Wright writes.....

[wagonbasher]

Hi

 

professionally built simply mean that someone was paid to build it...   It is not a qualification

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

True, Tony ... Many years ago, flush with a well-earned bonus, I ordered a professionally-built model which arrived looking immaculate but declined outright to turn a wheel under power.  On returning it to the builder for remedy, he avoided addressing that issue but tried to blame me for some 'damage in transit' - when the item had been posted in precisely the same packaging it was sent to me, so if it was inadequate for the return it must also have been inadequate for the dispatch.  So I had my money back instead ...

 

But then, if those were the 'professionally-built' locos, imagine what a lot of the 'amateur-built' ones must have been like.

 

As we've observed on here before, loco kit-building was (and remains, for 'new' purchases at least, despite your recent experiences of the resale value of old ones) a comparatively expensive branch of the hobby; and was (and remains) a craft which has to be learned and practiced before the skills to make a good 'un are acquired ... if indeed they ever are before patience, willpower or money run out.  Clearly there will be no statistics, but I do wonder how many people back in the day did have a go, mucked it up, tried again with a different kit and still couldn't get it to run well and/or look right; and so at best stuck with R-T-R and at worst gave up and reverted to plastic model aircraft.

 

.

I'm certainly in that camp and have a box of non running teenage kits which I may get back to one day! For me, I didn't abandon kits completely but went for the 'white metal body on rtr chassis' approach which has served me well ( when there is an appropriate chassis available). My recent A2/2 build with Tony's help has made me determined to try another chassis, and I'm just starting on a SE finecast K3. I'm far from convinced that it will run well and I may have to see if I can twist Tony's arm for a few tweaks.

 

My experience with kits bought second hand is that even if they work first of all, they will go wrong at some stage, and if you didn't build it yourself, it's much more difficult to know how to fix it.

[Killybegs]

I once made an expensive impulsive purchase of a loco built for an article in a well known magazine by a well known 'professional' (who was 'getting out' of model railways) . It looked good but it wouldn't run. I spent hours trying to fix the problems but in the end resorted to building a new chassis (in less time than I had spent messing around with the original). I won't make that mistake again!

[Mallard60022]

I suspect that like me, in innocence or more likely ignorance, many people bashed together those Kitmaster loco's, saw the ads for the GWR 94XX 0.6.0 in the RM or were tempted by the pictures of lovely looking loco kitbuilds and lo, they purchased the K's 'things' or similar (me it was Bristol Models or early Wills Finecast) and out came the glue and Triang chassis and the disasters began! I still have a SR N and a MR Crab with Triang ex 2.6.2. underparts and they actually work!!

I have progressed somewhat due to a certain Mr Wright's workshops at Hobby Holidays some years back, being able to look at various and beautifully built kits (mainly DJH and SEF) and some guidance from the late and much missed Geoff Brewin, but I still need medication before opening the box of bits for loco's that I really need to build. 

Phil

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect that like me, in innocence or more likely ignorance, many people bashed together those Kitmaster loco's, saw the ads for the GWR 94XX 0.6.0 in the RM or were tempted by the pictures of lovely looking loco kitbuilds and lo, they purchased the K's 'things' or similar (me it was Bristol Models or early Wills Finecast) and out came the glue and Triang chassis and the disasters began! I still have a SR N and a MR Crab with Triang ex 2.6.2. underparts and they actually work!!

I have progressed somewhat due to a certain Mr Wright's workshops at Hobby Holidays some years back, being able to look at various and beautifully built kits (mainly DJH and SEF) and some guidance from the late and much missed Geoff Brewin, but I still need medication before opening the box of bits for loco's that I really need to build. 

Phil

 

Memories there Phil.  Following the appropriate recommendation I put my Wills 94XX body together using UHU glue - it was not a pretty sight.  The K's Bodyline 97XX on a Hornby Dublo 0-6-0 chassis looked much better - not much like a 97XX but I managed a nice coat of paint on it.

[The Fatadder]

Following on the topic of buying built kits,

 

The first that I purchased was a Mitchel GWR mogul, purchased built but without wheels (which is always a little worrying). After spending a lot of time messing about with the chassis trying to get it to work, I have now decided that scrapping the existing chassis and buying a replacement from Dave Geen at Wells is looking like the best option. Fortunately in this case the body and tender were both very nicely built (if not particularly well painted), but my bidding was based upon it just needing wheels to get running.

