Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

OO gauge is intrinsically flawed as we all know, but the one big thing in its favour is the sheer number of modellers using it. EM and P4 modellers remain relatively few in number and this inevitably has a bearing on the interaction available with other modellers. I also model in a minority scale, in my case HOm, and whilst many of my colleagues admire the scale, it can be a relatively lonely place to be. The ability to share in the hobby with so many others, both friends and at club level, is what ultimately led me back to OO gauge when I retired.

 

It is evident that Tony very much enjoys it when guest locomotives visit LB and this is greatly facilitated because there are so many OO modellers around... it almost serves as the common currency of our hobby. The EM, P4 and other more ‘true to gauge’ scales also have strong communities and their own advocates, but these are by their very nature minority groups in the overall scheme of things.

 

I made a choice at retirement to model the more social gauge, understanding its failings, rather than follow a more purist but less prevalent gauge because for me the hobby is about more than just the models. I am a member of two local model railway clubs and they are like chalk and cheese in terms of members interests and modelling ability. But they both ‘speak’ OO, as do the vast majority of clubs nationally.

 

Phil.

[Tony Wright]

Back in the good'ol bad 'ol days the above is one of many reasons why I started doing things in P4. The idea of upgrading the tender drive at the time for the available LNER locomotives was a problem. This was compounded by the problem of needing to rebuild each locomotive with a new chassis so that it could go through my SMP trackwork with 14.5mm back to backs. The crop at the tiem of LNER locos was all Hornby with tender drives and the back to back was all 13.8 to 14.0mm or variable as the wheels were on stub axles and along for the ride on so many tenders! 

I couldn't agree with you more about the 'good old/bad old' days, Doug. 

 

In most ways, the dreadful tender drive and split chassis stuff of four-plus decades ago (and less!) was the reason I chose to build my own locos - that and the limited range of types. The difference is I stayed with OO. 

 

I've said before, I had the chance to go EM over 40 years ago, at Wolverhampton MRC, but I, foolishly in some ways, didn't take it. I never considered P4 for a variety of reasons, principally because I don't have the requisite skills necessary to model that accurately. The end result was/is, of course, a very long cul de sac, and I'm far too far down that dead end to turn around now. 

 

That said, as Phil (above) has pointed out, by having an OO trainset I have a much-more-universal system on which to run visitors' locos/stock (that, and the fact that it doesn't have the encumbrance of DCC!). The only limiting factor is that the visiting OO stuff must be 'finescale' (in the accepted sense of the word in this context), with consistent 14.5 back-to-backs, with no 'pizza-cutter' flanges. 

 

And, more importantly, I now have a 'reasonable' representation of an ECML station as it was in 1958, through which runs a 'typical' selection of appropriate/'accurate' locos and trains (near 200 locos and over 50 train sets), something which might have been (just) possible in EM (though over a greater timescale), but impossible in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[DougN]

Tony, I believe if you had continued in EM or P4 you would have ended up with the same layout! I know that might sound as mad as a hatter, but if you have found the level of detail, and finish you are happy with. There is only a difference of gauge. Yes I am a Scalefour member, and I have met some wonderful people through the association. Some are the practical modeller Tony is and then there are others who have a specific interest and tend to focus specifically on set pieces. A example of this approach is a good friend of mine who became interested in trackwork and this focused on a 4way point to the throat of Kings Cross. This was his total out put for about 6 years. Now he is onto NER brake vans which he has amassed a collection of photos research and 3 part built models which are incomplete due to working out how the brakes actually worked and they are to be made to work! He is amazed at my out put of models which I think are the best I can do at the moment, but as I have explained before, I have a challange this year to produce at least 1 completed model a month! (Target is still being achieved! And only 2 more months till the end of the year!)

So back to the point I am making the gauge is the main difference but it is also the attitude to modelling. Scalefour does tend to appeal more to my friend above so may be this is the "attitude" that attracts more of these people?

Edited October 26, 2018 by DougN

[Chamby]

I couldn't agree with you more about the 'good old/bad old' days, Doug. 

 

In most ways, the dreadful tender drive and split chassis stuff of four-plus decades ago (and less!) was the reason I chose to build my own locos - that and the limited range of types. The difference is I stayed with OO. 

