Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

1E67 was the up Yorkshire Pullman

1E07 was the 10:30SX 10:40SO Edinburgh-KX (timings from May 1975)

1A26 was the 13:25 Leeds-KX (front 4 coaches dep. Hull at 13:08)

Many thanks, Mark,

 

Could you also tell me, please, what 1L09 and 1A08 were in the 1975 timetable?

 

Please send me your address by PM, and I'll make sure a book gets to you when it's published.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[glo41f]

It was good to see some more modern pictures here. I always liked the 47s (or Brush 4's) as they seemed well proportioned and good looking. I too liked the original green livery (which is born by my own model). However, I think that perhaps the best was the Inter City Swallow livery which suited most locos to which it was applied. A marvellous concept and really looked good when matched with the similar liveried coaches. Does anyone agree?

 

It all goes to show what a great group this is when we lurch from the nitty gritty of  class O2 variations to variations on (relatively) model diesels!

 

Does anyone remember the articles in the Model Rail on the construction of Bob Symes' Class 4 which had a Taplin Twin motor which drove a generator in gauge 1?  I have a friend who replicated this in 7mm!  It was a noisy brute!

 

Martin Long

[Jon4470]

 

Does anyone remember the articles in the Model Rail on the construction of Bob Symes' Class 4 which had a Taplin Twin motor which drove a generator in gauge 1?  I have a friend who replicated this in 7mm!  It was a noisy brute!

 

Martin Long

I remember a series of articles from the 1970s that Bob Symes (Schutzman - I think he had a double barrel name then) wrote about a Diesel in gauge 1. I think it was a class 47 but could be wrong.

 

Jon

[St Enodoc]

Does anyone remember the articles in the Model Rail on the construction of Bob Symes' Class 4 which had a Taplin Twin motor which drove a generator in gauge 1?  I have a friend who replicated this in 7mm!  It was a noisy brute!

 

Martin Long

 

I remember a series of articles from the 1970s that Bob Symes (Schutzman - I think he had a double barrel name then) wrote about a Diesel in gauge 1. I think it was a class 47 but could be wrong.

 

Jon

Yes, it was a diesel electric Brush Type 4. Before that, in the 1960s, he had a series of articles in MRN on how he (with others) built a Gauge 1 Hymek with hydraulic drive. Remarkable.

[APOLLO]

Yes I remember the article. It was a 47. Bob had difficulty finding suitable motors and if I remember correctly he found Strombecker motors used in model racing cars worked as they had a freewheel facility when current was off. A full article is in one of the old 1970 mags.

 

This is interesting about Bob. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Symes

 

I have the mag somewhere, I'll try to dig it out.

 

Brit15

[Headstock]

I've not seen any suggestion elsewhere that the O2/1 and O2/2 class parts, built with short travel valve gear, were ever rebuilt with long travel valve gear (and hence higher running plates) whether or not they received B1 (100A) boilers or any other type.

 

Thanks for that,

 

the penny has dropped, the PDK kit doesn't cater for the difference in running board height between the versions. Thus the locomotive as modelled is not quite right in this respect. I've always been curious about these engines, they were very handsome, but I've heard very little about their performance. At least some of the GC men didn't rate them very highly, preferring the various iterations of the native O4 and the Thompson O1, the latter they considered superior to the Stannier 8F that came as part of 'Midlandisation'.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for that,

 

the penny has dropped, the PDK kit doesn't cater for the difference in running board height between the versions. Thus the locomotive as modelled is not quite right in this respect. I've always been curious about these engines, they were very handsome, but I've heard very little about their performance. At least some of the GC men didn't rate them very highly, preferring the various iterations of the native O4 and the Thompson O1, the latter they considered superior to the Stannier 8F that came as part of 'Midlandisation'.

I think the PDK kit has the higher running plate as standard (suggesting long-travel valves). The old Nu-Cast kit had it somewhere in between and the (very-difficult-to-build) ACE kit also has it high. It would seem that no kit-maker in 4mm gives one the option. 

