Kempenfelt's P4 Workbench

[Jol Wilkinson]

David,

My next move was to try some of the cast London Road hornguides and blocks. I quite like these, however I'd prefer it if the casting pip had been located elsewhere on the hornguide as appose to the face which mates to the inside of the frames. As it is you have to file the mating suface of the hornguide flat before soldering to the chassis. My reason not to use these was purely on the basis they would compromise the inside valve gear so in the meantime they have been put to one side awaiting a suitable project.

 

 

Paul

Paul

 

The lost wax brass casting process requires that the rubber mould used to make the waxes has to be "parted" and that usually controls the position of the feed and the orientation of the items on the sprue. I don't think that there was an option to locate the sprue feed differently.

 

 

Paul

 

I haven't tried the LRM system, the only LRM kit I've ever bought was their Midland 3F. This kit came without any form of hornblock system and it seems to be going to be superceded by the Bachmann RTR in the near future.

 

Regards

 

David

 

David

 

The 3F is a fairly old design (by George Norton, I think) why is why it may not be "optimised" for hornblocks. Most LRM frames are designed wth a 6.0mm cut-out line to accept the "industry standard" hormblocks.

 

One of the issues when designing kits is to incorporate the various requirements to building 4mm kits to one of three gauges, as well as compromising between prototype fidelity and modelling constraints.

 

Regards

 

Jol

[PenrithBeacon]

... as well as compromising between prototype fidelity and modelling constraints.

 

Regards

 

Jol

 

Very true. Personally I'd go for getting the engineering right as far as chassis are concerned, with prototype fidelity being the prime concern for the superstructure. Just one opinion.

 

Regards

[craigwelsh]

Very true. Personally I'd go for getting the engineering right as far as chassis are concerned, with prototype fidelity being the prime concern for the superstructure. Just one opinion.

 

Regards

Normally if you follow the prototype you get good engineering, in P4 at least anyway where you don't have to compromise the prototype too much. I don't mind filing a bit off a hornblock to get the frame spacer in the correct place.

 

When the Jinty kit first came out (and Paul bought it) Chris hasn't come up with his own hornblocks, those were introduced with the 14xx chassis. I think the Jinty now comes with his own hornblocks as per the rest of the range though mine is still in its box at the moment.

[Kenton]

Normally if you follow the prototype you get good engineering, in P4 at least anyway where you don't have to compromise the prototype too much.

Perhaps that is the truth and accordingly (chassis) kits should be designed specifically for P4 and an "alternate" kit compromised for those of us (the majority) who still, for whatever reason, prefer OO? Rather than the reverse (or should that be perverse).

[Kempenfelt]

Perhaps that is the truth and accordingly (chassis) kits should be designed specifically for P4 and an "alternate" kit compromised for those of us (the majority) who still, for whatever reason, prefer OO? Rather than the reverse (or should that be perverse).

 

Yeah, bit of a 'Catch 22' situation this one. I guess this is why we have kit's from the likes of Bradwell and Finney which are designed with P4 in mind and then have those from Comet that are aimed more towards the 00 market. The problem clearly is that there's not always the kit you want available with your desired modelling tolerances, for example a Std 4 tank chassis up to Bradwell standards.

 

The main point to acknowledge here is that most kit designers are producing stuff to meet their own requirements. Dave Bradwell covers prototypes for his north east 50's/60's requirements, Jol cover's his preffered LNWR requirements, these being just 2 examples. As customers we have to appreciate that they've gone to the effort of releasing their hard work to the rest of us and lets face it, they're not going to retire purely on the back of selling loco kits.

 

Comet and High Level are a slightly different breed, they produce kits genarally because its what the customers are after, as apose to it meeting there own needs. The biggest weakness is that their range of customers requirements are so diverse that they can't satisfy everyone.

 

To conclude, if we want something to a different standard then the onus is on us to put in the hard work ourselves, or we just have to put with what's available and be thankful it's there in the first place! Therefore I would just like to take the time to all the people who have designed and financed the production of kits I have awaiting my attention in the dim and distant future. With you I would have probably never even started anything let alone suggested finishing it!

 

Best Wishes

 

Paul

[Kempenfelt]

 

The lost wax brass casting process requires that the rubber mould used to make the waxes has to be "parted" and that usually controls the position of the feed and the orientation of the items on the sprue. I don't think that there was an option to locate the sprue feed differently.

