Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

It would appear, though, that many of the plastic wagon kits aren't that good - lacking in detail, incorrect and with a tendency to distort. 

 

Sorry, Tony - I'll have to cross swords with you there !

 

My wagon stock, (including a fair few unbuilt kits), stands at 585 - and very few of those are RTR or scratchbuilt.

 

The early plastic wagon kits - in the main Airfix and Ian Kirk - were a godsend to those of us who had been confined to what Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang offered. The former were well up to the standard of the same company's aircraft kits, and the latter were, frankly, crude by comparison, but perfectly capable of being greatly improved.

 

Over the years, the ex-Airfix, now Dapol, kits have more than held their own, and the latter, now under the Parkside at Peco brand, have improved beyond all recognition. Other producers have come to the market and produce kits that can be built as models that are often greatly superior to the concurrent RTR models.

 

I know that your forte is the production of accurate and well-running locos, and that you openly admit to running 'layout' coaches and wagons; that is your choice and it reflects your priorities. However, those of us 'wagon nuts' who give equal attention to our freight rolling stock would, I'm afraid, take issue with your dismissal of the generality of plastic wagon kits. We know that, even built as a basic model from only the components supplied, accurate and well-running models can result. Add a few low-cost detailing 'bits', together with an accurate paint finish and lettering, and you will have a model that will knock the RTR product into a cocked hat !

 

I rarely disagree with anything that you post but, IF I were looking for a weakness on LB, I would definitely be scrutinising some of the wagon stock.

 

.... and as for newcomers to the hobby, there is no better starting point than a simple Parkside wagon kit.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Very nice indeed - and the best bit for me is the way the coach sits so realistically on its bogies, conveying a real sense of weight despite the plastic bodywork. That's very clever modelling. Just one question: what's going on with the ride height compared to the blood and custard Gresley coupled behind it?

 

David

David,

 

The adjacent blood and custard Gresley is built from a very old PC kit - one of the few produced in BR carmine/cream livery by Peter Chatham. I made it years ago, buying it from Bagnall's model shop in Stafford in 1973 (they had several for sale, in the days when model shops were shops for modellers). I bought and built them all, but they're very weak with regard to surface-detail. 

 

As for the ride-height, that's dictated by PC, as is the featured coach's ride height dictated by Kirk. Not to worry too much; real carriages didn't always ride at the same height.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[RThompson]

Warning stripes also look quite splendid on industrial steam in my opinion - the older the loco the more delightfully anachronistic the appearance. Black and white (or red and white for supporters of Sunderland) is perhaps preferable to yellow and black in this application.

Did someone say wasp stripes on a industrial loco?

 

Based on an actual standard gauge locomotive livery.

 

No transfers involved on this loco!

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by RThompson

[micklner]

The Coopercraft kits are indeed very good mouldings. The under frame arrangement is (at best) idiosyncratic and all of the GWR kits have issues with accuracy in one way or another. They are very much a product of their time. The later Parkside kits in particular are excellent. Comparing them with the current crop of Military kits is misleading - most of the injection moulded AFV kits released of late are actually multi media. I am not sure that railway modellers want that and are prepared to pay the price for things they generally buy in multiples.

 

Regards

 

Craig W

 

I was referring to the actual quality of the Coopercraft mouldings only , as GWR is not my field I cannot comment on the under frame detail.  As to Parkside the early kits were as already said basic at best. I tried on of their latest LNER Hopper wagons and it was "interesting" to put together !! The latest Hornby version easily won the day for me !!

 

As to whether Railway Modellers would be willing to pay for multi media kits , surely any Loco and other kits nowadays are one already i.e white metal, resin and brass or nickel silver in one box ?  I see no reason for them not selling, judging from the prices on eBay for old kits they would sell very well if available.

 

The hobby is poorly served with the availability of kits at the moment, with the relevant cottage industry disappearing at a fast rate.

[Tony Wright]

Sorry, Tony - I'll have to cross swords with you there !