 

Obviously, Heljan's O2/3 has the higher running plate. The proving model I examined for the O2/2 had the lower running plate, though when this will appear is a real guess. 

 

I must admit, until Roy Vinter pointed out this detail difference (some years ago), I carried on building O2s in blissful ignorance. I should have looked more closely at prototype pictures. The difference is pretty obvious............

 

 

O2/4 (ex-O2/1). Lower running plate, so still with short-travel valves.

 

 

O2/4 (ex-O2/3). Higher 'plate, so long-travel valves. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I think the PDK kit has the higher running plate as standard (suggesting long-travel valves). The old Nu-Cast kit had it somewhere in between and the (very-difficult-to-build) ACE kit also has it high. It would seem that no kit-maker in 4mm gives one the option. 

 

Obviously, Heljan's O2/3 has the higher running plate. The proving model I examined for the O2/2 had the lower running plate, though when this will appear is a real guess. 

 

I must admit, until Roy Vinter pointed out this detail difference (some years ago), I carried on building O2s in blissful ignorance. I should have looked more closely at prototype pictures. The difference is pretty obvious............

 

63925 O2 4 Retford GC small.jpg

 

O2/4 (ex-O2/1). Lower running plate, so still with short-travel valves.

 

63961 O2 4 Doncaster shed small.jpg

 

O2/4 (ex-O2/3). Higher 'plate, so long-travel valves. 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I was just looking at similar pictures myself. presumably the long travel valve gear require a larger expansion link, hence the higher running board. I also found this image that suggests that the back of the platform did slope down to meet the frames. Off course in OO the two would never meet due to the narrow frames, however it would explain the lack of daylight visible on the real engine. That said, I think there may have been a thin slot of daylight visible above frames at the the crank axle position.

 

http://shedbashuk.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/retford-great-central-1938-1964.html

Edited March 1, 2018 by Headstock

[asmay2002]

I've always been curious about these engines, they were very handsome, but I've heard very little about their performance. At least some of the GC men didn't rate them very highly, preferring the various iterations of the native O4 and the Thompson O1, the latter they considered superior to the Stannier 8F that came as part of 'Midlandisation'.

Generally there has been very little written about freight loco performance compared with passenger engines.  One of the things which does allow a comparison between designs is the lb coal per dbhp figures from dynamometer car testing.   In 1925 the Gresley O1 and O2 designs were compared and gave figures of 5.19 and 4.76 respectively.  Gresley used this to claim superiority for his 3 cylinder valve gear over 2 cylinder locos. O S Nock remarked that all it showed was how bad the valve gear was on both classes.  By comparison the 1948 exchange trials figures for the 28xx, Thompson O1, 8F, Austerity 2-8-0 and Austerity 2-10-0 were 3.25-3.54, 3.27-3.63, 3.17-3.81, 3.55-4.11 and 3.09-3.66. Not much to choose between the 28xx, O1 and 8F.  The LMS 1925 tests gave figures for the Garratts, SDJR 7F, and LNWR G2 of 3.61, 4.37 and 4.02 respectively.  Obviously coal consumption doesn't tell the whole story and I don't know the numbers for the long travel O2 or the O4 but the original engines look pretty dreadful for the firemen.  The 9Fs on test gave some exceptionally low figures of between 2.2 & 2.4 lb which would go a long way to explaining why they were liked everywhere.  Coal consumption alone doesn't by any means tell the whole story and other things like how run down the loco was or just familiarity would affect how a crew perceived a loco. The O2's were reckoned to be very good starters but then you would have to shovel a lot more coal once you got going......

