Were any of them any good?

[Not Jeremy]

I remember the Hornby "Pannier" coming out, and ogling it in the window of Eric Snook's shop in New Bond Street before it was knocked down, and thinking that it was very nice.

 

Your detailed one still looks great Tim, it is the dreaded Triang buffer height that gives it away really, another thing that Hornby Dublo got right.

 

And of course the later Hornby Dublo suburban coaches were the right length - really lovely models in green, and very free running with nylon wheels and a better wheel profile than Triang. I had three of those, bought in Kenya(!) and sold them to Dave Webb to fund the purchase of a Ford Cortina. He's still got them I think!

Edited September 13, 2023 by Not Jeremy

[Not Jeremy]

Quote

I think I might know why. From some angles 47s look to be beefy and muscular, from others, long and lean. I can't imagine it's an easy shape to capture and maybe these conflicting impressions don't scale very well. For my money the Lima model best captures the look of 47, particularly if it's been sympathetically tweaked.

 

That's really interesting I have a Lima 47, which I like very much, bought when they first came out. I fitted "Ultrascale" wheels to it and cut off the hook and bar couplings and ran it so much that it became very smooth.

 

I love the 47, and was really looking forward to the Heljan one, but just couldn't bring myself to buy it when it came out because of it's "wideness" and too squareness, as I saw it.

 

Ten yours ago I bought Bachmann 57 in Freightliner livery and did quite a lot of work on it to turn it back to a 47, I think it was heading in quite a good direction

 

 

I really ought to finish it, mostly just painting.

[The Johnster]

47 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I think I might know why. From some angles 47s look to be beefy and muscular, from others, long and lean. I can't imagine it's an easy shape to capture and maybe these conflicting impressions don't scale very well. For my money the Lima model best captures the look of 47, particularly if it's been sympathetically tweaked.

 

 

 

That's a perfectly cromulent expanation, Neil.  I've always considered 47s to be a bit bland, stylistically, ends don't really say anything and there are no grilles on the sides, the interesting bits are the roof and the bogies.  This and their ubiquity perhaps resulted into their fading into the background a little, the backdrop against which one saw Deltics, or Westerns. or 50s (mind, 50s are pretty bland as well).  All those curves and radiussed edges around the cabs probably helped to blur any definitive impression; a stealth loco!  Head on, approaching around a superelevated curve you were on the outside of, and at full chat with a bit of clag, they could be impressive, the hulking beefy and muscular look, but in other circumstances they perhaps failed to make much impression at all.  I liked them, from a visual viewpoint, especially in the original two-tone green syp livery, but they were hard to pin down!

[Captain Kernow]

53 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Your detailed one still looks great Tim, it is the dreaded Triang buffer height that gives it away really, another thing that Hornby Dublo got right.

Thanks, Simon. If I'd only realised it at the time, I might have bought one of the Wills etched replacement chassis for it, which although still had to maintain the compromised wheel spacings, did at least give the correct buffer height.

 

[Not Jeremy]

Well, I'm sure I'd work it out if I was building one, but until you mentioned it I can't say that I'd noticed that the wheel spacing on your Pannier was wrong. It's the buffer height that I notice.

 

Thank you for your kind comments re the "Bagnallish" Hunslet. Being a tart, I can't help inflicting a picture of the beastie. It was worked up with Plastikard and odd castings from a Rivarossi 0-4-0 tender switcher. The talented Brian turned the hideous wheel flanges down for me. It is quite "growly" but still runs pretty immaculately.

 

 

 

The JInty is my re-working of the later Hornby Moulding on a Perseverance chassis with a DS10(?) motor, which runs very well. (beginner's luck)

 

1401 is your superb re-working of the Airfix on a Persverance chassis with a Portescap motor and gearbox - lovely jubbly! I really ought to gently weather it, you did a really good job on everything else. A mere forty odd years ago - eek!

 

Simon

Edited September 13, 2023 by Not Jeremy
Bagnall Schmagnell

[The Johnster]

34 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Well, I'm sure I'd work it out if I was building one, but until you mentioned it I can't say that I'd noticed that the wheel spacing on your Pannier was wrong. It's the buffer height that I notice.