 

 

Jol,

 

Many thanks for the clarrification, I suspected this was the case and I also realise that it is not likely to be viable to do anything about it now anyway!

 

My oppinion is probably born out of lazyness more than anything, as the removal of the casting sprue is just another process to do and doesn't involve any real skill. I do however like the finish of lost wax casting and cannot fault the product for finish.

 

Hope to catch you in person at Watford!

 

Best Wishes

 

Paul

[Kenton]

As customers we have to appreciate that they've gone to the effort of releasing their hard work to the rest of us and lets face it, they're not going to retire purely on the back of selling loco kits.

A difficult line there to draw between altruism and commercialisation.

 

There are some kits I've built that I had wished that the designers had kept to themselves then there are some kits that have been taken off the market, possibly where the designer has died, and the person taking over has discovered that the kit really did have no commercial value, even if it was a brilliant and popular kit.

 

It takes a lot of time and effort to properly research, design and put into production a kit. It is a shame that such efforts are sometimes spoiled for the last minute compromise or failing that final hurdle between just making something "available" and a true "kit" worth the general modeller purchasing and spending their hard won time building into something to be proud of. Sometimes. I do wonder if the designer even bothers to build it themselves.

[Mike G]

 

I cannot see how the Gordon Ashton design will fit into a HighLevel chassis, because of the springing arrangement they seem to be too wide.

 

Regards

 

Hi

I've used Gordan's springing units in a 9f, so if they'll fit in there without a problem...I can't imagine there are many other locos with a shorter spacing between axle centres. Having said that I now await the arrival of the proverbial custard pie in the face for going out on a limb. I should add that I took the outer 'wings' off his etch and used the inner 'wings' only, you'd be correct in saying that at full width they would have been too wide.

Paul, great photos of Mr Reynolds work!

 

cheers

 

Mike

[Gordon A]

Dave,

 

I am not sure if I have got your "to wide" in the right direction, however as I have found the thickness of the MJT square bearings a space robber when it comes to fitting gear boxes, I now take a pearcing saw to the very thick inside section and remove over half the section, slimmimg the inner bearing to at least half its thickness. This increases the gap between the opposing bearings, while still allowing my (GA Models) suspension to work.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[barrowroad]

But HighLevel I can recommend. I like the no soldering, fold up character of the design. It is a bit of a fiddle getting the hornblock to move freely, but the only issue I can see with HighLevel isn't so much the hornguide system itself, but that the designer of the chassis kits absolutely refuses to make compromises to prototypical fidelity, even if it means his own hornguides won't fit!

 

 

 

Hi David,

 

I have been following Paul's blog with interest as I too have a High Level Jinty chassis kit in the cupboard for use on my Barrow Road layout. I am aware this kit is supplied with MJT hornblocks as it predated the new High Level product but I am intrigued to find out more about your comment about compromises to prototype fidelity above - is there a problem fitting the High Level hornblocks to this kit? Like you I would recommend the use of these hornblocks as I have used them on quite a number of etched kits.

 

Regards,

 

Robin

[PenrithBeacon]

Hi David,

 

I have been following Paul's blog with interest as I too have a High Level Jinty chassis kit in the cupboard for use on my Barrow Road layout. I am aware this kit is supplied with MJT hornblocks as it predated the new High Level product but I am intrigued to find out more about your comment about compromises to prototype fidelity above - is there a problem fitting the High Level hornblocks to this kit? Like you I would recommend the use of these hornblocks as I have used them on quite a number of etched kits.

 

Regards,

 

Robin

 

I was refering to the 14XX kit where the hornguides for the leading coupled wheels have to be filed at an angle to get them in. The Jinty kit (which was one of my failures) was OK, the failure was mine.

 

Regards

[Jol Wilkinson]

Jol cover's his preffered LNWR requirements, these being just 2 examples. As customers we have to appreciate that they've gone to the effort of releasing their hard work to the rest of us and lets face it, they're not going to retire purely on the back of selling loco kits.

 

Paul

 

Paul,

 

not quite correct. Everything I've designed for John Redrup of LRM has been at his request, although the next (and last) one is my own idea. As an LNWR modeller I've been happy to do them but would never have chosen the Bloomers or the NER G Class of my own volition. However, I grew to like the latter, so I've got one to build and a set of NER carriages on order from Danny Pinnock to create an NER excursion train for London Road.

