Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

One thing about a 4 cylinder loco like a Duchess is that the cylinders worked in pairs, so the exhausts were more like a noisier 2 cylinder loco than a 4 cylinder one with the cranks set at 90 degrees all the way round.

 

I learned that fitting a sound chip to a loco, so it may be wrong but the chip had "loud" and "quiet" settings for 4 and 2 cylinders.

 

On another matter, some while back the subject of K2s cropped up and mention was made of the BRM article "some yeras ago" by Tony W on building the London Road kit.

 

I remember seeing the article but would like to get hold of a copy now and don't know what happened to mine or even when it was published. I can't find an online index for BRM either. Can anybody help?

 

Tony Gee

[jwealleans]

If no-one else comes up with a copy, Tony, I will have one - I can scan it for you.  If someone can tell me/us when it was published that will save me some searching.

 

Will you be at S4N on Sunday?

[t-b-g]

If no-one else comes up with a copy, Tony, I will have one - I can scan it for you.  If someone can tell me/us when it was published that will save me some searching.

 

Will you be at S4N on Sunday?

 

Many thanks. I may even have it somewhere if I knew when and where to look!

 

Sadly, the quality inspection team from the EMGS will be there on Saturday.

Edited April 13, 2018 by t-b-g

[Chamby]

Whilst on the subject of A3's, I received some nameplates from Fox Transfers this morning and was delighted to find that they provide two different smokebox door numbers, with both original curly and later true Gill Sans sixes and nines.    

 

 

Modelling 1949 condition A3's generally avoids double chimneys or smoke deflectors, but the GCLE cohort were all former A1's so still had RHD at this time (with the exception of Grand Parade, assigned to the GC for just three months).  What with different dome shapes, tenders, Left/Right hand drive and cab cut-outs, plus a number of individual peculiarities, there's a lot to check to get your individual locomotive correct when using a donor model if you want to keep the modifications to a minimum.  I'm using Hornby's 'Gay Crusader' as the donor model for Galtee More, Prince of Wales and Pretty Polly, but substituting the streamlined non-corridor tender for Enterprise.  So far as I can tell, some of the class had received corrected cab-side sixes and nines, but retained the curly sixes and nines on the smokebox door plates for some time thereafter.  Interesting to note that Tony's models as pictured above still have curly ones on their smokebox doors.  

 

Phil

Edited April 13, 2018 by Chamby

[Compound2632]

you're all wrong of course. There is no finer sight than a Princess Coronation at full chat - even in the wrong livery

 

 

Graemeduchess.jpg

 

There was a rather good photo of a rebuilt Royal Scot on the GC main line a few pages back - by far the best-looking LMS express passenger class to my mind - all mean hunched-up power and three cylinders to boot. 

[Black Marlin]

Aside from the bridge in the background to the picture below, I haven't yet started building the 40' x 20' layout (tentatively named 'Girtby Sea') on which this train will eventually run, but I felt it was worth showing: Gresley A1 Flying Fox at the head of the Queen of Scots. Nowt but elegance on the rails here...

 

[Chamby]

I just noticed, whilst working on Gay Crusader... the tender number is also accurately represented.  I had to photograph and enlarge this to read it!    So something else to change....  does anyone know a supplier?  !

 

[Tony Wright]

Whilst on the subject of A3's, I received some nameplates from Fox Transfers this morning and was delighted to find that they provide two different smokebox door numbers, with both original curly and later true Gill Sans sixes and nines.    

 

IMG_2171.jpg

 

Modelling 1949 condition A3's generally avoids double chimneys or smoke deflectors, but the GCLE cohort were all former A1's so still had RHD at this time (with the exception of Grand Parade, assigned to the GC for just three months).  What with different dome shapes, tenders, Left/Right hand drive and cab cut-outs, plus a number of individual peculiarities, there's a lot to check to get your individual locomotive correct when using a donor model if you want to keep the modifications to a minimum.  I'm using Hornby's 'Gay Crusader' as the donor model for Galtee More, Prince of Wales and Pretty Polly, but substituting the streamlined non-corridor tender for Enterprise.  So far as I can tell, some of the class had received corrected cab-side sixes and nines, but retained the curly sixes and nines on the smokebox door plates for some time thereafter.  Interesting to note that Tony's models as pictured above still have curly ones on their smokebox doors.  

