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, sandra said:


A further possibility is a Martin Finney A4 but I believe this has a resin boiler which puts me off.

 

 

Apologies for interjecting, Geoff Brewin's Duke of Gloucester is a resin bodied loco. It was his test bed for the Comet MGB gearbox and Maxxon coreless motor which is small enough in the loco to pack a maximum amount of lead. The loco could successfully start 8 coaches on a 1:100 gradient without slipping. It didn't look bad either in my opinion.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

Evening Tony (nearly bedtime in fact!)

 

I don’t dispute that this thread has been a huge source of inspiration to me and probably has to many others. There is some brilliant stuff posted on here.

 

However, in our increasingly social media dependant world, we need higher levels of emotional intelligence as we rely entirely on our interpretation of the written word; we have no other visual, verbal or non-verbal cues on which to work.

 

Nor do I dispute that everyone has opinion to share. The challenge is in how we express it.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Good afternoon Iain,

 

I entirely agree with and understand your points of view. Many thanks for expressing them.

 

It is challenging being able to express/convey exact feelings and sentiments in a written piece. Some are muddled by poor grammar/spelling, which, I know, is a sensitive area for some. However, that does not preclude (or should not preclude) anyone from expressing their opinions. I know some are written 'tongue in cheek', but that's not always apparent. 

 

I like to believe I'm really a bit thick-skinned (well, the former, anyway), but that comes with 'the territory'. Having written several books and hundreds of articles on prototype railways and railway modelling, for everyone who might agree with a published piece, there are many who'll hold a totally opposite point of view. They have a right to express their different points of view. That said, I'll always listen to the 'opposite' opinion from those who've actually solved railway modelling problems, and are actually prepared to show me (and others) what they've achieved. They have something tangible to back up those points of view - something tangible I'll often learn from. If some are 'clumsy' in expressing their points (myself included), then it's still worth looking beyond being 'upset'. 

 

A social media dependent world? Who'd have thought I'd be a participant in such an environment? 

 

KInd regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sandra said:


Tony,

 

I’m interested in that you are building an SEF kit for an A4. I think Retford could do with another A4 and I was pondering what would be the best way to achieve this.
 

The easiest way would be simply to convert a Hornby A4 to EM gauge but this doesn’t quite fit with the Retford ethos and anyway its haulage capacity may not be sufficient. I did think of an SEF A4 but I’ve not heard good reports of them and therefore I discounted this possibility. I did also think of trying to find a Pro Scale A4 but I believe these kits are difficult to build and not necessarily accurate. A further possibility is a Martin Finney A4 but I believe this has a resin boiler which puts me off.

 

I therefore wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter taking into account that I would need the locomotive to haul up to 15 coaches on the far from flat layout.

 

Sandra

 

 

Hello Sandra, from the other Tony!

 

I don't think there is much wrong with the Hornby body and Roy was quite happy to use them. I know he had been experimenting with the Brassmaster's conversion kits but they didn't really suit his way of working. Roy's way would very likely have been a Hornby body, on a mostly Comet mechanism, with Markits wheels and a High Level gearbox. That frees up lots of space in the body for weight. Most of his B1s were done along those lines, as were other locos when a half decent RTR body was available.

 

The Comet expansion link would have been replaced with some multilayer ones that Morgan Gilbert had designed and etched, which looked much better than the usual single flat etched layer.

 

So that would be my interpretation of the Retford ethos. 

Edited by t-b-g
To add content
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Hello Sandra, from the other Tony!

 

I don't think there is much wrong with the Hornby body and Roy was quite happy to use them. I know he had been experimenting with the Brassmaster's conversion kits but they didn't really suit his way of working. Roy's way would very likely have been a Hornby body, on a mostly Comet mechanism, with Markits wheels and a High Level gearbox. That frees up lots of space in the body for weight. Most of his B1s were done along those lines, as were other locos when a half decent RTR body was available.

 

The Comet expansion link would have been replaced with some multilayer ones that Morgan Gilbert had designed and etched, which looked much better than the usual single flat etched layer.

 

So that would be my interpretation of the Retford ethos. 

You beat me to it.  That's just what I was going to suggest, albeit that I didn't know about the Mogan Gilbert expansion links.  There must be enough room in a Hornby body for significant amounts of ballast especially if you are careful to minimise/optimise the space occupied by the motor/gearbox unit. 

 

Best of luck Sandra.

 

Frank   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Hello Sandra, from the other Tony!