 

I took early retirement, which gave me time(?) to do more modelling and then ended up spending a lot of that time on designing kits. Quite a few designers/manufacturers are also retired, Allan Sibley, Martin Finney, David Geen, Arthur K, amongst them.

 

See you at Watford FSE, I'll be on the LRM or the LNWR Society Stands, after people's money one way or another.

 

Regards

 

Jol

[barrowroad]

I was refering to the 14XX kit where the hornguides for the leading coupled wheels have to be filed at an angle to get them in. The Jinty kit (which was one of my failures) was OK, the failure was mine.

 

Regards

 

I'm glad you do not have a problem with design of the High Level Jinty. I have not built a High Level 14XX but have built a few High Level chassis kits without any problem.

 

Regards,

 

Robin

[craigwelsh]

Perhaps that is the truth and accordingly (chassis) kits should be designed specifically for P4 and an "alternate" kit compromised for those of us (the majority) who still, for whatever reason, prefer OO? Rather than the reverse (or should that be perverse).

Bill Bedford now does specific fold up chassis for EM or P4 (no 00) and that was my plan for later wagons with visible framing and also some locos I want to do. In these cases the effort for a 00 solution means I wont bother, its not a commercial motive just sell some to help pay costs.

 

I was refering to the 14XX kit where the hornguides for the leading coupled wheels have to be filed at an angle to get them in. The Jinty kit (which was one of my failures) was OK, the failure was mine.

Regards

As the spacer they are avoiding is visible it needed to be in the right place as its a prototype feature. Chris does explain the filing required in the instructions and its not left to the builder to work out the solution.

 

 

My High Level Jinty came with 4 High Level hornblocks and 5 axleboxes (shh!) just to confirm, i'll have to order some more and think before I build it CSB.

[ArthurK]

Perhaps that is the truth and accordingly (chassis) kits should be designed specifically for P4 and an "alternate" kit compromised for those of us (the majority) who still, for whatever reason, prefer OO? Rather than the reverse (or should that be perverse).

 

All my underframes are designed specifically for P4. However I do compromise as to what goes between the frames. No one is likely to see that unless you turn it upside down. Yes I do know that some will go to a lot of trouble fitting working inside valve gear. Good luck to them but life is too short. My compromise means that simply supplying alternative frame spacers for EM and OO mens the the underframe is equally at home in all three gauges. I believe that is what most modellers would prefer. A fold up under frame would be a easy solution but do I have to provide that in all three gauges? That would increase the price considerably. No doubt there would be complaints that the price is too high and what does one do with the left over bits?

 

The concept of alternative complete underframes is not viable. One can never predict the number of each gauge that would be required and don't forget the extra artwork required. All these things add to cost.

[Kenton]

A fold up under frame would be a easy solution but do I have to provide that in all three gauges? That would increase the price considerably. No doubt there would be complaints that the price is too high and what does one do with the left over bits?

 

The concept of alternative complete underframes is not viable. One can never predict the number of each gauge that would be required and don't forget the extra artwork required. All these things add to cost.

I can see that there would be a need to alter slightly the art work and I can see the potential inconvenience of having to carry additional stock in each gauge, but from a pure commercial aspect is it sensible to exclude such a high proportion of your market? Though there is some additional cost, is it right that the potentially larger market has to support the additional cost?

 

I understand, I think, from a purely designer's perspective, that they will design for the gauge preference that they have. I also understand from a designer's perspective their intention to exclude "the other" gauges as being unimportant, but commercially it just doesn't seem to make sense. Now the inclusion of inside motion is a different matter altogether. To go to the torture of trying to design that for OO is not realistic and questionable if it would work anyway.

 

I work in OO because I chose not to work in EM/P4 that doesn't mean that I am not realistic in knowing that OO compromises the engineering. I have modelled in EM and I continue to state that the EM/P4 difference is insignificant. If I was designing a loco, I would aspire to design to P4 but to provide the marketplace with the option of all three gauges - whether that is by provision of different spacers or by providing alternate fold-ups. In the latter case that would of course be provided at the point of sale (I would not be wasteful and provide all 3 in each kit).

[Jol Wilkinson]

I can see that there would be a need to alter slightly the art work and I can see the potential inconvenience of having to carry additional stock in each gauge, but from a pure commercial aspect is it sensible to exclude such a high proportion of your market? Though there is some additional cost, is it right that the potentially larger market has to support the additional cost?