 

Phil

Phil,

 

The question of which A3s (or any other of the ER Pacifics) had 'incorrect' or 'correct' '6's and '9's on their front plates is a difficult one. Most (if not all) started out with the wrong kind, but many later got the right kind (SANDWICH is one). My DONCASTER is definitely wrong. However, at the time, 40+ years ago, 'plates tended to come from Kings Cross. They had to be cut-out (what a fag!), and, in many cases in the range, I paid for bespoke 'plates to be made, which then went into the range, 60048 being one.  60054's is right, as is FLYING SCOTSMAN's. I think DICK TURPIN's is also wrong - it's also in the wrong place, the 'plate never having been carried on the top hingestrap of this loco's smokebox door. 

 

Oh, those joys of loco-picking! 

 

Reasons are hard to explain as to the changes, other than to be correct Gill Sans. If so, why weren't all altered? Why was A1 60119's never changed; unique among the A1s? Why were some front numberplates transposed with the crossrail on the smokebox door? Why, when their nameplates were long, did some A4s have them shoved right back on the cladding? Look at 60001 and 60002. Yet others had them so far forward that they clipped the parabolic lining. 

 

It does make modelling most-interesting, though, even if one finds (as Tim Watson might have done with his O Gauge MALLARD, and I did with mine) that one has fitted a front numberplate with the wrong font!

Edited April 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Aside from the bridge in the background to the picture below, I haven't yet started building the 40' x 20' layout (tentatively named 'Girtby Sea') on which this train will eventually run, but I felt it was worth showing: Gresley A1 Flying Fox at the head of the Queen of Scots. Nowt but elegance on the rails here...

 

 

I have to say, Gavin, that it does look very beautiful.

 

I have just one question (and it's not a criticism of the model(s). How much of 'you' is in all this? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[gr.king]

One thing about a 4 cylinder loco like a Duchess is that the cylinders worked in pairs, so the exhausts were more like a noisier 2 cylinder loco than a 4 cylinder one with the cranks set at 90 degrees all the way round.

 

I learned that fitting a sound chip to a loco, so it may be wrong but the chip had "loud" and "quiet" settings for 4 and 2 cylinders.

 

On another matter, some while back the subject of K2s cropped up and mention was made of the BRM article "some yeras ago" by Tony W on building the London Road kit.

 

I remember seeing the article but would like to get hold of a copy now and don't know what happened to mine or even when it was published. I can't find an online index for BRM either. Can anybody help?

 

Tony Gee

 

 

Many thanks. I may even have it somewhere if I knew when and where to look!

 

Sadly, the quality inspection team from the EMGS will be there on Saturday.

 

Part 4 of the K2 article appeared in August 2006 BRM and covered only some final aspects of body detailing, the assembly of some of the motion, and construction of the tender. I have only that much but can copy if required and will be at Wakefield tomorrow, in disguise obviously. I don't know if parts 1 to 3 were in the directly preceding months.

[Tony Wright]

Part 4 of the K2 article appeared in August 2006 BRM and covered only some final aspects of body detailing, the assembly of some of the motion, and construction of the tender. I have only that much but can copy if required and will be at Wakefield tomorrow, in disguise obviously. I don't know if parts 1 to 3 were in the directly preceding months.

Is it really that long ago?

 

I remember I had 'fun' over its build with regard to a subsequent conversation with the late, great (and sadly-missed) Malcolm Crawley, who designed the kit and wrote the instructions for LRM. In my view, the prescribed method of assembling the frames (never a chassis with Malcolm) and motion was poor, because it meant assembling all the valve gear and then dropping it in place, along with the front drivers. There was no way of first making it as a working 0-6-0 if the instructions were followed. I also made new coupling rods because the originals didn't quite line up with the axle holes in the frames. He told me in no uncertain terms that, had I made it 'his' way, this wouldn't have mattered, and must certainly have doubted my credentials as a loco-builder.  Interestingly, I saw one he'd made in EM (presumably erected 'his' way) on Retford one day. It got half way round, then promptly fell off, part of the motion coming adrift. Did I grin?