 

Next up was a SE Finecast Saint, this was sold as a complete (working) model but was anything but. Once I had stripped off the paint and found the state of the underlying mode, it was a state (and really should have ordered a replacement boiler at the very least.) Every so often I get inspired by the white metal kits shown on here and pick it up to try and finish it off, before getting disheartened and putting it back in its box. At some point I will finally admit defeat and just buy a new kit I suspect…

 

Finally was a GWR Hall (Bachmann / Comet hybrid), purchased off Ebay from Geoff’s estate, it was only some time after purchase that I realised that Tony had given it the once over prior to sale. Needless to say it is one of the best runners in my fleet, and forms the mainstay of my layout testing (given that if it derails I can blame a track issue with a fair certainty).

 

I think for me the moral of this has been that you should only buy kit built locos from a source which is reliable, (such as those often shown in this thread) or purchase at a show where you can see it running before parting with cash!

[jrg1]

Dan sends out a 4mm list roughly twice a year. An SAE to his address (which hasn't changed) will get you onto the mailing list. He's also very responsive to queries for bits, so I'd go ahead and ask about bogies, Tom. I've had no end of oddments form him for Ebay basket cases where things were missing or so badly damaged by the previous builder that they were unusable.

Dan produces first class kits, and I am sure would sell more if he had email-the same goes for other manufacturers.  Living in Australia, we find it odd, to say the least, that businesses ignore computers and such as Paypal-it really does cost them potential custom

[chris p bacon]

Dan produces first class kits, and I am sure would sell more if he had email-the same goes for other manufacturers.  Living in Australia, we find it odd, to say the least, that businesses ignore computers and such as Paypal-it really does cost them potential custom

 

That might be so, but as Dan is not in the first flush of youth I don't think he wants the hassle that goes with increased production. He sold on a lot of the wagon kit masters to ABS etc some years ago and has now found a way of working that suits him.

[Poggy1165]

 

 

 

Oh, I've started making the D9. Having built an A1 in under four days, how long should this take, even if it is a McGowan kit?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

A cynic writes - that depends on how good you are at making bits of GC engines from scratch.

 

Brian W.

[Clive Mortimore]

I suspect that like me, in innocence or more likely ignorance, many people bashed together those Kitmaster loco's, saw the ads for the GWR 94XX 0.6.0 in the RM or were tempted by the pictures of lovely looking loco kitbuilds and lo, they purchased the K's 'things' or similar (me it was Bristol Models or early Wills Finecast) and out came the glue and Triang chassis and the disasters began! I still have a SR N and a MR Crab with Triang ex 2.6.2. underparts and they actually work!!

I have progressed somewhat due to a certain Mr Wright's workshops at Hobby Holidays some years back, being able to look at various and beautifully built kits (mainly DJH and SEF) and some guidance from the late and much missed Geoff Brewin, but I still need medication before opening the box of bits for loco's that I really need to build. 

Phil

Hi Phil

 

Do you expect me a diesel modeller to sympathetic to your past experience...............25 year ago we moved to our present house, in the removal van were some MTK kits. In two weeks time the same MTK kits will be traveling in a removal van as we head off to Lincolnshire. They are still unfinished. They would have covered more miles in removal vans than under their own propulsion.................I will not be beaten.  Hopefully I will have the time to sit down and make them.

 

I have made some etched and whitemetal diesel shunter kits that run worse than my scratchbuilt shunters.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[pom-pom]

A cynic writes - that depends on how good you are at making bits of GC engines from scratch.

 

Brian W.

 

An even harder cynic would say that for a McGowan D9 there will be far more scratchbuilding than kitbuilding. I have one buried away somewhere and from what I recollect there was a nice set of etched wheel arches/cabsides but otherwise it's just a heap of badly formed whitemetal. I put mine straight back in the box when I saw that the boiler diameter was far from accurate and also oval in section. I'm sure these are not insummountable problems in skilled and dedicated hands. Talking of which, are you going to treat us to your build details Tony, please?

 

John Quick (the esteemed GCR historian) made a nice looking 4mm scratchbuilt D9 in the '60s. I have the magazine details around somewhere if anyone is interested.