 

My wagon stock, (including a fair few unbuilt kits), stands at 585 - and very few of those are RTR or scratchbuilt.

 

The early plastic wagon kits - in the main Airfix and Ian Kirk - were a godsend to those of us who had been confined to what Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang offered. The former were well up to the standard of the same company's aircraft kits, and the latter were, frankly, crude by comparison, but perfectly capable of being greatly improved.

 

Over the years, the ex-Airfix, now Dapol, kits have more than held their own, and the latter, now under the Parkside at Peco brand, have improved beyond all recognition. Other producers have come to the market and produce kits that can be built as models that are often greatly superior to the concurrent RTR models.

 

I know that your forte is the production of accurate and well-running locos, and that you openly admit to running 'layout' coaches and wagons; that is your choice and it reflects your priorities. However, those of us 'wagon nuts' who give equal attention to our freight rolling stock would, I'm afraid, take issue with your dismissal of the generality of plastic wagon kits. We know that, even built as a basic model from only the components supplied, accurate and well-running models can result. Add a few low-cost detailing 'bits', together with an accurate paint finish and lettering, and you will have a model that will knock the RTR product into a cocked hat !

 

I rarely disagree with anything that you post but, IF I were looking for a weakness on LB, I would definitely be scrutinising some of the wagon stock.

 

.... and as for newcomers to the hobby, there is no better starting point than a simple Parkside wagon kit.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Sorry John,

 

But I don't think you're crossing swords with me.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, but I was commenting on what others appear to have observed about some plastic wagon kits; the likes of Micklner for instance. I thought I'd admitted my ignorance regarding such matters.

 

I have to say, with regard to that ignorance, I've found nothing but satisfaction with the plastic wagon kits I've built for LB. And, with my usual cop-out, if a lot of the freight stock on LB requires critical assessment/scrutinising (as you suggest), then I'll have to take it up with those who built it. 

 

Having always worked in a group when building layouts (including, of course, LB), then it's been accepted that the members of the group have taken the individual responsibilities for producing what's been requested of them. I did with regard to locos and passenger rolling stock, leaving the freight stock building to others. In the same way that I didn't expect those who built the freight stock to question the 'accuracy' of what I built, I didn't question their work. In that respect, was I a poor project manager? 

 

If you can look back through some of the posts and point out the faults in the freight stock, I'd be most-grateful. I can then question the builders. 

 

In the March issue of BRM next year, LB 1958 will feature, along with a DVD. I've also made a further LB 1958 DVD, which will go on Youtube after the BRM one has appeared. Much of the freight stock appears in motion on these. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to look at these and tell me what's wrong. It would be most-helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

 

 

I think it's unfair to compare kits for railway wagons with kits for aircraft. Surely the market for the latter is much greater, and with a much larger number of different scales. I really don't know, because the last aircraft kit I built was an Airfix Dakota, 60-odd years ago! The fit of parts was perfect. 

 

I trust you won't mind this bit of non-railway modelling, then?

 

 

 

(It's a 1/48th scale Dakota made from the Revell kit, which I believe is a very old tooling. The fit of parts was excellent, in any case).

 

I've built a large variety of plastic wagons kits from Parkside and others, and by and large they've gone together splendidly; the only

really duff ones I've encountered being the LNER grain wagons which require a lot of fettling to get an acceptable result which will

stay on the track. I've also found Parkside's recent-ish 21t hopper varieties to be excellent, if a little fiddly to put together. But

the end results are worth it, in my opinion.

 

Al

[thegreenhowards]

The Kirk Gresley TK is now complete.

 

Kirk Gresley TK 02.jpg

 

Kirk Gresley TK 04.jpg

 

This is, without doubt, a 'layout coach' in every sense as is understood on this thread. My 'sketch book' approach has missed off the train alarm gear and the little footsteps at the ends of the roof. Everything else is pretty basic, too. 