 

I've said before, I had the chance to go EM over 40 years ago, at Wolverhampton MRC, but I, foolishly in some ways, didn't take it. I never considered P4 for a variety of reasons, principally because I don't have the requisite skills necessary to model that accurately. The end result was/is, of course, a very long cul de sac, and I'm far too far down that dead end to turn around now. 

 

That said, as Phil (above) has pointed out, by having an OO trainset I have a much-more-universal system on which to run visitors' locos/stock (that, and the fact that it doesn't have the encumbrance of DCC!). The only limiting factor is that the visiting OO stuff must be 'finescale' (in the accepted sense of the word in this context), with consistent 14.5 back-to-backs, with no 'pizza-cutter' flanges. 

 

And, more importantly, I now have a 'reasonable' representation of an ECML station as it was in 1958, through which runs a 'typical' selection of appropriate/'accurate' locos and trains (near 200 locos and over 50 train sets), something which might have been (just) possible in EM (though over a greater timescale), but impossible in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony, your approach to modelling might be more akin to EM/P4 philosophy, but by being built in OO gauge it immediately connects with a much wider circle of modellers. If LB was EM or P4, of course it would be at least as fine a model, but it would not ‘connect’ with such a broad section of modellers in the same way. If one of your goals was to build a high quality, inspirational model that many others might aspire to, creating LB in OO was exactly the right way to go... Although I suspect that you might not have realised it at the time!

 

Phil.

[Headstock]

And no LNER weekend!

[Jol Wilkinson]

Phil (Chamby), Tony W and Doug N all have indicated their reasons for following a particular path and I would suggest that they are pretty much all singing off the same hymn sheet.

 

I gave up 00 many years ago and took up P4 because I wasn't satisfied with what I saw as 00 "standard" on modelling at the time. I also had a good mentor and through joining the S4 Society and a local area group, got to meet some modellers who provided great inspiration, guidance and genuine help. Today nearly all my modelling friends are P4 and EM modellers, for the simple reason we all do much the same sort of thing. They all enjoy creating their layouts and models (or in one case rescuing one due for the scrap head and converting it to P4) and quite a few contribute to the modelling community by writing articles, demonstrating, building/operating display layouts, designing/producing kits, etc.

 

While 00 remains the most popular gauge in 4mm, I suggest that might be because the majority of modellers in the scale don't aspire to "modelling" beyond RTR, certainly for locos and stock. I have visited  local clubs and shows, both here in East Anglia and when I lived in the Midlands and found that, in general, the members interest was limited to what they could buy RTR. So "serial" layout building -  reusing existing stock and rescued track and buildings, was more important than a longer term project where building the stock as well as the layout was the primary interest. That informs my view that the boundaries in this hobby are not between scales and gauges but between aspirations. If you are happy to solely buy and use what the RTR manufacturers produce, then you will be limited by that selection. If  you want to define your own modelling "creation", such as Little Bytham, Retford, Clarendon, Gresley Beat, then you have to go a step further. That's what connects you, not the width between the rails.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I believe if you had continued in EM or P4 you would have ended up with the same layout! I know that might sound as mad as a hatter but if you have found he level of detail, and finish you are happy with. There is only a difference of gauge. Yes I am a Scalefour member and I have met some wonderful people through the association. Some are the practical modeller Tony is and then there are others who have a specific interest and tend to focus specifically on set pieces. A example of this approach is a good friend of mine who became interested in trackwork and this focused on a 4way point to the throat of kings cross. This was his total out put for about 6 years. Now he is onto NER brake vans which he has amassed a collection of photos research and 3 part built models which are incomplete due to working out how the brakes actually worked and they are to be made to work! He is amazed at my out out of models which I think are the best I can do at the moment, but as I have explained before, I have a challange this year to produce at least 1 completed model a month! (Target is still being achieved! And only 2 more months till the end of the year!)

 

So back to the point I am making the gauge is the main difference but it is also the attitude to modelling. Scalefour does tend to appeal more to my friend above so may be this is the "attitude" that attracts more of these people?

To quote your own words, Doug, your comment does sound that of someone who is 'as mad as a hatter'. May I explain, please?