 

Nick

[glo41f]

I have some sympathy with folk who have purchased built up kits in good faith only to find that they are not the locos they thought they were buying. It is not always possible to try before you buy and the prices being obtained must reflect the high risk factor involved when trading at a distance. I made some shockers in days gone by and would not sell them but i\ gave them away to folk who reckoned to be able to improve them. I really feel that made up kits (unless done by a real expert) should not command a premium as surely the fun has been in the making rather than the result or have I got it the wrong  way round? Having said that the A1's on here are really something else and really look the business. 

 

I remember using glue to try and make Wills and K's kits. They would disassemble without warning!  My main claim to fame in the 1960s was I was the only person around who managed to get a K's ROD to work! My nadir was a Cornard Models B17 which defied all efforts to make it together. The boiler was not round and the firebox sides were so thin you could almost stick a finger nail through them. (I never saw one built other than the one described by one Mr Evans in the MRC - but did it work?) I hope we will now see lots of pictures of Cornard Models products still going strong!

 

Martin Long

[Tony Wright]

An even harder cynic would say that for a McGowan D9 there will be far more scratchbuilding than kitbuilding. I have one buried away somewhere and from what I recollect there was a nice set of etched wheel arches/cabsides but otherwise it's just a heap of badly formed whitemetal. I put mine straight back in the box when I saw that the boiler diameter was far from accurate and also oval in section. I'm sure these are not insummountable problems in skilled and dedicated hands. Talking of which, are you going to treat us to your build details Tony, please?

 

John Quick (the esteemed GCR historian) made a nice looking 4mm scratchbuilt D9 in the '60s. I have the magazine details around somewhere if anyone is interested.

 

Nick

Nick,

 

I'm afraid I won't be able to 'treat' you to the build details of the McGowan D9 (at least pictorially) because the basic bodywork is now complete. Tomorrow should see it completed. 

 

 

I put the frames together last evening and painted them. They were very nicely etched. This is the progress so far today (about six and a half hours' work). I've checked on the drawings and it matches them reasonably well. What was wrong with the boiler diameter on yours? The tender sits a trifle low, but that can be packed up. 

 

Apart from the usual struggle in getting the driving wheels (they're 27mm) clear of the inside of the splashers and balancing it (the bogie is sprung and the front of the tender rests on its coupling to the loco), I've encountered no troubles. With its DJH gearbox and Mashima motor, it runs beautifully. 

 

Scratch-building? Just a pair of 8BA tapped pads to fix the body to the chassis. I didn't use the etched overlays because the splasher beading on them is far too wide. 

 

It's running on a set of borrowed LNER carriages, in anticipation of LBs journey back next year. I weathered the leading one for Ian Wilson (it's Hornby). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited because the connection crashed when I was adding a question. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

My conscience has been slightly pricked, so at least one 'build' picture of the D9. 

 

 

This shows the arrangement for springing the bogie. It entailed some 'scratch-building' in the form of my making a shouldered screw (8BA screw and a short length of brass tube) and a swinging link (brass shim). The link is pivoted both ends (with a wide washer soldered to the link at the rear pivot to give stability) and arranged in a very lazy 'U', to impart a downwards force on the bogie, thus pushing up (just enough) the front end. It's very unscientific (because it's me) but dead easy - one just bends the 'U' until it imparts the right amount of pressure. 

 

The body castings were of excellent quality. Thank you for donating it, Sandra. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I have some sympathy with folk who have purchased built up kits in good faith only to find that they are not the locos they thought they were buying. It is not always possible to try before you buy and the prices being obtained must reflect the high risk factor involved when trading at a distance. I made some shockers in days gone by and would not sell them but i\ gave them away to folk who reckoned to be able to improve them. I really feel that made up kits (unless done by a real expert) should not command a premium as surely the fun has been in the making rather than the result or have I got it the wrong  way round? Having said that the A1's on here are really something else and really look the business. 

 

I remember using glue to try and make Wills and K's kits. They would disassemble without warning!  My main claim to fame in the 1960s was I was the only person around who managed to get a K's ROD to work! My nadir was a Cornard Models B17 which defied all efforts to make it together. The boiler was not round and the firebox sides were so thin you could almost stick a finger nail through them. (I never saw one built other than the one described by one Mr Evans in the MRC - but did it work?) I hope we will now see lots of pictures of Cornard Models products still going strong!