 

I don't think there is much wrong with the Hornby body and Roy was quite happy to use them. I know he had been experimenting with the Brassmaster's conversion kits but they didn't really suit his way of working. Roy's way would very likely have been a Hornby body, on a mostly Comet mechanism, with Markits wheels and a High Level gearbox. That frees up lots of space in the body for weight. Most of his B1s were done along those lines, as were other locos when a half decent RTR body was available.

 

The Comet expansion link would have been replaced with some multilayer ones that Morgan Gilbert had designed and etched, which looked much better than the usual single flat etched layer.

 

So that would be my interpretation of the Retford ethos. 

Interesting points about Roy's approach. 

 

Do you happen to know the origin of Roy's 60018 Sparrow Hawk? The last time I ran trains on Retford when visiting it derailed twice, which is most unlike a Roy engine.

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

Not knowing much about steam locomotives, what exactly is wrong with this kit?

 

Best regards

 

RIchard

Good afternoon Richard,

 

How honest should I be?

 

Let's start with the positives, if I may? The etched chassis is superb, and the motion (though time-consuming to erect - more so than, say, Comet's) is really beefy, capturing the 'mass of the real thing. The etched tender chassis is also excellent.

 

The great inherent weight of the whitemetal castings (in both loco and tender) make for superb haulage abilities and excellent road-holding. With reference to the loco body, I think it does 'capture' the bulbous (yet elegant) lines of the prototype. Like all whitemetal castings, a fair bit of cleaning up is necessary to ensure snug fits for soldering (how anyone might glue a South Eastern Finecast A4 together, I have no idea). In fact, I'd say it's one of the more-difficult SEF kits to put together.

 

Now the cons (or more of them). Let's start with the tender. As supplied, it's rather poor. It's designed (originally) from the Roche drawing of donkeys' years ago and replicates all the errors. The tank is not quite deep enough and, despite its purporting to be a corridor tender, there's a flange along the base of the soleplate - something only found on the (narrower) non-corridor tenders. This has to be removed with a Stanley knife and various files (hoping not to bleed too much!). 

 

It's representative of the 1928 corridor type (ex-A1/A3), with beading and flat back. To model the 1935 corridor type (as I'm trying to do), the beading must be removed and the turn-in at the front of the tanks reduced. The rear should also be radiused to match the streamlined stock, which is very difficult to do. In the case of 60013's 1935 corrdor tender, an extra strip will need fixing to the base of the soleplate, which used to carry the stainless steel adornment pre-War. Because of the position of the triangular supports, this will be all but impossible to achieve. That's before I mention that this tender should have roller bearings! 

 

The front cover on the tender is only correct for the A4s as built, and needs reducing in size for later LNER/BR days. 

 

Now to the loco. The cabsides are too thick, but can be reduced by putting a chamfer on the rear edges. The same is true for the cab roof.  The nature of the casting surface results in some porosity and pitting, which will require filling before painting (as with the tender). 

 

There is no provision for a front numberplate support in BR days. There is also no representation of the lubricator drive, the ash-pan lever nor the footplate supports adjacent to the firebox. The hinged bottom section of the cod's mouth is represented too low. 

 

As for the 'toy-time' representation of the Cartazzie truck frames, the less said the better. The whole thing is designed to pivot, just like early Hornby's A4s did. I modify it as a matter of course.

 

Any real 'positives'? May I let the following pictures answer that question, please?

 

71506262_20600260nWRidingBW.jpg.48daa74358ce731842e562ea0fdeebd3.jpg

 

When my SEF A4s have guested on friends' layouts, the ability to haul heavy trains at high speed has been paramount. Here, MILES BEEVOR takes the Down 'West Riding' (14 cars) through Biggleswade. 

 

This loco tows a Crownline streamlined non-corridor type (the SEF one doesn't cater for this sort).

 

646181619_600260nUpgoods.jpg.2454759d421a80a12e26e4e4bf274965.jpg

 

Showing the A4s' versatility, he she is on an express goods on Little Bytham. 

 

Ian Rathbone painted this one.

 

1242016370_A4s6001460026.jpg.616fea02fb367300d5b5690e6ad3a964.jpg

 

60026 now passes 60014. Ian Rathbone also painted SILVER LINK.

 

473980513_me02.jpg.7b68e6a951a2778b11335e2f35627d17.jpg

 

Here, 'I'm' taking a picture of the doyen of the class. 

 

637240638_60030onTTPullman01.jpg.b7d513dce9c049eadf9ca4af564d9937.jpg

 

SEF A4s certainly did yeoman service on Stoke Summit; in this case 60030.