[MJI]

Generally there has been very little written about freight loco performance compared with passenger engines.  One of the things which does allow a comparison between designs is the lb coal per dbhp figures from dynamometer car testing.   In 1925 the Gresley O1 and O2 designs were compared and gave figures of 5.19 and 4.76 respectively.  Gresley used this to claim superiority for his 3 cylinder valve gear over 2 cylinder locos. O S Nock remarked that all it showed was how bad the valve gear was on both classes.  By comparison the 1948 exchange trials figures for the 28xx, Thompson O1, 8F, Austerity 2-8-0 and Austerity 2-10-0 were 3.25-3.54, 3.27-3.63, 3.17-3.81, 3.55-4.11 and 3.09-3.66. Not much to choose between the 28xx, O1 and 8F.  The LMS 1925 tests gave figures for the Garratts, SDJR 7F, and LNWR G2 of 3.61, 4.37 and 4.02 respectively.  Obviously coal consumption doesn't tell the whole story and I don't know the numbers for the long travel O2 or the O4 but the original engines look pretty dreadful for the firemen.  The 9Fs on test gave some exceptionally low figures of between 2.2 & 2.4 lb which would go a long way to explaining why they were liked everywhere.  Coal consumption alone doesn't by any means tell the whole story and other things like how run down the loco was or just familiarity would affect how a crew perceived a loco. The O2's were reckoned to be very good starters but then you would have to shovel a lot more coal once you got going......

 

 

My favourite steam freight engines are 9F and 28xx

[ROY@34F]

Thanks Tony,

 

so 63925 would have received the higher running board when rebuilt to part 4?

 

 

 

If I may answer the question. the 02/4s were fitted with a B1 boiler (I forget which diagram),and being shorter, there was a short extra panel on the boiler cladding at the smokebox end, and an extra bracket supporting the front end, which isn't featured on any models I've seen.

They became 02/4s irrespective what ever they were rebuilt from ( 02/1,/2,0r/3. )

I'm sure I'm about right there, am I Tony ?

Roy.

[mark54]

Many thanks, Mark,

 

Could you also tell me, please, what 1L09 and 1A08 were in the 1975 timetable?

 

Tony,

 

1L09 was the 10:20 KX-Leeds (or could be 10:10SuO KX-Bradford)

1A08 was the 08:30 Leeds-KX

 

Hope this assists

[ROY@34F]

I've since seen further comments on the 02/4s by Tony and Graeme enlarging the specs correctly. Thanks chaps.

Roy.

[Headstock]

Thank you all for your comments on class O2,

 

I first encountered the class in model form on the High Dyke model railway, that would be back in the seventies I think. The only anecdotal evidence that I can recall reading with regard to the performance of the class was by GC men working the Worsborough incline, here they were regarded as rather lacklustre. Frank Stratford of Leicester shed had experience of working the locomotives on the London extension on occasion, however he never recorded an opinion on their abilities. The later long travel valve gear locomotives were tested against class O1 and WD Austerity on the sharply timed Annesley - Woodford runners. The Thompson rebuilds decisively outclassed the other competing engines, finally being displaced from these workings by the concentration of the Eastern regions single chimney 9F's at Annesley shed.

 

Coal and water consumption was a major factor in the running of the service, as only one water stop was allowed on the out and back run. However, the ability to maintain a consistent steaming rate to maintain a 30 mph average speed, brake the lose coupled trains within section, run fast up hill and make rapid recovery from PWR's all  contributed to an environment that would test any locomotive. Such a service that ran day in day out around the clock would  provide a fare indication of the abilities of a locomotive against the vagaries of one off testing, either the locomotive can maintain the schedule on a day to day basis or it can't. Edward Thompson's O1 class were not found wanting in this respect.

[Tony Wright]

From what I've read, the O2s of every variety performed generally very well. They were certainly liked at Grantham (on the iron ore trains) and rode very well. 

 

From my own sightings of them (between Sheffield and Retford) it would appear that they were used indiscriminately alongside the O4 variants, the O1s and the Austerities for taking mineral wagons to and from the pits. 