 

I really badly wanted an 8750 when that thing came out, but was so appalled by it even I didn't bother!  Wheel spacing reminds me that I've had this issue in much more recent years, with a Hornby 2721 running on a Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis.  In this case, the Bachmann chassis is correct for a 2721 in terms of it's axle spacing (and the wheels, and the coupling rods for some locos), but the Triang Hornby bodyshell is designed to fit the generic 0-6-0 'Jinty' chassis.  The original form of this was designed in (I think) 1954, and was incorrect for a Jinty and TTBOMK every locomotive that Triang, Triang Hornby, and Hornby have ever fitted it to (Jinty, 3F, saddle, pseud08, 8750, 2721, J86, J52, and probably a plethora more I've forgotten about).  I believe it is in fact incorrect for any British or British-build locomotive. 

 

Anyway, it meant that the Bachmann wheels on the Bachmann axles in the Bachmann chassis did not match the splashers, being slightly off for all three axles.  Surpringly perhaps, it was not this that made me eventually withdraw the engine from service; it was the oversized bunker that I finally couldn't live with.  This is because the problem was only visible when the loco was being viewed side-on. and from 3/4 angles the 00 discrepancy rendered all bets off from a viewing pov.  A similar use of a Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis was with a bodyshell from a Lima 94xx, and again the splashers were out of line with the Baccy axles, because that loco was designed to use the Lima J50 chassis which is incorrect for a 94xx.  Again, the problem was hard to spot from any but a direct broadside-on viewpoint for the same reasons of perspective.  I was much happier when Bachmann eventually released their own 94xx, with which I am delighted, and the donor chassis could be put back under it's original Bachmann 57xx bodyshell.

 

Triang 8750 faults:-

 

.Incorrect Jinty chassis incorrect axle spacing for 8750 (or anything else!).

.Incorrect ride height.

.Incorrect profile wheels, wrong number of spokes and balance weight shape.

.Incorrect generic fluted coupling rod, correct version is GW fishbelly.

.Buffers wrong profile and too small diameter.

.Incorrect shape top feed.

.Incorrect shape parallel chimney, should be tapered 'flowerpot' style.

.Incorrect copper cap for chimney.

.Incorrect spacing for GWR initials (correct for wartime austerity livery applied at Caerphillly Works in 'grotesque' script, but not in grotesque on this model.

.Incorrect gold leaf applied to GWR initials.

.Incorrect shape for cab spectacle plate windows (better than K's kit, though!).

.Incorrect overbright green livery.

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by The Johnster

[giz]

The Triang EE Type 3 (class 37) isn't bad with a bit of work. I did this one forty years ago (was it really that long ago?). Lima Deltic bogies, new windscreens and fuel tanks plus big buffers.

 

[JeremyC]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Obviously a lot of love out there for the HD tinplate-sided mk1s.  The liveries were faultless, but they are still horribly undetailed and underscale to my taste, sorry, majority view recieved wisdom...

 

One good thing about the short Hornby Dublo Mk1s was it meant you could buy a correct length BG rather than the over long Triang one.

[number6]

Short Mk1s? What about the Triang ones? I had one as a child and was always drawn to the carriage ends on these - I felt they had captured something the that the later full length versions failed to. The later one’s gangway was a bit anaemic and it had a round hole in the door that bothered me. I think the paint had rubbed off a bit and picked out the steps and gangway surround much like drybrushing these days picks up details. Almost everything was wrong about these models but I think they had charm.

[The Johnster]

Shame it didn't stay in production, really, as later on you could buy a correct length BG instead of an overlong Lima one.  The daftest part of that arrangement was that Lima produced a GUV, which had the correct length underframe for a correct BG!  Correct length BGs were not hard to make though, from the leftovers of a pair of either Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby or Lima BSKs which you'd cut in half to make SKs out of.  The curse of the compo(K)/BS(K) lasted a long time, broken initially IIRC by the Mainline Collett Sunshines (sort of), but there is still no RTR GW bogie non-gangwayed compartment all-third nor is one planned.  There aren't that many mk1s that RTR have missed these days.

 

And we still haven't had an RTR B set that isn't an E140, nor are any planned.  For that matter many of the later coaches of pre-grouping companies, that lasted into BR days, are missing; no GE, GC, NB, GN, LNW, GSW, L&Y, and these were hardly obscure branch lines.  The Midland, NE, and Caley are only represented by crude Triang products on B1 bogies.

