RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted February 10 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10 4 minutes ago, cctransuk said: "Tedious faff", otherwise known as fulfilling modelling, is what most of us are doing it for. CJI. Would you want to do a dozen though @cctransuk 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted February 10 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10 39 minutes ago, gwrrob said: Would you want to do a dozen though @cctransuk Yes. CJI. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenL Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, cctransuk said: "Tedious faff", otherwise known as fulfilling modelling, is what most of us are doing it for. CJI. I think we’re all allowed to decide what bits of modelling we find fulfilling, and I think we’re also allowed to find some aspects of modelling a tedious faff if we want to. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penrhos1920 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, gwrrob said: Would you want to do a dozen though @cctransuk Yes. Well I’ve bought at least that many from Dave Franks to do them on the V14/16s I’ve preordered. And since I’m doing them they’re going to be sprung. The problem is there is still a shortage of sprung buffer heads. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted February 10 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10 (edited) 18 minutes ago, BenL said: I think we’re all allowed to decide what bits of modelling we find fulfilling, and I think we’re also allowed to find some aspects of modelling a tedious faff if we want to. Quite so - but that only works if you can achieve your desired objective WITHOUT undertaking the less-than-fullfilling tasks. No-one is saying that all aspects of railway modelling are equally enjoyable, but you will seriously restrict your achievable outcomes if you confine your modelling to the 'fun' bits. I do NOT enjoy building valvegear - so do I confine myself to inside valvegeared locos?!? Each to their own ...... ! CJI. Edited February 10 by cctransuk 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenL Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 18 minutes ago, cctransuk said: Quite so - but that only works if you can achieve your desired objective WITHOUT undertaking the less-than-fullfilling tasks. No-one is saying that all aspects of railway modelling are equally enjoyable, but you will seriously restrict your achievable outcomes if you confine your modelling to the 'fun' bits. I do NOT enjoy building valvegear - so do I confine myself to inside valvegeared locos?!? Each to their own ...... ! CJI. You don’t need to worry, I’ve never limited myself to tasks I don’t consider a tedious faff, I just reserve the right to consider some tasks a tedious faff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted February 10 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, BenL said: You don’t need to worry, I’ve never limited myself to tasks I don’t consider a tedious faff, I just reserve the right to consider some tasks a tedious faff As I said - each to their own. As for myself, I fully understand the motives of a manufacturer who makes full use of an underframe tool, even if minor details are inaccurate for some of the subsequent models. 99% of the work is done for us - just a tiny bit of "tedious faff" / personal input required. CJI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenL Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 48 minutes ago, cctransuk said: As I said - each to their own. As for myself, I fully understand the motives of a manufacturer who makes full use of an underframe tool, even if minor details are inaccurate for some of the subsequent models. 99% of the work is done for us - just a tiny bit of "tedious faff" / personal input required. CJI. The buffers weren’t right for the original models… 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted February 11 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11 11 hours ago, BenL said: The buffers weren’t right for the original models… Unfortunate - but still a minor matter to correct. CJI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted February 11 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11 12 hours ago, BenL said: The buffers weren’t right for the original models… Exactly, the whole range of wagons is wrong and the error was pointed out for the first set. To me, visually they are wrong and jar. I don't mind spending extra on changing the kit wagons I build (I'm a huge fan of Mr Franks's products) but doing so when paying a premium for a state of the art RTR product? No ta. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 This is not an earth-shatteringly difficult problem when one's intending to fit spring buffers anyway. The recent Rapido wagons with buffer bodies moulded integrally with the headstock ( and never-to-be-visible spring detail behind ) is much more of a headache. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenL Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 21 hours ago, BenL said: Hmmm, good idea, I guess one of these two could do the job: https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2375.php https://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2371.php Though a bit of a tedious faff when you’ve ordered quite a few of the wagons that need this mod! I need to check the books, but I think we actually need the 12 inch MJT heads and I’m reliably informed that these haven’t been available for sometime. Plus they don’t have the collar that the Rapido-fitted heads have. So I wonder if Rapido might be kind enough to add some 12 inch heads with collars to an upcoming mould, or turn to a renowned purveyor of 3D printing to generate some. I for one would be happy to pay for such a replacement part. (I apologise to anyone who is offended by my continued wondering about the most efficient and easiest solution to this issue) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 12" head diameter for the early period transitioned to 13". Not sure when the changeup started - was it with the general adoption of other RCH things? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Almost certainly - in GWR terms it would have been before the adoption of 17'6'' frames which is probably the benchmark for the other Companies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1924? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium RapidoCorbs Posted May 16 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted May 16 Hi folks, a quick heads-up that the order book for these will close on this coming Monday 20th May. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now