 

As for the Annesley-Woodford 'runners', nothing could beat the 9Fs on those. 

 

As far as models go, I've made examples of them from Nu-Cast, ACE and PDK, and modified three Heljan examples.

 

The Heljan RTR one is certainly the best puller among its other out-of-the-box contemporaries in my experience, beating the Bachmann O4 and Austerity and also the Hornby O1, 8F and GWR 2-8-0. That said, at least to me, it's rather academic, because both my (getting-on) Nu-Cast examples, built of white metal with added lead will pull longer trains than I have the road-lengths for.

 

Because of the outside valve gear, they're not as easy to make as the RODs or GWR 2-8-0s, though no more difficult than an Austerity, O1 and 8F.  

Edited March 2, 2018 by Tony Wright

[APOLLO]

I've just received the latest "Forward" magazine No 195 March 2018 (The journal of the great central Railway society). There is an excellent article "A railway modeller looks at the BR O4's" by Keith Parkin, which describes the details of the sub classes, along with photos of his O4 models, which are superb.

 

Of interest to Tony in the same issue is an article "Memories of Kiveton Park station" describing daily B pilot goods traffic workings in 1964 /5.

Another interesting subject.

 

Brit15

Edited March 2, 2018 by APOLLO

[t-b-g]

I think you have to be careful when you listen to or read accounts of locos from crews that would have regarded them as unwelcome interlopers. GCR crews having to work with O2 locos when they could do the job with "their own" O4 would be unlikely to shower it with praise. This sort of thing happened all over the railway system and locos that would do the job perfectly well in the hands of crews familiar with the type were regarded as dreadful when they were given to crews from other areas.

 

A "foreign" loco being welcomed and being regarded as an improvement on the "home" loco was a rare thing.

[Compound2632]

A "foreign" loco being welcomed and being regarded as an improvement on the "home" loco was a rare thing.

 

... an example being the LMS standard 2P (not usually much appreciated except by Sir Josiah Stamp) on the GSW section - D.L. Smith reports the enthusiasm of the Stranraer men: "they fairly like them! Gey near tak' them tae their bed wi' them!" [Legends of the Glasgow & South Western Railway in LMS days (David & Charles, 1980)].

[Headstock]

I think you have to be careful when you listen to or read accounts of locos from crews that would have regarded them as unwelcome interlopers. GCR crews having to work with O2 locos when they could do the job with "their own" O4 would be unlikely to shower it with praise. This sort of thing happened all over the railway system and locos that would do the job perfectly well in the hands of crews familiar with the type were regarded as dreadful when they were given to crews from other areas.

 

A "foreign" loco being welcomed and being regarded as an improvement on the "home" loco was a rare thing.

 

I would agree, which is why I asked if anybody else had any information with regard to the performance of these engines.

 

From what I've read, the O2s of every variety performed generally very well. They were certainly liked at Grantham (on the iron ore trains) and rode very well. 

 

From my own sightings of them (between Sheffield and Retford) it would appear that they were used indiscriminately alongside the O4 variants, the O1s and the Austerities for taking mineral wagons to and from the pits. 

 

As for the Annesley-Woodford 'runners', nothing could beat the 9Fs on those. 

 

As far as models go, I've made examples of them from Nu-Cast, ACE and PDK, and modified three Heljan examples.

 

The Heljan RTR one is certainly the best puller among its other out-of-the-box contemporaries in my experience, beating the Bachmann O4 and Austerity and also the Hornby O1, 8F and GWR 2-8-0. That said, at least to me, it's rather academic, because both my (getting-on) Nu-Cast examples, built of white metal with added lead will pull longer trains than I have the road-lengths for.

 

Because of the outside valve gear, they're not as easy to make as the RODs or GWR 2-8-0s, though no more difficult than an Austerity, O1 and 8F.  