 

I deeply respected him. 

 

 

 

In the end, it didn't turn out too badly, especially with Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

Interestingly, I've only ever seen four of these kits made-up. Mine, Malcolm Crawley's, one John Houlden built for Gilbert Barnatt and the one on LRM's stand. Have I asked this before? Are there any others out there?

 

I think the build was in consecutive issues of BRM. I doubt if it's the sort of thing which might appear in the magazine nowadays, but things move on and it's not really a 'mainstream' type of feature now (if it ever was). 

 

The bent front buffer (on the offside front) was caused by my knocking it off the layout, resulting in its (entirely-prototypical) sag. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Further to the recent discussion of fish trains on here, yesterday I was shown a copy of a 1940s LNER goods WTT covering more fish trains out of Grimsby than have been mentioned on here. An intriguing destination, evidently well out of the Grimsby area and not immediately meaningful to me or to the individual who had the WTT, was "East Goods".

 

Where is, or was "East Goods"?

 

14/3/18 19:20 hrs. I am instructed to reprimand myself most severely for inaccuracy. That WTT was actually a 1960s ER one, not 1940s LNER.

Edited April 14, 2018 by gr.king

[t-b-g]

I just noticed, whilst working on Gay Crusader... the tender number is also accurately represented.  I had to photograph and enlarge this to read it!    So something else to change....  does anyone know a supplier?  !

 

IMG_2172.JPG

I am no expert on gender numbering but I have seen several GCR tender numbers which begin with a 5, as do their loco numbers under the LNER. Is that a GCR number?

[Tony Wright]

One thing I forgot to add in previous posts was whether I might be offended by an observation. 

 

How can anyone possibly be offended by constructive criticism and observation? If they have any sense, they learn from it, apply its suggestions and be a better modeller for it. 

 

Please, keep it coming. 

[New Haven Neil]

          I hope that you have listened to Widor himself playing his Toccata on the Cavaille-Col organ - a great achievement for an arthritic & 80 YO. on a 'Tracker.' organ.  :-)

 

       

 

Yes, I have that - the only one played at the correct speed....or was it he couldn't play it any faster???  - unlike that awful American woman that plays it so fast the finer points are lost.

[Daddyman]

Part 4 of the K2 article appeared in August 2006 BRM and covered only some final aspects of body detailing, the assembly of some of the motion, and construction of the tender. I have only that much but can copy if required and will be at Wakefield tomorrow, in disguise obviously. I don't know if parts 1 to 3 were in the directly preceding months.

May, June, July and August 2006, yes - I saw them during a recent tidy-up so could put my hands on them easily just now. 

 

All regularly (and currently) on ebay. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Daddyman

[Black Marlin]

I have to say, Gavin, that it does look very beautiful.

 

I have just one question (and it's not a criticism of the model(s). How much of 'you' is in all this? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

A very good question, although, as a long-time reader of this thread, don't think I've been bamboozled as to where you're going with this....!

 

The short answer is 'as much as is sufficient for my needs'. The rather longer answer is as follows:

 

The locomotive and coaches are Hornby. All have been modified to a greater or lesser extent. The locomotive has lamps, a crew and real coal in the tender (something upon which I now insist for all my steam locomotives). The coaches all carry 'Queen of Scots' roofboards obtained (I think) from Fox transfers. Equally, the three duplicate coaches in the rake (brake third, kitchen third and parlour third) have all been renumbered (was it you who gave me the transfer sheets? If so, my thanks!). 