[Not Jeremy]

Oh yes, you are right number6, the short Triang restaurant car was a particularly pleasing model. By Christmas  1969, my "express" consisted of the  "Princess Royal" in maroon, pulling a maroon operating mail coach (even shorter), a maroon sleeping coach,  the shorter restaurant coach you show above in maroon, finished off with a "modern" brake second.

 

I loved it, it gave a proper sense of 'main lineness" and the different sizes and shapes of coach looked somehow "right" to my eyes,

 

 

 

Happy days

[The Johnster]

1 minute ago, number6 said:

Short Mk1s? What about the Triang ones? I had one as a child and was always drawn to the carriage ends on these - I felt they had captured something the that the later full length versions failed to. The later one’s gangway was a bit anaemic and it had a round hole in the door that bothered me. I think the paint had rubbed off a bit and picked out the steps and gangway surround much like drybrushing these days picks up details. Almost everything was wrong about these models but I think they had charm.

 

See, now, to my mind that is better than the HD tinplate super details, because at least it has some relief details on it!  The HD models had faultless printed liveries on the tinplate sides, interiors, and even better ends, but IIRC the B1 bogies were too short, in proportion with a coach that was too short.  Both had proportional undersized windows that made the door droplights look too big.   A lot of the Triang vs HD squabbling was swings and roundabouts, both sides had advantages and disadvantages.  As I say the big problem was that they were incompatible in terms of wheel profiles and couplings, not to mention that HD were late to the 2-rail game.

 

Triang coaches went up in incremental inches; the first were the Rovex shorties, 6" long and crude representations of Staniers to go with the Black Princess.  Then there was a jump to 8" with a more recognisable Stanier composite in blood/custard or Southern Region malachite, followed by these 9" mk1s, which included the first brake coaches Triang made and a restaurant car with a proper interior, plate & cups on the tables, which I believe was the first 00 RTR model to feature an interior.  With these came compo and brake second suburbans in maroon and green.  The shorty clerestories, Southern emu, and dmu are from this era, as was the long-lived Southern bogie utiltity van only recently replaced.  The B1 bogies are decent representations, and to scale, though early models had the open axleboxes that did nobody any good.  The 10" scale length versions came out in '61 or 2, and all had interiors.  I thing the Pullmans, again with interiors, were about 1960.  The scale length mk1s lasted into Hornby days, and were very dated at the end of this period, having been eclipsed by the Lima and Mainline ranges.  ISTR you could buy interiors separately for the Metro-Cam dmu.

 

As a modeller of a network of lines in South Wales on which there was never any first-class provision, I resent the insistence on providing it in GW non-gangwayed stock.  The answer is cut'n'shuts of Hornby Collett 57footers, of course.

[Not Jeremy]

Quote

I

 

.Incorrect Jinty chassis incorrect axle spacing for 8750 (or anything else!).

.Incorrect ride height.

.Incorrect profile wheels, wrong number of spokes and balance weight shape.

.Incorrect generic fluted coupling rod, correct version is GW fishbelly.

.Buffers wrong profile and too small diameter.

.Incorrect shape top feed.

.Incorrect shape parallel chimney, should be tapered 'flowerpot' style.

.Incorrect copper cap for chimney.

.Incorrect spacing for GWR initials (correct for wartime austerity livery applied at Caerphillly Works in 'grotesque' script, but not in grotesque on this model.

.Incorrect gold leaf applied to GWR initials.

.Incorrect shape for cab spectacle plate windows (better than K's kit, though!).

.Incorrect overbright green livery.

 

OK, but apart from that it wasn't a bad model..

 

Anyway, some of us have since discovered actual modelling, which offers and opens up all sorts of possibilities that high fidelity RTR will never deliver to anyone. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Not Jeremy
us

[Steamport Southport]

21 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Shame it didn't stay in production, really, as later on you could buy a correct length BG instead of an overlong Lima one.  The daftest part of that arrangement was that Lima produced a GUV, which had the correct length underframe for a correct BG!  Correct length BGs were not hard to make though, from the leftovers of a pair of either Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby or Lima BSKs which you'd cut in half to make SKs out of.  The curse of the compo(K)/BS(K) lasted a long time, broken initially IIRC by the Mainline Collett Sunshines (sort of), but there is still no RTR GW bogie non-gangwayed compartment all-third nor is one planned.  There aren't that many mk1s that RTR have missed these days.