 

I really like my Hornby O1, mine has probably got the best chassis I have ever scene on a RTR model, it's as steady as a rock, free running and will pull a ton of bricks. In addition, it is more aesthetically pleasing as a representative of the prototype than the Heljan O2, especially with regard to the valve gear. There isn't the parts available to replace it with a home built example that would be superior. If I required a second one and if I could find another Hornby one that ran as well, I would buy it in a shot. That said, the 04/8 currently building will replace it, this locomotive will require a quite a bit of  modification to bring it up to the same standard. Like all the little engine O4's, on which the project is based, the running board and chassis are two short. The O4/7 that I previous built required an extension piece to the frames, the splashes and the running board. However, the coupled wheelbase is correct, the basic castings are neat and progress so far has been satisfactory.

 

With regard to the mighty 9F's, rather like the USA, they were always turning up late for the main event.

[Clem]

I've not contributed to the thread for some time now (mainly through embarrassment of lack of meaningful things to say and also my own slow modelling progress) but I do regularly give it a read as it is always full of interesting advice, viewpoints not to mention the good, and often great, modelling. Tony, your work and photos of Little Bytham are always a joy to view and it feels like a little bit of the late 1950s didn't really die when I take them in. Also great contributions from others.  Anyway, I have just noticed 2 or 3 pages back, that  SEF are re-releasing the Nucast J6 kit. That certainly is very good news. A locomotive class I particularly like and also from South Eastern Finecast whom I like very much. Funnily enough, I've just finished (construction-wise) a Nucast J6 and I'm just waiting on warmer weather to execute the paint job. Here it is (below)....  

 

I've never been totally happy with the later shorter chimneys supplied with the kit. I find them a little too plant-pot-ish. The sides of the short J6 chimneys were almost parallel so I've tried to remedy it with a fettled version of one of Graeme King's castings. The J6 engines might all look the same but there are a number of differences and things you have to take into account for different locomotives. As well as the obvious 521/536 differences and tender differences, there are such detail differences as wash out plugs, the length of the ejector pipes on the right side of the boiler, and of course the wiggly wire runs which also varied. The engine pictured is destined to be 64269, a long term resident of Colwick and funnily enough, it was the subject of one of my first attempts at kit building (a WSM kit) 40 odd years ago. 

 

Now and for the next few months, I'm going to be trying to complete the layout. I've been trying to do it for a couple of years but I keep getting sidetracked by engine and wagon building. It's just distraction tactics!! I don't feel anything like as comfortable doing scenery as locomotives and I'm slow enough with those! ....but it's something I need to buckle down to.... 

[Tony Wright]

I would agree, which is why I asked if anybody else had any information with regard to the performance of these engines.

 

 

I really like my Hornby O1, mine has probably got the best chassis I have ever scene on a RTR model, it's as steady as a rock, free running and will pull a ton of bricks. In addition, it is more aesthetically pleasing as a representative of the prototype than the Heljan O2, especially with regard to the valve gear. There isn't the parts available to replace it with a home built example that would be superior. If I required a second one and if I could find another Hornby one that ran as well, I would buy it in a shot. That said, the 04/8 currently building will replace it, this locomotive will require a quite a bit of  modification to bring it up to the same standard. Like all the little engine O4's, on which the project is based, the running board and chassis are two short. The O4/7 that I previous built required an extension piece to the frames, the splashes and the running board. However, the coupled wheelbase is correct, the basic castings are neat and progress so far has been satisfactory.

 

With regard to the mighty 9F's, rather like the USA, they were always turning up late for the main event.

Andrew,

 

I have two Hornby modified O1s (though neither are used much). One runs as well as yours and the other has a tight spot. 

 

 

This is a Hornby O1 as supplied (the one which runs well). It's rather spoiled by the lift in the running plate above the motion support bracket and the upward slope to the front platform (it would have been more accurate were the latter bent down). 

 

 

I turned it into the one which lost its rising arc handrail above the smokebox door, though the body is still a bit wobbly in places.