 

Nothing is kitbuilt, nor is likely to be. And here's why [takes deep breath, inserts head in lion's jaws]:

 

The only reason - the only reason - for me to do so would be if my desire to build a kit surpassed every other possible consideration, which are as follows:

 

The cost. Buy the locomotive in kit form. Buy the wheels (which, if previous discussions on this very thread are to be believed, is not straightforward), the motor, the name and numberplates and everything else required to complete the model. Buy a jig to get the chassis true. Buy a decent soldering iron. Buy the soldering iron's consumables. Buy the coach kits. Buy wheels for them. Buy the paints necessary to paint them. Buy the transfers needed to finish them off. But wait - I'm new to all this. I've never soldered up a kit in my life. Very well then, buy another couple of wagons - that I don't need to run the train - to practice construction techniques on. 

 

The time. It would take weeks upon weeks upon weeks for me to do all this work, time that could be spent doing other modelling work (like, for instance, building baseboards!)

 

My personality. I would want, after the fairly vast expenditure both of time and money outlined above, to have a train that would measure up to the RTR examples I have. And with the best will in the world, that's just not going to happen. The result of that imbalance would not be "This train is built by me, and is therefore more valuable to me", it would be "There is no one else to blame for the fact that this train simply does not look as good as all the other trains". 

 

I picked up Flying Fox for £60 and the Pullman cars at £30 a pop. I haven't done the calculation to determine how much more I would have to pay to build a train that I found a continual disappointment, but I can't think of a way to balance the figures so that it comes out in favour of the kits of the stock required.

 

 

 

 

None of this is by way of me turning my back on kits or the people who build them. I've been toying with the idea of dipping my toe in the locomotive waters: something black and inside-cylindered would seem a sensible starting point (perhaps a C12 or an A5?).  But it would take years - literally - of practice and effort before I could even think of approaching a full Queen of Scots as a project, and that seems to me time and money that could be better spent on other projects, especially since in this particular instance I need invest neither (at least, to anything like the same extent) to end up in the place I wanted to get to in the first place, which was having a really nice Queen of Scots to run on my layout!

 

I know that the above might seem heretical; certainly on the thread of a master kitbuilder. It is, however, honest; perhaps it's no bad thing to get the view from 'the other side of the tracks' occasionally. 

 

Regardless of our different perspectives, I remain an admirer of all those who do find kit-building fulfilling. My own passions lie elsewhere (I love doing scenery) but ours is a big enough church, surely, to admit souls of many persuasions...?

 

Best regards,

Gavin

[Northmoor]

Despite being a through and through steam man, the sound of a Deltic notching up under the roof of Newcastle Central was one of the most invigorating powerful sounds I have ever heard. Next up is Widor's Toccata played on a large pipe organ.  I have diverse tastes...

I have to say one of my favourite pieces of railway sound is the early scene in Get Carter.  But there is hardly any railway sound, I hear you say.

 

Yes, but Roy Budd's theme music is gloriously menacing and in my head, I can hear the big Sulzer* singing away behind the camera.

 

*Contrary to popular belief, it's not filmed from a Deltic (although the train does pass one) because you'd see the nose in front of the camera; it's filmed on board a 47.

[mullie]

A very good question, although, as a long-time reader of this thread, don't think I've been bamboozled as to where you're going with this....!

 

The short answer is 'as much as is sufficient for my needs'. The rather longer answer is as follows:

 

The locomotive and coaches are Hornby. All have been modified to a greater or lesser extent. The locomotive has lamps, a crew and real coal in the tender (something upon which I now insist for all my steam locomotives). The coaches all carry 'Queen of Scots' roofboards obtained (I think) from Fox transfers. Equally, the three duplicate coaches in the rake (brake third, kitchen third and parlour third) have all been renumbered (was it you who gave me the transfer sheets? If so, my thanks!). 