 

How long do you (and others) expect me to live? Regarding EM, Gauge - yes it might have been possible to build LB in that (though within a larger space - is it right to expect big EM locos to go round 3' curves or smaller ones to go round 2' curves?). Though I don't have many RTR locos, there are a few which I 'tolerate' - one A1, one A3, one B1, one L1, one O1, two O2s and two 9Fs, plus a couple of 4Fs and Ivatt 4 2-6-0s on the M&GNR. Apart from changing (as appropriate) bogie/pony wheels, these are (mechanically) unaltered. How long would it take to convert just these few to EM? Then there are the diesels (almost all RTR). With regard to the 90+ Bachmann Mk.1s I run, it's not just a case of dropping in new EM wheelsets - brake blocks have to be cut off and re-positioned! That's also true for the hundreds of OO wagons I have.

 

Why is that some of those who model in P4 (and I say this with respect) cannot accept that it takes so much more time to build a loco chassis in the 'right' gauge than it does in OO (or EM, if it's rigid)? At the excellent Woking Show last month, I chatted with my good friend, Eddie Bourne (of St. Merryn fame). I had on my display stand an A2/2 chassis which I'd started two days before (the one I brought to Australia). Though it didn't have its motion on, it was fully-working. All the drivers were on, the motor/gearbox installed, the rods on, pick-ups all working, bogie made and pivoted, as was the pony, both with wheels in place. Not only that, the footplate was on. Without appearing to boast, Eddie looked with incredulity. He admitted he'd never built anything that big in P4, and that in the same time (under five hours), he'd have been lucky just to get the basic frames erected. 

 

Not only that, my 'footprint' for LB is 32' x 12' How could I build it in P4 in that space?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Phil (Chamby), Tony W and Doug N all have indicated their reasons for following a particular path and I would suggest that they are pretty much all singing off the same hymn sheet.

 

I gave up 00 many years ago and took up P4 because I wasn't satisfied with what I saw as 00 "standard" on modelling at the time. I also had a good mentor and through joining the S4 Society and a local area group, got to meet some modellers who provided great inspiration, guidance and genuine help. Today nearly all my modelling friends are P4 and EM modellers, for the simple reason we all do much the same sort of thing. They all enjoy creating their layouts and models (or in one case rescuing one due for the scrap head and converting it to P4) and quite a few contribute to the modelling community by writing articles, demonstrating, building/operating display layouts, designing/producing kits, etc.

 

While 00 remains the most popular gauge in 4mm, I suggest that might be because the majority of modellers in the scale don't aspire to "modelling" beyond RTR, certainly for locos and stock. I have visited  local clubs and shows, both here in East Anglia and when I lived in the Midlands and found that, in general, the members interest was limited to what they could buy RTR. So "serial" layout building -  reusing existing stock and rescued track and buildings, was more important than a longer term project where building the stock as well as the layout was the primary interest. That informs my view that the boundaries in this hobby are not between scales and gauges but between aspirations. If you are happy to solely buy and use what the RTR manufacturers produce, then you will be limited by that selection. If  you want to define your own modelling "creation", such as Little Bytham, Retford, Clarendon, Gresley Beat, then you have to go a step further. That's what connects you, not the width between the rails.

Wise words, Jol,

 

If ever a case can be made to show an 'attitude' to modelling, and a further case of the visual excellence of P4 over OO, then may I suggest one looks no further than this month's Railway Modeller? 

[Tony Wright]

A fair bit of today has seen my taking pictures of new products for BRM. They include these two LNER-designed brake vans. 

 

 

This is Dapol's version in O Gauge.

 

 

And a Toad by Hornby in OO.

 

Both are excellent models. I'm writing reviews of these for the magazine.

 

In between times, I've fitted the boiler/smokebox and front frames to the Acro 4F. The fit of parts is excellent, and they soldered together with ease.

 

 

However, detailing is going to take as long as the basic construction. Good fun, though. 

[Michael Edge]

The GN part of Little Bytham could have been built just as easily in EM as 00 (and I'm stuck with 00 for many of the same reasons as Tony is), the fiddle yard might have taken more work without Peco pointwork and I don't think the M&GN would have been possible at the size it is.