 

Martin Long

Martin,

 

I think your point about the fun being had in the making of a kit is entirely valid. Unless a finished loco has been built/painted by a highly-skilled model-maker/painter, then it should not command a premium price. What I've found is that the models I've found new homes for rarely make the cost of their component parts, even though many have been paid for by the late owner(s) on commission. Some have been, quite frankly, tripe, and I've not even bothered to sell those. In every case, the commissioners are not model-makers themselves.

 

None has been signed by the builder. It's my experience that the best builders sign their work underneath in some way, either in a flamboyant signature (Larry Goddard) or by an etched brass plate soldered on (Mike Edge and Ian Rathbone for example). It's my general experience that high-quality work (such as that created by those I've just mentioned) still retains a high value, though not in all cases.  

[Headstock]

Nick,

 

I'm afraid I won't be able to 'treat' you to the build details of the McGowan D9 (at least pictorially) because the basic bodywork is now complete. Tomorrow should see it completed. 

 

McGowan D9 01.jpg

 

I put the frames together last evening and painted them. They were very nicely etched. This is the progress so far today (about six and a half hours' work). I've checked on the drawings and it matches them reasonably well. What was wrong with the boiler diameter on yours? The tender sits a trifle low, but that can be packed up. 

 

Apart from the usual struggle in getting the driving wheels (they're 27mm) clear of the inside of the splashers and balancing it (the bogie is sprung and the front of the tender rests on its coupling to the loco), I've encountered no troubles. With its DJH gearbox and Mashima motor, it runs beautifully. 

 

Scratch-building? Just a pair of 8BA tapped pads to fix the body to the chassis. I didn't use the etched overlays because the splasher beading on them is far too wide. 

 

It's running on a set of borrowed LNER carriages, in anticipation of LBs journey back next year. I weathered the leading one for Ian Wilson (it's Hornby). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited because the connection crashed when I was adding a question. 

 

Bravo Sir, you just played a blinder.

[Headstock]

One thing I forgot to mention is that I've also changed the smoke deflectors on Bachmann's A1s; to etched brass types - spares from DJH's A2/2 and A2/3 kits. They're far more realistic than the chunky plastic originals, and you can get the handrails straight.  

 

My latest DJH A1 is now complete. I'll post pictures later. 

 

Would I be right in thinking that the Bachmann smoke deflectors are also not handed?

 

Back on the subject of the B7's, I may have tracked down one of the elusive Knutsford beasts. I've spent the evening poring over works drawings and photographs of the slide bar bracket arrangement, interesting but not unsolvable.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Headstock

[pom-pom]

Nick,

 

I'm afraid I won't be able to 'treat' you to the build details of the McGowan D9 (at least pictorially) because the basic bodywork is now complete. Tomorrow should see it completed. 

 

McGowan D9 01.jpg

 

I put the frames together last evening and painted them. They were very nicely etched. This is the progress so far today (about six and a half hours' work). I've checked on the drawings and it matches them reasonably well. What was wrong with the boiler diameter on yours? The tender sits a trifle low, but that can be packed up. 

 

Apart from the usual struggle in getting the driving wheels (they're 27mm) clear of the inside of the splashers and balancing it (the bogie is sprung and the front of the tender rests on its coupling to the loco), I've encountered no troubles. With its DJH gearbox and Mashima motor, it runs beautifully. 

 

Scratch-building? Just a pair of 8BA tapped pads to fix the body to the chassis. I didn't use the etched overlays because the splasher beading on them is far too wide. 

 

It's running on a set of borrowed LNER carriages, in anticipation of LBs journey back next year. I weathered the leading one for Ian Wilson (it's Hornby). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited because the connection crashed when I was adding a question. 

 

Much obliged Tony for the insight into your build. It just goes to show that the McGowan kit does actually go together well in the right skilled hands. I'm most interested in your approach to the chassis vis a vis the bogie attachment and its springing. I am still battling with an old DJH D6 which was designed to pivot the bogie on a bolt mounted vertically under the smokebox but your approach seems emminently more satisfactory.

 

It's also interesting to learn of your findings on the dimensions on the etched splasher overlay. Talking of dimensions, the boiler diameter discrepancy I noted was that ultimately all D9s were fitted with 5' 0" diameter boilers which equates to 20mm in 4mm/ft scale. The McGowan boiler is approximately 23mm in diameter which is of course a scale 9" oversize. However, upon re-examination of the boiler castings the section is nowhere near as oval as I thought it was.