 

Nothing is kitbuilt, nor is likely to be. And here's why [takes deep breath, inserts head in lion's jaws]:

 

The only reason - the only reason - for me to do so would be if my desire to build a kit surpassed every other possible consideration, which are as follows:

 

The cost. Buy the locomotive in kit form. Buy the wheels (which, if previous discussions on this very thread are to be believed, is not straightforward), the motor, the name and numberplates and everything else required to complete the model. Buy a jig to get the chassis true. Buy a decent soldering iron. Buy the soldering iron's consumables. Buy the coach kits. Buy wheels for them. Buy the paints necessary to paint them. Buy the transfers needed to finish them off. But wait - I'm new to all this. I've never soldered up a kit in my life. Very well then, buy another couple of wagons - that I don't need to run the train - to practice construction techniques on. 

 

The time. It would take weeks upon weeks upon weeks for me to do all this work, time that could be spent doing other modelling work (like, for instance, building baseboards!)

 

My personality. I would want, after the fairly vast expenditure both of time and money outlined above, to have a train that would measure up to the RTR examples I have. And with the best will in the world, that's just not going to happen. The result of that imbalance would not be "This train is built by me, and is therefore more valuable to me", it would be "There is no one else to blame for the fact that this train simply does not look as good as all the other trains". 

 

I picked up Flying Fox for £60 and the Pullman cars at £30 a pop. I haven't done the calculation to determine how much more I would have to pay to build a train that I found a continual disappointment, but I can't think of a way to balance the figures so that it comes out in favour of the kits of the stock required.

 

 

 

 

None of this is by way of me turning my back on kits or the people who build them. I've been toying with the idea of dipping my toe in the locomotive waters: something black and inside-cylindered would seem a sensible starting point (perhaps a C12 or an A5?).  But it would take years - literally - of practice and effort before I could even think of approaching a full Queen of Scots as a project, and that seems to me time and money that could be better spent on other projects, especially since in this particular instance I need invest neither (at least, to anything like the same extent) to end up in the place I wanted to get to in the first place, which was having a really nice Queen of Scots to run on my layout!

 

I know that the above might seem heretical; certainly on the thread of a master kitbuilder. It is, however, honest; perhaps it's no bad thing to get the view from 'the other side of the tracks' occasionally. 

 

Regardless of our different perspectives, I remain an admirer of all those who do find kit-building fulfilling. My own passions lie elsewhere (I love doing scenery) but ours is a big enough church, surely, to admit souls of many persuasions...?

 

Best regards,

Gavin

 

I haven't built a full blown kit yet but I have built a couple of Comet chassis and finished and motorised a couple of Silver Fox J70 kits. Last summer I built a Lochgorm starter etched wagon kit which was relatively straight forward. I have built, painted and weathered rtr and plastic rolling stock for years. The tools only need to be bought once and should last for years

 

I have built my own PCB track and point work for around ten years. Recently I took the decision to move to EM because I am building more and more I felt it was a good opportunity to use a more accurate gauge but P4 I do feel is beyond me.

 

Why all the above? I regard modelling as a journey, I started out with all rtr items and over a period of around 15-18 years my modelling has developed and changed out of all recognition. I have a very busy work and family life so I tend to divide my modelling up into manageable projects that I can complete so maintaining my mojo which still disappears at times.

 

My latest project is an EM conversion of a Hornby 08 using Gibson wheels and cranks as detailed a few posts above, a  real challenge. I tend to model small layouts so the above process has worked for me, you will be able to find a way if you wish to and that is the most important point. This is a hobby so do what works for you and gives you pleasure.

 

I like the idea of building things, but as I model mainly ex Great Eastern lines the small locos needed are not available rtr so kits are the only way.

 

Martyn

[bbishop]

I can't write that off-hand I can recall the above-mentioned locomotives. - hence my vote for 4-4-0s. would go to the L&SWRs. 'T9.', aka. 'Greyhound.', class.

  But, of course, my vote for locos.. overall would go, undoubtedly to Mr. Collect's 'Castle.' class.'.

 

       

I agree with the Greyhound as being the most attractive 4-4-0, but wasn't the Castle class started by David Jones and completed by Peter Drummond?

 

Bill

Edited April 13, 2018 by bbishop

[New Haven Neil]

One thing about a 4 cylinder loco like a Duchess is that the cylinders worked in pairs, so the exhausts were more like a noisier 2 cylinder loco than a 4 cylinder one with the cranks set at 90 degrees all the way round.