 

 

This is the one with the tight spot (which seems reluctant to go way, despite my ministrations). Again, I've altered its original identity and its body, too, is a bit wobbly.

 

 

This is a Little Engines O1, built by Tony Geary. I wish I'd kept it because it has much more of an individual character than the RTR items and its smokebox door (its face) is much more appropriate for an O1 than the Hornby one. 

 

 

I'm hesitant to include this O1, because it's one I scratch-built in the mid-'70s; over 40 years ago! It has a K's tender. It still runs well, and, at the time of its creation, which other way was there of obtaining an O1? Perhaps a better description of it might be 'I built it and it got scratched!' 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

Andrew,

 

I have two Hornby modified O1s (though neither are used much). One runs as well as yours and the other has a tight spot. 

 

Hornby O1 01.jpg

 

This is a Hornby O1 as supplied (the one which runs well). It's rather spoiled by the lift in the running plate above the motion support bracket and the upward slope to the front platform (it would have been more accurate were the latter bent down). 

 

O1 02.jpg

 

I turned it into the one which lost its rising arc handrail above the smokebox door, though the body is still a bit wobbly in places.

 

Hornby O1 11 modified.jpg

 

This is the one with the tight spot (which seems reluctant to go way, despite my ministrations). Again, I've altered its original identity and its body, too, is a bit wobbly.

 

Little Engines O1 02.jpg

 

This is a Little Engines O1, built by Tony Geary. I wish I'd kept it because it has much more of an individual character than the RTR items and its smokebox door (its face) is much more appropriate for an O1 than the Hornby one. 

 

O1 01 scratch-built.jpg

 

I'm hesitant to include this O1, because it's one I scratch-built in the mid-'70s; over 40 years ago! It has a K's tender. It still runs well, and, at the time of its creation, which other way was there of obtaining an O1? Perhaps a better description of it might be 'I built it and it got scratched!' 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

I think that your scratch built O1 looks pretty awesome. A shame you got rid of the little engines kit as they are becoming increasingly difficult to find these days. I did the smokebox door thing and other detail changes to the Hornby version, I can also report that it dosn't suffer from the wonky elements that seem to be common to a number of modern RTR locomotives. I must be lucky, no doubt if I was to make another RTR purchase it would be afflicted by every problem you could imagine. Not that I'm intending to do so, hopefully I will be able to turn out some locomotives builds this year, I like my Hornby O1 but not enough to stop the new O4/8 tacking it's place. I would have to admit that the Hornby O1 dose look a little boring in comparison to your forty year old veteran. Did I mention that you should write a book?

[Tony Wright]

Evening Tony,

 

I think that your scratch built O1 looks pretty awesome. A shame you got rid of the little engines kit as they are becoming increasingly difficult to find these days. I did the smokebox door thing and other detail changes to the Hornby version, I can also report that it dosn't suffer from the wonky elements that seem to be common to a number of modern RTR locomotives. I must be lucky, no doubt if I was to make another RTR purchase it would be afflicted by every problem you could imagine. Not that I'm intending to do so, hopefully I will be able to turn out some locomotives builds this year, I like my Hornby O1 but not enough to stop the new O4/8 tacking it's place. I would have to admit that the Hornby O1 dose look a little boring in comparison to your forty year old veteran. Did I mention that you should write a book?

Andrew,

 

You did mention I should write a book, but I've already written several already. 

 

I've almost completed my latest for Irwell, featuring my Class 47 pictures, taken between 1965 and 1992. It'll be delivered next week. 

 

Then what? A further bookazine using my pictures for Irwell, another one commentating on Keith Pirt's pictures (the LNER Pacifics) for Booklaw and the taking of further pictures to illustrate Geoff Haynes' book on painting for Crowood. Plus, as many articles as I can write for the mags. 

 

Is there another modelling book in me? Perhaps, we'll have to see. 