 

I understand, I think, from a purely designer's perspective, that they will design for the gauge preference that they have. I also understand from a designer's perspective their intention to exclude "the other" gauges as being unimportant, but commercially it just doesn't seem to make sense. Now the inclusion of inside motion is a different matter altogether. To go to the torture of trying to design that for OO is not realistic and questionable if it would work anyway.

 

I work in OO because I chose not to work in EM/P4 that doesn't mean that I am not realistic in knowing that OO compromises the engineering. I have modelled in EM and I continue to state that the EM/P4 difference is insignificant. If I was designing a loco, I would aspire to design to P4 but to provide the marketplace with the option of all three gauges - whether that is by provision of different spacers or by providing alternate fold-ups. In the latter case that would of course be provided at the point of sale (I would not be wasteful and provide all 3 in each kit).

 

Kenton,

 

Authur's point that it isn't commercially viable is correct in my opinion. Let's assume you could get four complete chassis on one tool, what mix do you choose? The ratio of members of DOGA, EMGS and the S4Soc might be one suggestion, but if you get it wrong and end up with 25% of production unsold then you've made a loss. If you have one tool for each gauge, them you have trebled the tooling cost which, with the main commercial etchers, isn't cheap. Etched kits sell in small numbers, some not even getting into the hundreds over their lifetime, so there isn't much room for error.

 

I am afraid it's all to easy to tell the manufacturers what to produce from the sidelines (just look at the RTR wishlists that appear on RMWeb) without fully recognising the financial risk. I can't count the times I have been "asked why don't produce a kit for a so and so, it would sell really well", never to be asked for that particular model again by another modeller.

 

You said earlier "A difficult line there to draw between altruism and commercialisation". I think that for many small traders enthusiasm is more appropriate than altruism. Not many can afford to lose money, even if they aren't really in business to make a profit.

 

Jol

[Kenton]

You said earlier "A difficult line there to draw between altruism and commercialisation". I think that for many small traders enthusiasm is more appropriate than altruism. Not many can afford to lose money, even if they aren't really in business to make a profit.

Appreciated. But if the designer really is only starting from producing the kit for own benefit - the cost of the kit has already been accepted as "lost". Any cost recouped by selling on is the a "pay back". At that point he becomes a small supplier and will have feedback on the popularity ("commercialism") of the kit. If he sells only half-a-dozen over the following year the conclusion is that it is not a business in the true sense. If he sells fifty, has to do a re-run and has had 100 enquiries for a OO version then perhaps further investment for profit has to be a consideration. Running any real business is not just about self gratification and certainly not about charity, running as a business requires customer research and being responsive to that research. Making the step to invest for return based on market research. It is a fact of business that I think many small traders do not understand. The objective of trading is to turn a profit, the key to that is to sell to as wide a market as possible and to provide something that everyone wants and is not available elsewhere as good a quality for the price asked. Anything else is altruistic, even providing something "at cost".

[ArthurK]

I can see that there would be a need to alter slightly the art work and I can see the potential inconvenience of having to carry additional stock in each gauge, but from a pure commercial aspect is it sensible to exclude such a high proportion of your market? Though there is some additional cost, is it right that the potentially larger market has to support the additional cost?

 

I could be assused of designing kits for my own for my own benefit but only because the North Eastern is my first love (LNER comes second). As a consequence I am attempting to fill gaps in the available NER loco stock. Mostly these are the engines that I knew in my youthful days. My Ian Allen ABCs have most of them underlined. However there are a lot of modellers out there wanting models of the lesser known NER types and I like to think that I am helping them to acheive that objective. I enjoy designing and building these and will continue as long as I am able. If it was for monetary gain I would never have started down this road. All I ask is that I make a little profit from my efforts.

 

Now the main reply. I do not exclude modellers in any gauge. Please read my post again. What I said was that they are designed with the 18.83 modellers in mind. I have chosen not to use fold up underframes for that very reason. I know that some of my customers build my etches in EM and 00. The latter have the advantage of being able to make of the vast array of RTR equipment without modification. The etches contain parts so that they can be made to all three of the normal 4mm gauges. Alternative frame spacers are supplied on the one fret, there are separate loco brake pull rods for 18.83 and EM/OO. I don't think many other supply two sets of coupling rods one set hinged, one set rigid. I do my best to cater for all.