 

1005296011_60030onAfternoonTalisman.jpg.6a42021986bc14cf5b510193fc8392f4.jpg

 

And GOLDEN FLEECE continues to perform on Little Bytham. 

 

Again, Ian Rathbone painted this one.

 

2016639435_600170nDownTTPullman.jpg.e3331416fcdee3edfecf934daffa67cd.jpg

 

124907667_SEFinecastA460017.jpg.0acfd5ae5ff8db9e6c8b9cac9f16cd5a.jpg

 

And one of my more-recent SEF A4 builds in the form of SILVER FOX. 

 

This one tows a scratch-built 1935-style streamlined corridor tender, and Geoff Haynes painted her. 

 

What more might one say? The Hornby body is certainly crisper and more accurate, but don't expect it to pull anything like the weight of trains capable of being hauled by the models shown above. If you want an an A4 with model performance to match its prototype, then the SEF A4 is the way to go. AS I hope the pictures show, they're quite adequate 'layout locos'.

 

The Pro-Scale A4 kit is rather tricky to make, and the tender is just as fudged.

 

The Finney kit is no doubt the best, but I struggle to solder resin! It also only comes with a 1928 corridor tender as well (as far as I know). 

 

Finally, apart from 60017, all the A4s illustrated above have (incorrect) 22-spoked drivers - older Romfords - including my latest one.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, 96701 said:

Apologies for interjecting, Geoff Brewin's Duke of Gloucester is a resin bodied loco. It was his test bed for the Comet MGB gearbox and Maxxon coreless motor which is small enough in the loco to pack a maximum amount of lead. The loco could successfully start 8 coaches on a 1:100 gradient without slipping. It didn't look bad either in my opinion.

 

Geoff's Duke is now in my possession, seen here hardly being taxed by a mere 7 Bachmann Mk1s.

 

DOG1.jpg.06931eaff0dbeade270585a9bc8bd989.jpg

 

DOG2.jpg.1d78271605f8f808724158b74978a9b9.jpg

 

The resin body details are maybe a little soft but they're fine for me. I still need to attend to a couple of things: the nearside deflector needs re-seating at the right angle, and I'm not sure the body is the right height at both ends  (although it might be that the leaning deflector is tricking my eye).

 

It certainly runs beautifully.

 

Al

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Hello Sandra, from the other Tony!

 

I don't think there is much wrong with the Hornby body and Roy was quite happy to use them. I know he had been experimenting with the Brassmaster's conversion kits but they didn't really suit his way of working. Roy's way would very likely have been a Hornby body, on a mostly Comet mechanism, with Markits wheels and a High Level gearbox. That frees up lots of space in the body for weight. Most of his B1s were done along those lines, as were other locos when a half decent RTR body was available.

 

The Comet expansion link would have been replaced with some multilayer ones that Morgan Gilbert had designed and etched, which looked much better than the usual single flat etched layer.

 

So that would be my interpretation of the Retford ethos. 

Good evening Tony,

 

As far as I know (and photographed), Roy's A4s were Trix bodies on scratch-built/kit-built frames. The three I've taken pictures of (60018, 60022 and 60027) were certainly from this source (60022 and 60027 had SEF tenders).

 

The Hornby A4s running on Retford were probably Pete Hill's conversions (perhaps Pete might comment). 

 

If Roy did use Hornby A4 bodies, I didn't take any pictures of them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

Good evening Tony,

 

As far as I know (and photographed), Roy's A4s were Trix bodies on scratch-built/kit-built frames. The three I've taken pictures of (60018, 60022 and 60027) were certainly from this source (60022 and 60027 had SEF tenders).

 

The Hornby A4s running on Retford were probably Pete Hill's conversions (perhaps Pete might comment). 

 

If Roy did use Hornby A4 bodies, I didn't take any pictures of them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks, I think that answers at least in part my question about 60018.

 

You did photograph 60014 on Retford. It was on page 2072 of this thread.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_10/928125798_Retford1810200560014onFS.jpg.cee3e9cb4a80a67abe0bc4aabc048d68.jpg

 

I don't think 60022 is on Retford now. 

Edited by robertcwp
Add a bit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Geoff's Duke is now in my possession, seen here hardly being taxed by a mere 7 Bachmann Mk1s.

 

DOG1.jpg.06931eaff0dbeade270585a9bc8bd989.jpg

 

DOG2.jpg.1d78271605f8f808724158b74978a9b9.jpg

 

The resin body details are maybe a little soft but they're fine for me. I still need to attend to a couple of things: the nearside deflector needs re-seating at the right angle, and I'm not sure the body is the right height at both ends  (although it might be that the leaning deflector is tricking my eye).