[D.Platt]

Hi Tony

I like your scratch built 01 as you say a good layout loco ? I’ve a little engines version along with their 04/8 , something that puzzles me is why Bachmann have not produced the different 04 variations as they have the chassis and tender.

Dennis

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

I like your scratch built 01 as you say a good layout loco ? I’ve a little engines version along with their 04/8 , something that puzzles me is why Bachmann have not produced the different 04 variations as they have the chassis and tender.

Dennis

Dennis,

 

Many thanks.

 

I think the only variation which Bachmann has done on the O4 is the GWR one. Or, has the firm produced an O4/3? 

 

It depends on how the model body 'splits' (I've not investigated, by the way). It probably has a cast metal footplate and splashers (can anyone confirm this?) and plastic boiler/cab. It would seem to be a relatively simple job of producing the different variations (O4/5, O4/6, O4/7 and O4/8), but tooling costs are very high, and the tender would need a little modification for some, wouldn't it? Or, does the Bachmann O4 tender not have water pick-up gear? 

 

I think what we have here is a huge difference between an individual (such as the great Graeme King), adapting models into something different, and a major manufacturer tooling up for all the (potential) variants. Time was when adaptation was the done thing among modellers; remember those articles in the MRC in the early-'60s where someone made a B12/3 out of (you've guessed it) a Tri-ang B12/3? To be fair, other B12s were made as well, as well as D16s from the same source. All 'proper' modelling projects to me.

 

It's my perception (stated many times) that the number of folk who are prepared to alter and adapt/detail/renumber/rename/weather RTR items is diminishing (as fast as the number of those who build kits is diminishing?), either because they can't (why the likes of TMC are so successful?), are afraid of messing up an expensive item, get someone else to do it for them (other than TMC)  or they feel the current products are good enough at source. 

 

I've admitted before that 'I'm all right Jack'. I have an O4/1 (built from a Little Engines kit), two O4/3s (K's and Little Engines), an O4/7 (built from a Little Engines kit), an O4/8 (K's/scratch-built) and the old O1 shown earlier, and might well obtain an ex-Stoke Summit/Charwelton O4/6 (with a side-window cab). That all of these have been made is axiomatic, and I'm (luckily) not restricted to what comes out of a blue box, a red box or a blue and red box, ready-made. Are the likes of me in a minority; a minority getting even smaller? If what I saw on the OO layouts at the Glasgow Show last weekend is anything to go by, then the answer is 'yes', emphatically. This is not a criticism of the show (the layout I gave the pot to had all RTR stock), but it's obviously getting harder to book mainstream layouts where the building of locos and stock has taken place. There wasn't another 'Alloa' anywhere to be seen. 

 

Does it matter? A question I've posed before. It might matter to the kit-manufacturers (of all sorts) because sales seem to be constantly diminishing. Because 'I'm all right Jack', it's not that much of a bother to me; with the caveat that I'll have enough kits to last me for the rest of my life - that's why I'm constantly buying more; expect to live forever! 

 

The projects I've been involved with have never used RTR in the main, other than employing dozens of (modified) Bachmann Mk.1s. Hornby's gangwayed Gresleys are too wrong at source to be used, other than as donors. Though Bachmann's latest Thompsons are outstanding, Tony Geary and I have already built dozens from kits, so don't need any more. Likewise, Hornby's latest 1928 Pullmans are wonderful models, but having made all the Pullmans I need already (apart from a couple), I don't need them. Granted, about half my freight stock is RTR-based, but that's not been my responsibility. As for RTR locos, my stance is well known in that regard. 

 

The release of the SE Finecast J6 is very exciting to me. On receipt, I'll build it (actually two) and write it up for an article. Build articles, which used to be published regularly in the magazines, tend now to be 'swamped' by pages of what's new, ready-made (in all scales), or that's my perception. In a way (a large way), I like being in a minority. 

 

Apologies for rather rambling on. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.