I estimate the same build time for 4mm scale locos regardless of gauge, P4 doesn't take any longer than 00.

[gr.king]

Dave Somers' modelling is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to me, bar the choice of livery / period.

Wasn't the larger-boilered "B18" variant of the B17 design a genuine Gresley proposal for jobs that did not quite demand or could not be done by something quite as large and heavy as a Pacific? I'm sure the details are in print in more that one publication, probably including the RCTS green books, most likely part 10A. I gather that it failed to materialise at least in part because the operating people stated a strong preference for V2s, even in smaller numbers than the proposed new 4-6-0s, the V2s originally having been planned as only a fairly small class for the principal main lines.

Edited October 22, 2018 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

The GN part of Little Bytham could have been built just as easily in EM as 00 (and I'm stuck with 00 for many of the same reasons as Tony is), the fiddle yard might have taken more work without Peco pointwork and I don't think the M&GN would have been possible at the size it is.

I estimate the same build time for 4mm scale locos regardless of gauge, P4 doesn't take any longer than 00.

Thanks Mike,

 

Everyone else I've spoken to (those who model in P4) tell me that they couldn't possibly build a complex set of frames for a big loco in the same time I take to erect the same thing in OO. 

 

I think the reason is the necessity of springing/compensation in the finer gauge. Friend Geoff Haynes (another professional loco builder) tells me it takes him at least twice as long to build a P4 chassis as it does one in OO, because of the need for springing/compensation. 

 

Since I've never built in P4 (lacking the necessary skills), I cannot speak from personal experience. I have built sprung/compensated chassis in OO and EM, with no gain whatsoever. Yet, they've taken me well over twice as long to erect.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Paul Cram]

I think the time taken depends on whether the kit is designed with compensation/springing or not. I an just finsihing a NER class X (LNER T1) which was well thought out and the chassis took no loner than a oo one.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Paul Cram

[Tony Wright]

I think the time taken depends on whether the kit is designed with compensation/springing or not. I an just finsihing a NER class X (LNER T1) which was well thought out and the chassis tok no loner than a oo one.

Thanks Paul,

 

The best chassis, in my opinion, are designed to be built rigid at source, but with the option for springing/compensation. For example, both Comet and SE Finecast frames can be built with compensation/springing. However, it requires the slots in the chassis to be cut out to be able to take the hornblocks - hence the much greater time imperative. Then there's the compensation beam or springs to install. 

 

With the chassis mentioned, I just fix in the bearings, jig everything up and solder everything together. In minutes - not hours. My own experience, of course. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Thanks Paul,

 

The best chassis, in my opinion, are designed to be built rigid at source, but with the option for springing/compensation. For example, both Comet and SE Finecast frames can be built with compensation/springing. However, it requires the slots in the chassis to be cut out to be able to take the hornblocks - hence the much greater time imperative. Then there's the compensation beam or springs to install. 

 

With the chassis mentioned, I just fix in the bearings, jig everything up and solder everything together. In minutes - not hours. My own experience, of course. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

e

 

"The best chassis" depends on your requirements. Mine are probably quite different to yours. Irrespective of that, a chassis should go together accurately. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I found it easier to build P4 chassis when I started thirty odd years ago, because you had to use jigs, which I never had learned about when I built 00 models. I used to spend hours trying to get chassis "square" so that all wheels sat equally on the obligatory piece of glass and the rods didn't bind (and that was with Romford self quartering wheels). Undoubtedly etched chassis were an improvement over much of what was available before.

 

In general designers have to design rigid chassis primarily in 4mm scale, because that is the bigger market sector - 00 and EM. So assembling them for optional compensation or springing will take more time.

[Hollar]

A fair bit of today has seen my taking pictures of new products for BRM. They include these two LNER-designed brake vans. 

 

Dapol BR 20T brake van 7F-200-002 02.jpg

 

This is Dapol's version in O Gauge.

 

Hornby BR (ex-LNER) Toad brake van R6834 01.jpg

 

And a Toad by Hornby in OO.

 

Both are excellent models. I'm writing reviews of these for the magazine.

 

In between times, I've fitted the boiler/smokebox and front frames to the Acro 4F. The fit of parts is excellent, and they soldered together with ease.