 

Drawings-wise, the only 4mm/ft scale I am aware of is the one published in the September 1963 MRN which I don't believe I have seen. It would be interesting to know if this is accurate.

 

Irrespective of these issues, your build is coming on nicely and is certainly inspirational, thanks again - can't wait to see it finished.

 

Nick

[The Johnster]

Guilty as charged your honour for some appalling deeds in my teens, which taught me a lot; mostly to not try to build things beyond my skillset and accept what I am given by the Kind and Wise Gods of rtr.  Some of my horrors ran, being on rtr chassis; these included an alleged '56xx' on a Triang Jinty mechanism, consisting of body parts from an Airfix construction kit 61xx with balsa wood extensions to the tank bottoms and a balsa sheet footplate, a '43xx' consisting of a Triang black Princess chassis without Walchearts and the boiler and cab, complete with no curved drop to the running plate, of an Airfix CoT, with the pony truck, footplate, cylinders and motion of the aforementioned 61xx (it never ran properly), and a 'tender drive' construction kit 9F using the mech from a HD Deltic, which did not match the tender axleboxes.  Another aberration was an Airfix kit 76xxx with a Triang 82xxx chassis and a cab full of motor.  The thing I am most ashamed of, though, was a 42xx cobbled out of an HD 3-rail 8F that I never converted, and the love child of two Airfix kits, a CoT boiler which had had an ill advised liason with the tanks and cab of another 61xx; a footplate in the new wonder material, plasticard, but much too thin and warped more than the Starship Enterprise; the lower tank extensions were made of the same stuff.  

 

The next stage was 'motorisation kits' for another 9F, an Airfix kit Drewry shunter which actually didn't turn out too badly, though I did a terrible paint job on it, and a J94.  The 9F never got over the interface between the plastic crankpins and the length of rail supplied for the coupling rod, which you had to drill to some accuracy to get it to match the crankpin holes on the model; too much for me in those days!  These motorisation kits were simply a couple of lengths of rail and some top hat bearings to glue into the plastic frames from the kit; you provided your own wheels, gear, and motor (Romford, of course).  There was no method of mounting the motor and meshing the gears, and I used some dreadful mashups from plasticard strip and even balsa, which could at least be easily shaped for trial and error fits.  You could get the plastic motion to run reasonably well by 'lubricating' it with pencil graphite and ballasting the boiler with, yes, confession time, plasticene with nails embedded in it... This was the downfall, literally, of the J94 which was top heavy and never meshed properly, so was a very poor runner.

 

I later had a moderately successful kit building career, including a K's 8750 that looked reasonable and ran well despite having been glued with Araldite as I didn't have the confidence to go anywhere near whitemetal with a soldering iron, and a Westward 64xx.  I still have a Nu-Cast Rebuilt Taff A, body complete and in undercoat waiting for a chassis (my original misguided intention was to use one from a Mainline 2251) and a Cotswold Rhymney R, but I have no need of these locos on my current layout and am keeping them by as possible future projects for a time when I've done all the stock modelling I might need on it; pastimes for my dotage.

 

The Kind and Wise Gods of rtr have, eventually, put me out of most of my misery and i make daily sacrifices to them in pathetic gratitude.  I am in awe of anyone who can kit build an A1 in less than a decade and make it run well, but a LIma 94xx with a Comet chassis looks more and more attractive every time I think how long Baccy are taking with theirs, so my proper building days may not be as over as I think they are...

Edited July 12, 2017 by The Johnster

[jrg1]

That might be so, but as Dan is not in the first flush of youth I don't think he wants the hassle that goes with increased production. He sold on a lot of the wagon kit masters to ABS etc some years ago and has now found a way of working that suits him.

I would have thought that kit development took far more time and resources.  Once production is under way, things are relatively more easy.

If a manufacturer is going into production, they should look at running the commercial side, or co-opt someone to do this.  I find trying to chase down and order products unecessarily tedious and time-consuming.  If the punters are willing to buy, let's see decent product back up in the sales department.

[Woodcock29]

Hello Tony

 

Its interesting seeing your build of the McGowan D9. I have a McGowan B4 to build and its boiler is oval - 2.4 mmm higher than it is wide. The tender is awful - probably about scale size but very rough and will need a lot of fettling to get it to fit together - I may well use a spare Bachman O4 tender and also replace the boiler with a spare Bachmann O4 boiler that I have.