 

And we still haven't had an RTR B set that isn't an E140, nor are any planned.  For that matter many of the later coaches of pre-grouping companies, that lasted into BR days, are missing; no GE, GC, NB, GN, LNW, GSW, L&Y, and these were hardly obscure branch lines.  The Midland, NE, and Caley are only represented by crude Triang products on B1 bogies.

 

I take it you've forgotten about the Dapol Mainline & City Toplights (complete with All Third)?

 

 

 

Jason

[jjb1970]

I think this thread highlights something that has struck me about the hobby for a long time. As the years have gone by and models have improved beyond anything I might have dreamt of in the 80's it seems to have resulted in a perhaps small but vocal element which looks for reasons to be outraged rather than marvelling at the standards we now just take for granted.

 

I still hear and read the phrase 'it looks nothing like a..........', used with a tone of outrage. The answer might be 'what does it look like then?'. If we take a mediocre model which Indeed wasn't very good like the Triang Hornby Class 37, whatever its faults it is still very clearly a Class 37. And yes, I am sometimes guilty.

 

I am interested in overseas HO, in the 70's and 80's standards in some European HO were so far ahead of OO (not all, some Lima HO and older models from companies like Rivarossi weren't great) it was almost embarrassing. When I got into Japanese N in the early 90's their standards in N were way ahead of OO RTR. Now British outline is world class and matches anything for detail and accuracy yet if anything there's more  negativity. 

 

I think in the past those who wanted high detail saw RTR as a starting point and looked at basic impression and shape and saw the potential in models. The Lima Class 47 has been mentioned a few times, Lima nailed the body, shape and overall impression were superb and if you want to it can be detailed up into a model which still cuts the mustard. 

 

There's a saying about being unable to  see the woods for the trees which I think is very apt for our hobby. To me it is about creating an illusion, creating something which we can become immersed in. That doesn't necessarily mean maximum fidelity and detail, and the oft forgotten component is  operation. One of the things I find interesting about Japanese N is that Kato and Tomix take quite an impressionist approach to models. They clearly put a lot of effort into nailing the shape  (shape and contours of some Japanese trains are borderline bonkers) and top quality mechanisms but have never gone balls out for detail or trick features. They put detail where it makes a difference and basically do what Hornby wanted to with 'design clever'. I can't help thinking they've got it right, they're layout models.

 

Anyway sorry for diverting the thread. It's a  pleasure to see a thread celebrating models and showing the passion we have for the things.

Edited September 14, 2023 by jjb1970

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I take it you've forgotten about the Dapol Mainline & City Toplights (complete with All Third)?

 

 

 

Jason

 

Actually, yes, you take it correctly Jason, forgotten all about them, all the more unforgivable as I have an all-third and a brake third on order for Miner's workman's duty.  Bit of an odd one though, apart from my homage to the Glyncorrwg miner's, they are really only suitable for London area and the loading gauge they are built to makes them less suitable to represent toplight non-gangwayed stock in other areas.  I'm grateful to Dapol for them, though, and the Diagram N auto-trailer.  You can count an auto-trailer as an all-third, I suppose...

[jjb1970]

Another excellent groups of old models were the Airfix Aircon Mk.2 coaches which were amazingly well done for their day and can still be operated on a modern layout without looking out of place.

 

I've noticed is that when certain new generation models have been released such as the Bachmann aircon Mk.2, western autocoach and the DJM 14xx the response has been a bit 'meh'. I think a lot of the reason some are underwhelmed is because the old models were very well done and unlike with some other models there wasn't that huge transformation with the new generation models.

[MikeCW]

I'm a tad surprised that the Hornby-Dublo "Castles" haven't featured more often in the positive review lists.  When Bristol Castle appeared in 1958 it was celebrated in the model press in almost the same way as the new generation of Mainline and Airfix models a quarter century later. It had two major dimensional errors: undersized driving wheels and equal driving wheel spacing rather than the 7ft -7ft9ins of the original.  And yes, it had all the other characteristics of model locomotives of the era such as over-scale valve gear, flangeless centre driving wheels, over-scale or moulded hand rails, and the like.  But it was dimensionally accurate and looked the part.