 

Acro 4F 02.jpg

 

However, detailing is going to take as long as the basic construction. Good fun, though. 

The Hornby OO model looks OK, but the Dapol looks very disappointing particularly for a 7mm model.  The handrails are very poor - one of the verticals all over the place, and the horizontal end handrails don't look properly horizontal and are much too far away from the ballast weights.  The lettering is not the typical BR interpretation of Gill Sans and untypically spaced too (maybe because the gaps between the planking is too wide and deep as it so often is. The glazing looks badly recessed, and I think LNER Taod Ds had wither no windows in their veranda doors or two windows - not four. The lamp irons are moulded and would need replacing if you wanted to put a lamp on them.  Unless there is distortion in the photo, the near-end buffers don't look hotizontal.  And wear are the safety loops on the brake rigging. 

 

Good in parts, perhaps, but not much better than the Oxford GWR toad.

 

Tone

[Michael Edge]

Thanks Mike,

 

Everyone else I've spoken to (those who model in P4) tell me that they couldn't possibly build a complex set of frames for a big loco in the same time I take to erect the same thing in OO. 

 

I think the reason is the necessity of springing/compensation in the finer gauge. Friend Geoff Haynes (another professional loco builder) tells me it takes him at least twice as long to build a P4 chassis as it does one in OO, because of the need for springing/compensation. 

 

Since I've never built in P4 (lacking the necessary skills), I cannot speak from personal experience. I have built sprung/compensated chassis in OO and EM, with no gain whatsoever. Yet, they've taken me well over twice as long to erect.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

P4 does require springing or compensation, I prefer compensation and often use it for EM or 00 models anyway. I can fit the simple foolproof beam system found in our kits to any kit which has axle holes in its frames, it doesn't take very long.

For any kit which was exclusively designed to use sprung hornblocks I would estimate more for any gauge. For scratchbuilding there is no difference whatsoever. Frames are by far the quickest part of the build in any case.

[Tony Wright]

The Hornby OO model looks OK, but the Dapol looks very disappointing particularly for a 7mm model.  The handrails are very poor - one of the verticals all over the place, and the horizontal end handrails don't look properly horizontal and are much too far away from the ballast weights.  The lettering is not the typical BR interpretation of Gill Sans and untypically spaced too (maybe because the gaps between the planking is too wide and deep as it so often is. The glazing looks badly recessed, and I think LNER Taod Ds had wither no windows in their veranda doors or two windows - not four. The lamp irons are moulded and would need replacing if you wanted to put a lamp on them.  Unless there is distortion in the photo, the near-end buffers don't look hotizontal.  And wear are the safety loops on the brake rigging. 

 

Good in parts, perhaps, but not much better than the Oxford GWR toad.

 

Tone

I've looked at your observations, Tone, and thanks for making them. 

 

The 7mm model's handrails might have become distorted in the packaging.

 

In every picture and drawing I've consulted (Larkin, Tatlow, numerous books, my own pictures), all the LNER 'Toads' have no windows in the end doors and two windows either side - just like the Hornby model. 

 

Where are the safety loops on the brake rigging (wear? - worn out?)? Good question. Missing, but that's the case with most RTR (and kit-built) models. Some Bachmann RTR wagons have them, but it makes changing the wheels difficult.

 

Moulded lamp brackets? I just put lamps on brakes with a tiny dab of superglue. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Some post war LNER Toad D's had two vertical windowes in the doors. The Dapol model, as far as I can see, is not the LNER Toad D, it is the BR version. As far as non standard BR lettering is concerned, have a look at the 16 Ton mineral wagon back up the thread, the one in the second picture tacken with the J10.

[Tony Wright]

Some post war LNER Toad D's had two vertical windowes in the doors. The Dapol model, as far as I can see, is not the LNER Toad D, it is the BR version. As far as non standard BR lettering is concerned, have a look at the 16 Ton mineral wagon back up the thread, the one in the second picture tacken with the J10.

Thanks Andrew,

 

The Dapol van is the BR version (based on the LNER design). The builder's plate (clearly legible) states it was built in 1952. It has full-length steps on the chassis, unlike the LNER ones.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

It has the BR handrails and lamp iron layout as well. As Andrew says, the BR version.