 

I learned that fitting a sound chip to a loco, so it may be wrong but the chip had "loud" and "quiet" settings for 4 and 2 cylinders.

 

On another matter, some while back the subject of K2s cropped up and mention was made of the BRM article "some yeras ago" by Tony W on building the London Road kit.

 

I remember seeing the article but would like to get hold of a copy now and don't know what happened to mine or even when it was published. I can't find an online index for BRM either. Can anybody help?

 

Tony Gee

 

 

IIRC only the 'Nelsons' and one Princess (tha was altered as an experiment) had cranks set to give 8 beats to the bar amongst 4 cylinder engines in the UK.

[Tony Wright]

A very good question, although, as a long-time reader of this thread, don't think I've been bamboozled as to where you're going with this....!

 

The short answer is 'as much as is sufficient for my needs'. The rather longer answer is as follows:

 

The locomotive and coaches are Hornby. All have been modified to a greater or lesser extent. The locomotive has lamps, a crew and real coal in the tender (something upon which I now insist for all my steam locomotives). The coaches all carry 'Queen of Scots' roofboards obtained (I think) from Fox transfers. Equally, the three duplicate coaches in the rake (brake third, kitchen third and parlour third) have all been renumbered (was it you who gave me the transfer sheets? If so, my thanks!). 

 

Nothing is kitbuilt, nor is likely to be. And here's why [takes deep breath, inserts head in lion's jaws]:

 

The only reason - the only reason - for me to do so would be if my desire to build a kit surpassed every other possible consideration, which are as follows:

 

The cost. Buy the locomotive in kit form. Buy the wheels (which, if previous discussions on this very thread are to be believed, is not straightforward), the motor, the name and numberplates and everything else required to complete the model. Buy a jig to get the chassis true. Buy a decent soldering iron. Buy the soldering iron's consumables. Buy the coach kits. Buy wheels for them. Buy the paints necessary to paint them. Buy the transfers needed to finish them off. But wait - I'm new to all this. I've never soldered up a kit in my life. Very well then, buy another couple of wagons - that I don't need to run the train - to practice construction techniques on. 

 

The time. It would take weeks upon weeks upon weeks for me to do all this work, time that could be spent doing other modelling work (like, for instance, building baseboards!)

 

My personality. I would want, after the fairly vast expenditure both of time and money outlined above, to have a train that would measure up to the RTR examples I have. And with the best will in the world, that's just not going to happen. The result of that imbalance would not be "This train is built by me, and is therefore more valuable to me", it would be "There is no one else to blame for the fact that this train simply does not look as good as all the other trains". 

 

I picked up Flying Fox for £60 and the Pullman cars at £30 a pop. I haven't done the calculation to determine how much more I would have to pay to build a train that I found a continual disappointment, but I can't think of a way to balance the figures so that it comes out in favour of the kits of the stock required.

 

 

 

 

None of this is by way of me turning my back on kits or the people who build them. I've been toying with the idea of dipping my toe in the locomotive waters: something black and inside-cylindered would seem a sensible starting point (perhaps a C12 or an A5?).  But it would take years - literally - of practice and effort before I could even think of approaching a full Queen of Scots as a project, and that seems to me time and money that could be better spent on other projects, especially since in this particular instance I need invest neither (at least, to anything like the same extent) to end up in the place I wanted to get to in the first place, which was having a really nice Queen of Scots to run on my layout!

 

I know that the above might seem heretical; certainly on the thread of a master kitbuilder. It is, however, honest; perhaps it's no bad thing to get the view from 'the other side of the tracks' occasionally. 

 

Regardless of our different perspectives, I remain an admirer of all those who do find kit-building fulfilling. My own passions lie elsewhere (I love doing scenery) but ours is a big enough church, surely, to admit souls of many persuasions...?

 

Best regards,

Gavin

Gavin,

 

I wasn't setting a 'trap', believe me. Knowing you and respecting you, what would be the point? 