 

Andrew

Edited July 13, 2017 by Woodcock29

[Michael Edge]

Martin,

 

I think your point about the fun being had in the making of a kit is entirely valid. Unless a finished loco has been built/painted by a highly-skilled model-maker/painter, then it should not command a premium price. What I've found is that the models I've found new homes for rarely make the cost of their component parts, even though many have been paid for by the late owner(s) on commission. Some have been, quite frankly, tripe, and I've not even bothered to sell those. In every case, the commissioners are not model-makers themselves.

 

None has been signed by the builder. It's my experience that the best builders sign their work underneath in some way, either in a flamboyant signature (Larry Goddard) or by an etched brass plate soldered on (Mike Edge and Ian Rathbone for example). It's my general experience that high-quality work (such as that created by those I've just mentioned) still retains a high value, though not in all cases.  

 

All my locomotives had a works plate attached originally, at first these were moulded, now they are etched. I did however find that these were often removed and in one case at least covered up by another dealer's plate. To counteract this I also stamp the order number (last two digits of the year, a dot and the number) into the frames. I also found that many locos (I mostly supplied them unpainted) were being finished a something other than the one modelled so I also stamp the loco number into the frames.

[Michael Edge]

Much obliged Tony for the insight into your build. It just goes to show that the McGowan kit does actually go together well in the right skilled hands. I'm most interested in your approach to the chassis vis a vis the bogie attachment and its springing. I am still battling with an old DJH D6 which was designed to pivot the bogie on a bolt mounted vertically under the smokebox but your approach seems emminently more satisfactory.

 

It's also interesting to learn of your findings on the dimensions on the etched splasher overlay. Talking of dimensions, the boiler diameter discrepancy I noted was that ultimately all D9s were fitted with 5' 0" diameter boilers which equates to 20mm in 4mm/ft scale. The McGowan boiler is approximately 23mm in diameter which is of course a scale 9" oversize. However, upon re-examination of the boiler castings the section is nowhere near as oval as I thought it was.

 

Drawings-wise, the only 4mm/ft scale I am aware of is the one published in the September 1963 MRN which I don't believe I have seen. It would be interesting to know if this is accurate.

 

Irrespective of these issues, your build is coming on nicely and is certainly inspirational, thanks again - can't wait to see it finished.

 

Nick

 

That's the boiler diameter, what we see is the cladding - the diameter given on the GA I have is 5'3 1/2".

[jrg1]

Hello Tony

 

Its interesting seeing your build of the McGowan D9. I have a McGowan B4 to build and its boiler is oval - 2.4 mmm higher than it is wide. The tender is awful - probably about scale size but very rough and will need a lot of fettling to get it to fit together - I may well use a spare Bachman O4 tender and also replace the boiler with a spare boiler from a Bachmann O4 that I.

 

Andrew

Andrew, I am building a Perseverance GCR tender for a B3, and can recommend it as a suitable match for the D9, instead of a plastic (Yeccch!) tender.

One cure for an oval boiler is a vice with soft jaws.

[sandra]

My conscience has been slightly pricked, so at least one 'build' picture of the D9. 

 

McGowan D9 02.jpg

 

This shows the arrangement for springing the bogie. It entailed some 'scratch-building' in the form of my making a shouldered screw (8BA screw and a short length of brass tube) and a swinging link (brass shim). The link is pivoted both ends (with a wide washer soldered to the link at the rear pivot to give stability) and arranged in a very lazy 'U', to impart a downwards force on the bogie, thus pushing up (just enough) the front end. It's very unscientific (because it's me) but dead easy - one just bends the 'U' until it imparts the right amount of pressure.

 

The body castings were of excellent quality. Thank you for donating it, Sandra.

 

Tony,

 

I'm absolutely amazed at the progress you have made, I only gave you the kit on Saturday and you have nearly finished it. I bought that kit at a finescale exhibition in East London about 25 years ago and it was secondhand then. It has been lying in my cupboard ever since so I'm very pleased to see it built at last.

 

I look forward to seeing the finished locomotive operate on Little Bytham. Are you going to paint it yourself or will you have it painted by someone else?

 

Sandra