 

Here is a one of mine.  Windsor Castle is an original Bristol Castle with the "half inch" motor, untouched but for replacement stainless steel wire handrails (the originals were prone to rust), and new name, number and tender transfers in the H-D style.  It looks and runs well after 60 years of service.

 

And can these venerable models still hold their own today? Here is another of my Hornby-Dublo Castles, this time a 2-rail Cardiff Castle with the later Ringfield motor filling the cab, now fitted with Romford drivers and scale bogie and tender wheels, fully repainted with new plates ,having a canter on my "scale" layout. Again, after 60 years, it runs smoothly and powerfully.

I sometimes wonder if the high-fidelity models of today will prove as robust and last as long as these Binns Road products.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by MikeCW
Grammar

[jjb1970]

17 minutes ago, MikeCW said:

I sometimes wonder if the high-fidelity models of today will prove as robust and last as long as these Binns Road products.

 

 

I'd be amazed if they do. Some will, but spares availability is difficult when new, never mind a few years down the line, and a consequential characteristic of super detail and lots of separately applied parts is greater fragility. Unless used as display models I'd expect them to age less well than those old Dublo and Wrenn models. This is not just British OO, old Marklin models were pretty much bomb proof, some current Marklin/Trix models feel extremely robust but other European HO feels a lot less robust.

[jjb1970]

A strange one was the original Mainline Class 45. Apart from a lack of flush glazing the body was very convincing and it captured the heft of the peaks very well, it was an excellent model for its day. Except for the weird decision to put the buffer beams on the body rather than the bogies. That always seemed very strange given they did such a good job of the rest of it for the time. 

[Not Jeremy]

Quote

 

There's a saying about being unable to  see the woods for the trees which I think is very apt for our hobby. To me it is about creating an illusion, creating something which we can become immersed in. That doesn't necessarily mean maximum fidelity and detail, and the oft forgotten component is  operation.

 

I think there's a deal of truth in that, although I think we can add quite a lot to operation, the look of the thing, creating our own realities, "art" even, we will all have our own leanings.

 

One thing I have enjoyed a lot is taking a model and seriously "bashing" it into either a better version of what was supposed to be or something completely different.

 

To take an example, I am intrigued by the Triang saddle tank already mentioned. 

 

 

When I was last poddling in small scale stuff, before getting very involved with G1 and a garden line, I had done most of the work to "correct" this particular model.

 

At the time my idea was to try and give it a "Triang" finish and put it on to the later "Jinty" chassis rather than try and make it into anything "scale".

 

It has quite a pleasing shape I think.

 

 

 

I might get back to it one of these days.

 

I feel almost sorry for the current generation with all the fantastic quality RTR that is available, because its complication, quality and cost do not encourage modelling, I think instead it can intimidate us and and limit our possibilities. 

 

I recently took apart the fantastic AC cars railbus from Heljan(?) for a friend to try and cure a fault. I consider myself fairly adept at fiddling with stuff, but found this very difficult and failed to sort out the problem. I just about got it all put back together and did not enjoy the experience!! 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Not Jeremy
extra blather

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

A strange one was the original Mainline Class 45. Apart from a lack of flush glazing the body was very convincing and it captured the heft of the peaks very well, it was an excellent model for its day. Except for the weird decision to put the buffer beams on the body rather than the bogies. That always seemed very strange given they did such a good job of the rest of it for the time. 

 

It was imo let down mainly by the proportions of the front end: the nose was too low and round and the windscreen too deep, so the face of the loco was wrong.  I saw one article where someone packed up the nose with layers of plasticard, but the shape was still a bit off - it really needed a decent casting for the bonnet and an etched windscreen to correct it.  The later Bachmann moulding is very much better in this respect.

 

But as you say, a lot of it was very good and the frame detail behind the grilles was outstanding.

 

 

[Southernman46]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

A strange one was the original Mainline Class 45. Apart from a lack of flush glazing the body was very convincing and it captured the heft of the peaks very well, it was an excellent model for its day. Except for the weird decision to put the buffer beams on the body rather than the bogies. That always seemed very strange given they did such a good job of the rest of it for the time. 

Yes, my first real modelling challenge to put the bufferbeam on the bogie and find out that ABS plastic requires a entirely different approach to gluing 😲

We now live in a golden age for R-T-R when undreamed of prototypes are being made en masse for our delectation. I mean, an SR 4-DD EMU ?? - probably the most I am ever going to spend on a model and it WILL be as close to accurate as makes no odds compared to what we older modellers have had to modify with our imaginations back in the day.