 

It certainly runs beautifully.

 

Al

Everything about that loco looks lovely apart from the smoke deflectors; there is something wrong somewhere with the dimensions.  I think they extend back to the right point but about a foot too far forward.  They should extend only just forward of the downward slope to the buffer beam.

I'd still be proud of it though.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robertcwp said:

It seems from recent posts that the Hornby A4 body is pretty good but not much else about it is. I have a Hornby A4. This photo is from 15 years ago which is probably from the first and last time it ran on my layout:

 

35732188516_0d4c716250_o.jpgP1020671_edited small by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Good evening Robert,

 

I think it's slightly unfair to say that only the (superb) body is good on Hornby's A4. 

 

It's true the valve gear is rather poorly-represented (with incorrect angles), but they generally run well, if a little lacking in 'brute' force.

 

That said, they're not really mechanically-designed for the likes of Little Bytham and certainly not Retford; not without a fair bit of modification, especially added ballast. 

 

The gross bogie wheels also means that they'll negotiate train set curves and poorly-laid track. 

 

They're excellent models for the market they're made for.

 

REgards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Thanks, I think that answers at least in part my question about 60018.

 

You did photograph 60014 on Retford. It was on page 2072 of this thread.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_10/928125798_Retford1810200560014onFS.jpg.cee3e9cb4a80a67abe0bc4aabc048d68.jpg 316.27 kB · 0 downloads

 

I don't think 60022 is on Retford now. 

I did, Robert,

 

The memory and all that.........................

 

I assume 60014 was one of Roy's conversions?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

Good evening Tony,

 

As far as I know (and photographed), Roy's A4s were Trix bodies on scratch-built/kit-built frames. The three I've taken pictures of (60018, 60022 and 60027) were certainly from this source (60022 and 60027 had SEF tenders).

 

The Hornby A4s running on Retford were probably Pete Hill's conversions (perhaps Pete might comment). 

 

If Roy did use Hornby A4 bodies, I didn't take any pictures of them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I am pretty sure there were quite a few more than 3 A4s on Retford but I don't know the origin or ownership of them all. At least one, maybe more, were Pete's.

 

I did not say that Roy had produced an A4 the way I outlined. Just that he had done other locos that way and it would have been his likely  preferred option if he wanted to add a new A4. If he could get a good enough RTR body, he was happy to marry it to a home made mechanism.

 

 

Edited by t-b-g
To phrase it better.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Richard,

 

How honest should I be?

 

Let's start with the positives, if I may? The etched chassis is superb, and the motion (though time-consuming to erect - more so than, say, Comet's) is really beefy, capturing the 'mass of the real thing. The etched tender chassis is also excellent.

 

The great inherent weight of the whitemetal castings (in both loco and tender) make for superb haulage abilities and excellent road-holding. With reference to the loco body, I think it does 'capture' the bulbous (yet elegant) lines of the prototype. Like all whitemetal castings, a fair bit of cleaning up is necessary to ensure snug fits for soldering (how anyone might glue a South Eastern Finecast A4 together, I have no idea). In fact, I'd say it's one of the more-difficult SEF kits to put together.

 

Now the cons (or more of them). Let's start with the tender. As supplied, it's rather poor. It's designed (originally) from the Roche drawing of donkeys' years ago and replicates all the errors. The tank is not quite deep enough and, despite its purporting to be a corridor tender, there's a flange along the base of the soleplate - something only found on the (narrower) non-corridor tenders. This has to be removed with a Stanley knife and various files (hoping not to bleed too much!). 

 

It's representative of the 1928 corridor type (ex-A1/A3), with beading and flat back. To model the 1935 corridor type (as I'm trying to do), the beading must be removed and the turn-in at the front of the tanks reduced. The rear should also be radiused to match the streamlined stock, which is very difficult to do. In the case of 60013's 1935 corrdor tender, an extra strip will need fixing to the base of the soleplate, which used to carry the stainless steel adornment pre-War. Because of the position of the triangular supports, this will be all but impossible to achieve. That's before I mention that this tender should have roller bearings! 

 

The front cover on the tender is only correct for the A4s as built, and needs reducing in size for later LNER/BR days. 

 

Now to the loco. The cabsides are too thick, but can be reduced by putting a chamfer on the rear edges. The same is true for the cab roof.  The nature of the casting surface results in some porosity and pitting, which will require filling before painting (as with the tender). 