 

I think it's just because our time in the hobby is so different. Were the things that you've used available near 30 years ago, would I have built my Queen of Scots, a locomotive to haul it, photograph its construction and write about it? Perhaps not, but it was a question of needs must at the time. Hornby's Pullman of the day was generic, only a Parlour Brake Third and Parlour First were made, the bogies were ghastly, the sides were armour-plated and the underframe hopelessly compromised. 

 

You work alone on your project and haven't (as yet?) enjoyed the the 'luxury' of working in a like-minded group, all members being of the same modelling standard and all working to the same objective. That the 'last project' I'm involved with has taken over well 40 years to come to fruition should come as no surprise, and I'm still building things for it. 

 

 

I've used this picture before, but I'll use it to illustrate a different approach if I may, please? This ten-car QoS was built by me from a mixture of Hornby donors, Comet sides, MJT bogies and detail bits, and the whole lot was painted (perfectly) by Ian Rathbone. I built the train engine (a DJH A1) and Ian painted that as well (equally perfectly). Is it 'better' than yours? I very much doubt it, but that is not the point. It's much more a personal creation to me and, in answer to my initial question, I'd still probably build it the same way today (though, perhaps, employ one or two of Hornby's latest cars as well, as I've done in my Yorkshire Pullman). But that's me, and 'making' things will always take precedence over other methods, despite the time and cost imperatives. If nothing else, I hope this thread encourages that approach.

 

Your solution to arriving at what you want is elegant and pragmatic, and I commend you for the work you've done. 

 

Nothing you've said is heretical, nor is it on the thread of a 'master kit-builder'. Would a 'master kit-builder' have fitted too-large A3 smoke deflectors?

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

[ecgtheow]

Is it really that long ago?

 

I remember I had 'fun' over its build with regard to a subsequent conversation with the late, great (and sadly-missed) Malcolm Crawley, who designed the kit and wrote the instructions for LRM. In my view, the prescribed method of assembling the frames (never a chassis with Malcolm) and motion was poor, because it meant assembling all the valve gear and then dropping it in place, along with the front drivers. There was no way of first making it as a working 0-6-0 if the instructions were followed. I also made new coupling rods because the originals didn't quite line up with the axle holes in the frames. He told me in no uncertain terms that, had I made it 'his' way, this wouldn't have mattered, and must certainly have doubted my credentials as a loco-builder.  Interestingly, I saw one he'd made in EM (presumably erected 'his' way) on Retford one day. It got half way round, then promptly fell off, part of the motion coming adrift. Did I grin?

 

I deeply respected him. 

 

K2 01 London Road 61838.jpg

 

Scenic progress 9 12 11 06 K2.jpg

 

In the end, it didn't turn out too badly, especially with Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

Interestingly, I've only ever seen four of these kits made-up. Mine, Malcolm Crawley's, one John Houlden built for Gilbert Barnatt and the one on LRM's stand. Have I asked this before? Are there any others out there?

 

I think the build was in consecutive issues of BRM. I doubt if it's the sort of thing which might appear in the magazine nowadays, but things move on and it's not really a 'mainstream' type of feature now (if it ever was). 

 

The bent front buffer (on the offside front) was caused by my knocking it off the layout, resulting in its (entirely-prototypical) sag. 

 

 Tony,

 

"Yes" - you have asked this question before & "Yes" I have one too & replied to that effect with a photo a few pages back.

 

William

[Headstock]

Archers rivets have been mentioned up thread. I purchased a starter pack some time back to see how they would work detailing the metal end platforms of an LNER Toad D. Encouraged by the results, I incorporated them in a major titivation of a white metal locomotive kit recently under construction. A rather tedious process at times, especially were individual rivets had to be applied in straight lines to keep in step with the reference material. Having applied undercoat this evening, I find myself rather pleased with the results, what a great little product.

[Tom F]

Andrew, would you mind posting photos of the rivet work on your LNER Toad D? I’m working on one at the moment