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew,

 

The Dapol van is the BR version (based on the LNER design). The builder's plate (clearly legible) states it was built in 1952. It has full-length steps on the chassis, unlike the LNER ones.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Afternoon Tony,

the handrails are massively overscale on the Hornby Toad and made off horrible wobbly plastic, they need replacing. Most of the work in making one of these from a kit is in producing the handrails, as a result there isn't a lot of insensitive for me to buy one. On another note, I find it deplorable that the RTR manufactures are continuing to work their way through the Parkside catalogue, especially as there are plenty of other blindingly obvious wagon/van candidates that are not produced RTR or as kits. The downside is repetition and eventually less choice.

[Tony Wright]

Afternoon Tony,

the handrails are massively overscale on the Hornby Toad and made off horrible wobbly plastic, they need replacing. Most of the work in making one of these from a kit is in producing the handrails, as a result there isn't a lot of insensitive for me to buy one. On another note, I find it deplorable that the RTR manufactures are continuing to work their way through the Parkside catalogue, especially as there are plenty of other blindingly obvious wagon/van candidates that are not produced RTR or as kits. The downside is repetition and eventually less choice.

I don't know whether I'd call the handrails 'massively' over-scale, Andrew. I don't think they're really too wobbly, either. Not all prototype pictures show handrails dead straight. 

 

As to an incentive (I assume that's what you mean) to buy one, to me the incentive to buy an equivalent kit is twofold. One, you'll have made it yourself (much more satisfactory), and, two, it'll probably be cheaper. 

 

Whether it's 'deplorable' that RTR manufacturers produce the same thing as kit manufacturers (and not just in wagon kits) is a moot point. Though (as is well-known), my preference is for building things, I cannot deplore any RTR manufacturer for making things which he/she thinks will sell well. 

 

I've taken on board the criticisms made about these vans, but, all in all, I think they're both quite good. I must admit to not making many brake vans, and I've never taken the trouble to include a stove and handbrake wheel in their interiors. Hornby has! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

I w

 

I don't know whether I'd call the handrails 'massively' over-scale, Andrew. I don't think they're really too wobbly, either. Not all prototype pictures show handrails dead straight. 

 

As to an incentive (I assume that's what you mean) to buy one, to me the incentive to buy an equivalent kit is twofold. One, you'll have made it yourself (much more satisfactory), and, two, it'll probably be cheaper. 

 

Whether it's 'deplorable' that RTR manufacturers produce the same thing as kit manufacturers (and not just in wagon kits) is a moot point. Though (as is well-known), my preference is for building things, I cannot deplore any RTR manufacturer for making things which he/she thinks will sell well. 

 

I've taken on board the criticisms made about these vans, but, all in all, I think they're both quite good. I must admit to not making many brake vans, and I've never taken the trouble to include a stove and handbrake wheel in their interiors. Hornby has! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

I would be interested to see how the handrails compare to the O gauge model from Dapol. Going by the two photographs, the OO version looks to be at least the same size as the O gauge if not larger. I would say that they are double the size that they should be, that's massive. Surely brass or other wire would be a more appropriate material than bendy plastic? A quick look around the internet provides plenty of examples of this model were the hand rails are as straight as a nine bob note.

I think that it is diplorable that they replicate the exact same model from the same company. Another three models crossed off from the Parkside catalogue in the last couple of months, yet if you are an LMS modeler for example, not much joy from the RTR manufactures. A somewhat bizarre situation given the size of the LMS wagon fleet. Is it a coincidence that LMS models are also thin on the ground in the Parkside catalogue? It seems to me that R & D 101 for the RTR manufactures is google Parkside.

[Manxcat]

 

 I must admit to not making many brake vans, and I've never taken the trouble to include a stove and handbrake wheel in their interiors. Hornby has! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

Have you ever built any of them with the bars which can be lifted and secured across the exits at both ends in the closed position? I don't think I've ever seen a RTR brake van with that feature. It would probably add to the cost and could be fragile if a scale diameter bar was used made from plastic. I cannot imagine that any of the RTR manufacturers would want to include a moveable one which could be secured in either position.

 

Archie