 

There is no provision for a front numberplate support in BR days. There is also no representation of the lubricator drive, the ash-pan lever nor the footplate supports adjacent to the firebox. The hinged bottom section of the cod's mouth is represented too low. 

 

As for the 'toy-time' representation of the Cartazzie truck frames, the less said the better. The whole thing is designed to pivot, just like early Hornby's A4s did. I modify it as a matter of course.

 

Any real 'positives'? May I let the following pictures answer that question, please?

 

71506262_20600260nWRidingBW.jpg.48daa74358ce731842e562ea0fdeebd3.jpg

 

When my SEF A4s have guested on friends' layouts, the ability to haul heavy trains at high speed has been paramount. Here, MILES BEEVOR takes the Down 'West Riding' (14 cars) through Biggleswade. 

 

This loco tows a Crownline streamlined non-corridor type (the SEF one doesn't cater for this sort).

 

646181619_600260nUpgoods.jpg.2454759d421a80a12e26e4e4bf274965.jpg

 

Showing the A4s' versatility, he she is on an express goods on Little Bytham. 

 

Ian Rathbone painted this one.

 

1242016370_A4s6001460026.jpg.616fea02fb367300d5b5690e6ad3a964.jpg

 

60026 now passes 60014. Ian Rathbone also painted SILVER LINK.

 

473980513_me02.jpg.7b68e6a951a2778b11335e2f35627d17.jpg

 

Here, 'I'm' taking a picture of the doyen of the class. 

 

637240638_60030onTTPullman01.jpg.b7d513dce9c049eadf9ca4af564d9937.jpg

 

SEF A4s certainly did yeoman service on Stoke Summit; in this case 60030.

 

1005296011_60030onAfternoonTalisman.jpg.6a42021986bc14cf5b510193fc8392f4.jpg

 

And GOLDEN FLEECE continues to perform on Little Bytham. 

 

Again, Ian Rathbone painted this one.

 

2016639435_600170nDownTTPullman.jpg.e3331416fcdee3edfecf934daffa67cd.jpg

 

124907667_SEFinecastA460017.jpg.0acfd5ae5ff8db9e6c8b9cac9f16cd5a.jpg

 

And one of my more-recent SEF A4 builds in the form of SILVER FOX. 

 

This one tows a scratch-built 1935-style streamlined corridor tender, and Geoff Haynes painted her. 

 

What more might one say? The Hornby body is certainly crisper and more accurate, but don't expect it to pull anything like the weight of trains capable of being hauled by the models shown above. If you want an an A4 with model performance to match its prototype, then the SEF A4 is the way to go. AS I hope the pictures show, they're quite adequate 'layout locos'.

 

The Pro-Scale A4 kit is rather tricky to make, and the tender is just as fudged.

 

The Finney kit is no doubt the best, but I struggle to solder resin! It also only comes with a 1928 corridor tender as well (as far as I know). 

 

Finally, apart from 60017, all the A4s illustrated above have (incorrect) 22-spoked drivers - older Romfords - including my latest one.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Thank you for your reply Tony, 

 

It goes to show that ignorance might be a blessing then because it looks very much like a an A4 to me even after you pointed out the errors. 

 

Best regards Richard 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Everything about that loco looks lovely apart from the smoke deflectors; there is something wrong somewhere with the dimensions.  I think they extend back to the right point but about a foot too far forward.  They should extend only just forward of the downward slope to the buffer beam.

I'd still be proud of it though.

Yes, they are much too long.

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

I did, Robert,

 

The memory and all that.........................

 

I assume 60014 was one of Roy's conversions?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

60014 appears to have a plastic body but I'm not sure of the origin. The tender is A4 corridor and looked like a Hornby one to me. It is dedicated to the Flying Scotsman as the tender has a Kaydee coupling, as does the leading BSK of the Flying Scotsman set. It is the only one with Kaydees on the layout so far as I could see. Once I had given the stock an overhaul, 60014 handled the set without any trouble. It had been slipping previously.

 

Not previously mentioned I believe is that 60005 Sir Charles Newton is also on Retford. It's easy to spot as it is in dirty Gateshead condition. So the four A4s are 60005, 60014, 60018 and 60027.

 

I discovered recently that in amongst the DJH A1s that Roy had, there is a Bachmann one, 60117, which is on The Queen of Scots. I don't know whether the mechanism has been replaced. It can certainly handle the Pullmans, but it is only a 10-car set and they are all Hornby.

  • Thanks 1
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.