 

As an aside we seem to have hi-jacked Kempemfelt's thread here these arguments really belong elsewhere on RMWEB.

[Kempenfelt]

Kenton,

 

The problem is that it's not neccessarily a small amount of work just to cater for another gauge. It is a redesign with different problems to suit that particular gauge.

 

Effectively this doubles the work required and doubles the cost. As Jol and myself have already alluded to, the return in the etched kit market is minimal. I for one wouldn't want to repeat the work i've already done just to cater for another market when I don't benefit from it. The time that it would take is much more valuable to me to use towards producing something else on my extremely long list of future projects.

 

A further example of this is wagon chassis's that Craig Welsh has produced, these are benefitting lots of people on the back of Craig's own personal need. He invested the time because it's what he pesonally wanted to do. Financially there is no real reward, all it means is that the etches he sells covers the cost of the tooling and that he gets his own etches at cost. Why should he now re-draw it for the 00 community when he doesn't actually need any for himself in that gauge? Afterall he's not going to gain financially from it, so therefore it's not commercially viable.

 

There is a potential solution in that if someone wants an existing kit in another gauge, they pay the designer of that etch royalties to use their work and then they use their own resources to modify it to suit their needs. This could either be paying someone an hourly rate to make the adjustments, or to use their own time to adjust the artwork and then theres still the tooling to pay for. I know of situations where this has happened with 7mm kits down to 4mm.

 

Best Wishes

 

Paul

[Kempenfelt]

As an aside we seem to have hi-jacked Kempemfelt's thread here these arguments really belong elsewhere on RMWEB.

 

Thanks Arthur, I was thinking that I really need to get a bit more work done so I can post an update and bring this thread back on topic. Unfortunately last night didn't prove to be productive at all in the end! Hopefully tonight will be a little more productive and fingers crossed i'll have some real progress to show by tomorrow. That's it, i've been and stiched myself up yet again!

 

I'm quite happy having the debate by the way, assuming it is helping people and especially those who put the effort into designing the kits in the first place. We really wouldn't be where we are today in our hobby without the efforts of this minority! Hopefully in the not too distant future i'll be doing my little bit to help others in this way, primarily with my needs in mind of course!

 

Best Wishes

 

Paul

[Kenton]

hopefully last post in this thread on the topic - Ive taken off -topic long enough - with apologies for that.

 

My comments above were not directed at any one particular kit designer (ArthurK) you may have taken it that way but it was not intended. It was meant as an overall comment on the industry as a whole.

 

I was trying to indicate that there are two different groups at play here. The designers like Arthur and Craig who are essentially being altruistic and no real business intent to turn a profit. In such a case the OO community has to lump it or simply pester these designers individually for an OO version in the hope of (but no necessarily expectation of) any success.

 

The other group are those with commercial interest in turning a profit.

 

Personally, I have zero interest in building in P4 and am only trying to uphold the OO market. I fear that sometimes we are being ignored by the trendy move to P4 by the top designers. I use the word "trendy" here only in that I once followed the trend to EM when that became the only option to OO. The only other course for us is to fall further and further into the grasp of the RTR and ebay s/h trade.

 

Enough said - Paul, please take your WB thread back

 

[Ed.] Not a post but an edit

In the light of Arthur's comment below and to genuinely leave him with the last word, I think I got crossed wires over fold-up frames.

The etches contain parts so that they can be made to all three of the normal 4mm gauges. Alternative frame spacers are supplied on the one fret, there are separate loco brake pull rods for 18.83 and EM/OO. I don't think many other supply two sets of coupling rods one set hinged, one set rigid. I do my best to cater for all.

Was duly noted, and appreciated.

[Kempenfelt]

Thanks Kenton, the work bench baton has been greatfully recieved!

 

Hopefully a useful discussion!

 

There was however one further option that I forgot to mention with regards to getting the kit you want produced. You befriend you're chosen kit designer and lure them into a false sense of security, that way you can persuade/brain wash that person into producing said kit with minimal effort/impact to your own modelling activities! B) So Craig, about that 16t you want to produce for me!

 

I warn you now I will be a bit on the quiet side again this weekend as i'm assisting Tim V with Clutton, therefore please don't expect any milestone modelling achievements! Feel free to come find me and have a chat, I should have the Jinty with me too if anybody wanted a closer look. Better start thinking about getting some modelling done I suppose!

 

Bye for now!