However, I will ALWAYS be grateful for the Xmas morning when I unwrapped both of these (from parents & Grandparents respectively) they were the best things ever and my greatest possessions for such a long time and ENTIRELY accurate as far an my 7 year old self was concerned because I was never trying to recreate the real railway because it was also there to enjoy as well - the model was just there to give an opportunity to continue enjoying the pleasure of trains into the dark evenings or when my parents couldn't take me to the local level crossing for an hour etc.

I actually can't remember the first time I looked at a model and became aware of its inadequacies.

Nowadays I buy highly detailed and accurate models to remind me of the railway in MY day and I consequently need them to be better than the representations available back in contemporary times. 

[Captain Kernow]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think this thread highlights something that has struck me about the hobby for a long time. As the years have gone by and models have improved beyond anything I might have dreamt of in the 80's it seems to have resulted in a perhaps small but vocal element which looks for reasons to be outraged rather than marvelling at the standards we now just take for granted.

 

I still hear and read the phrase 'it looks nothing like a..........', used with a tone of outrage. The answer might be 'what does it look like then?'. If we take a mediocre model which Indeed wasn't very good like the Triang Hornby Class 37, whatever its faults it is still very clearly a Class 37. And yes, I am sometimes guilty.

 

I am interested in overseas HO, in the 70's and 80's standards in some European HO were so far ahead of OO (not all, some Lima HO and older models from companies like Rivarossi weren't great) it was almost embarrassing. When I got into Japanese N in the early 90's their standards in N were way ahead of OO RTR. Now British outline is world class and matches anything for detail and accuracy yet if anything there's more  negativity. 

 

I think in the past those who wanted high detail saw RTR as a starting point and looked at basic impression and shape and saw the potential in models. The Lima Class 47 has been mentioned a few times, Lima nailed the body, shape and overall impression were superb and if you want to it can be detailed up into a model which still cuts the mustard. 

 

There's a saying about being unable to  see the woods for the trees which I think is very apt for our hobby. To me it is about creating an illusion, creating something which we can become immersed in. That doesn't necessarily mean maximum fidelity and detail, and the oft forgotten component is  operation. One of the things I find interesting about Japanese N is that Kato and Tomix take quite an impressionist approach to models. They clearly put a lot of effort into nailing the shape  (shape and contours of some Japanese trains are borderline bonkers) and top quality mechanisms but have never gone balls out for detail or trick features. They put detail where it makes a difference and basically do what Hornby wanted to with 'design clever'. I can't help thinking they've got it right, they're layout models.

 

Anyway sorry for diverting the thread. It's a  pleasure to see a thread celebrating models and showing the passion we have for the things.

Oh yes, I completely agree with this, how very well put and not in the least diverting of the thread - this, to me, is the very core of the issue. Current modellers have literally 'never had it so good'.

 

This is one reason why I simply cannot take all the 'outrage' about diesel shapes, fidelity of grilles etc. that seriously...

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

12 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

Well, I'm sure I'd work it out if I was building one, but until you mentioned it I can't say that I'd noticed that the wheel spacing on your Pannier was wrong. It's the buffer height that I notice.

 

Thank you for your kind comments re the "Bagnallish" Hunslet. Being a tart, I can't help inflicting a picture of the beastie. It was worked up with Plastikard and odd castings from a Rivarossi 0-4-0 tender switcher. The talented Brian turned the hideous wheel flanges down for me. It is quite "growly" but still runs pretty immaculately.

 

 

 

The JInty is my re-working of the later Hornby Moulding on a Perseverance chassis with a DS10(?) motor, which runs very well. (beginner's luck)

 

1401 is your superb re-working of the Airfix on a Persverance chassis with a Portescap motor and gearbox - lovely jubbly! I really ought to gently weather it, you did a really good job on everything else. A mere forty odd years ago - eek!

 

Simon

Thanks for the reminder of these locos, Simon.

 

I knew that I'd done one 14XX upgrade with a new smokebox door. I've got Brian's one here and it has the old Airfix smokebox door, which is wrong.

 

And the industrial 0-4-0T actually looks a bit 'Barclay-esque' to me!