 

Paul

[ArthurK]

I was trying to indicate that there are two different groups at play here. The designers like Arthur and Craig who are essentially being altruistic and no real business intent to turn a profit. In such a case the OO community has to lump it or simply pester these designers individually for an OO version in the hope of (but no necessarily expectation of) any success.

 

 

Sorry I cannot leave it like that. The OO modeller does not have to "lump" it. You may not have directed that remark at me but that is the way that you have written it. My etches are equally at home in all three gauges. I do not deny that some other kits are designed specifcally for 18.83 gauge and to alter it to OO may involve a difficult conversion. These are designed for the specialist market and not directed at the builders in OO. They should not be criticised for that. That is their marketplace.

 

Arthur (Hopefully my last comment)

[Kempenfelt]

Well i'm pleased to announce that the Jinty chassis made it's first unassisted movements during this weekend's Southampton show on running-in trials between Clutton and Portchullin!

 

Here's the story since I last posted............

 

Work carried out before the show included slight adjustment of the buss bars and scoring of the copperclad supports to isolate the buss bars. For this I'd originally intended to use a scrawker (kindly loaned to me by Barrow Road of this parish), however I found that with the addition of the brass bar I couldn't get the scrawker where I wanted it. Instead I used the edge of a diamond file and I used the brass bar as a guide during the scoring process.

 

At the show on the Saturday afternoon I managed to knock up some temporary pick-up's. I'd planned to make coiled wiper pick-ups but the jig I've made for the pick-ups (method copied from Morgan) produced coils that were too large for the available space. Instead I made some basic L shaped wiper pick-ups using 33 swg phosphor bronze. Whilst I held the chassis and pick-up in place, I relied upon my able assistant Adam to apply the all important solder. Once re-wheeled, the chassis revealed a previously unknown problem, the gear on the driven axle clashed with the buss bar. Fortunately I left ample brass bar as I was still unsure of how to retain the rear end of the buss bars. So after a curry, a few pints and a some complimentary Bailey's and Sambuca on the Saturday night, I took a pair of pliers to the brass bar and tweaked it to clear the gear.

 

The following day I anxiously placed the chassis on Clutton's fiddle yard................................fortunately there was no bright light as the wheel's touched the rails, so the efforts to isolate the buss bars were declared a success! The next stage was to temporarily wire the buss bars to the motor. Fortunately I found a vacated workbench on the EM society stand to carry out this work. It was then back to Clutton to see if the chassis moved? Hey presto there was life........and again no fireworks! Following trials in Clutton's fiddle yard and round the bottom curve the chassis went on an excusion from North Somerset to Scotland!

 

There are still a few tweaks required as the wheel quartering isn't quite right and there is a tight spot which will probably require a slight easing of the coupling rod holes. In the meantime however I'm going to take a short breather until I attend the next Glevum group meeting tomorrow night and await the verdict and suggestions from the experts!

 

Special thanks are due to Tim and Mark for use of their layout's, the South Hant's S4 area group, the EM Society and the Scalefour society for the use of their work benches and tools, Eileen's Emporium for the wire, and finally to Adam for the use of the third hand! There is definitely something to be said about doing work at an exhibition, plenty of expertise and resources available to hand! B)

 

Anyway, here's a few piccies of the weekend and some of it's associated activities!

 

I managed to get papped whilst working on the EM society stand on the Sunday lunchtime, the photographer made sure to include the EM display boards!

 

 

The completed chassis

 

 

 

Here's a few other pics from the weekend

 

Firstly a visit to the Highlands for the TPO that I've converted for Barrow Road.

 

 

Next a few piccies of Mark's under construction Brassmasters Black 5, an exquisite piece of work Mark and one that for sure will look stunning on Portchullin!

 

 

 

Finally time for a bit of fun! The Clutton operation team took great pleasure from the moment devoted vegatarian Tim V realised the raffle he entered on Friday night was in fact a meat raffle, and gues who won the prized joint of pork!!! Devoted carnevour Gordon A however got the bottle of red wine!

 

 

Finally thanks to both the Portcullin and Clutton operating teams for an fantastic weekend, a cracking bit of banter and your daughters are safe I promise! Congratulations are also due to Tim as he won the Founders Cup with Clutton being judged best layout in show. Clutton is all Tim's work, the rest of us are just let out to play with his train set!

 

Cheers for now!

 

 

 

Paul