 

All the above said, as one of over 180 passenger-carrying vehicles, will those omissions be evident as it goes by in a train? I'm not condoning slipshod modelling, just advocating 'pragmatic' modelling.

 

Painting was my usual mix of Halfords acrylic car aerosol - red primer and a top coat of Ford Burgundy Red. Ends/underframe/bogies and roof were brush-painted using Humbrol enamels. Lining is by Replica (waterslide) and the numbers (again waterslide) by Modelmasters. 

 

Do plastic kits like this still have a use? If you can get them, my answer is an emphatic 'Yes'! Nobody makes an end door Gresley TK RTR (or loads of other types made by Kirk). Making metal kits is still a huge stumbling block for many, so, in my view, this sort of thing is (or should be) within most modellers' grasp. 

 

My thanks to all those who've shown us various refinements/improvements in the finishing of their Kirk kits. I'm not noble enough to follow most of them.

 

Tony,

 

A great layout coach. I actually think that for this particular diagram, it’s better than any available brass kit, because the Kirk moulding has the ventilators in the (alternate) windows on the corridor side which (I believe) neither the Comet nor the Mousa sides do. These were added in the late ‘30s after complaints about heat in the corridors. So yes, it has chunky windows and a slight lack of detail, but those ventilators are very prominent, and would be difficult to add to the brass.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

Some times there is not a kit for the item I want so if I want it I have a go at making it. My layout is a fictitious one but I want to portray an ex L&YR station (with GNR running rights) that the LMS modernised in the early 1930s and because it was on the wrong/right side of the Pennines has ended up under Eastern Region control. The ER management has not yet decided to renew the signals and is quite happy for the old LMS "modern image " ones to remain in use.

 

No one makes LMS/Westinghouse signals from the 1930s so today I have had a bash at starting to build the GNR line inner home and the shunt signal which controls the movements between the steam loco sidings and the station.

The signal heads are only in place for the photos. The structure is entirely plastic microstrip and plastic card.

[Headstock]

 

 

Sorry John,

 

But I don't think you're crossing swords with me.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, but I was commenting on what others appear to have observed about some plastic wagon kits; the likes of Micklner for instance. I thought I'd admitted my ignorance regarding such matters.

 

I have to say, with regard to that ignorance, I've found nothing but satisfaction with the plastic wagon kits I've built for LB. And, with my usual cop-out, if a lot of the freight stock on LB requires critical assessment/scrutinising (as you suggest), then I'll have to take it up with those who built it. 

 

Having always worked in a group when building layouts (including, of course, LB), then it's been accepted that the members of the group have taken the individual responsibilities for producing what's been requested of them. I did with regard to locos and passenger rolling stock, leaving the freight stock building to others. In the same way that I didn't expect those who built the freight stock to question the 'accuracy' of what I built, I didn't question their work. In that respect, was I a poor project manager? 

 

If you can look back through some of the posts and point out the faults in the freight stock, I'd be most-grateful. I can then question the builders. 

 

In the March issue of BRM next year, LB 1958 will feature, along with a DVD. I've also made a further LB 1958 DVD, which will go on Youtube after the BRM one has appeared. Much of the freight stock appears in motion on these. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to look at these and tell me what's wrong. It would be most-helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Has Mick ever come across a good kit?

Edited December 20, 2018 by Headstock

[Barry Ten]

These two Mica B wagons (next to a  David Geen model of an older diagram Mica B) are the two most recent Parkside kits I've completed.

 

 

I built the kits a couple of years ago. I was away on a week-long working trip so I packed a sandwich box with some basic tools (file, modelling knife, glue) and two

Parkside kits, and also put a small cutting board in my luggage. Working in the odd half hour back in the hotel room, I was able to put together both wagons and then

complete the fiddly handrails once I returned home. They got a coat of white paint and then went back into the box for two years, until I got them out again last week

and added the decals and couplings. I've built some Ratio and Coopercraft wagons in hotel rooms as well. Beats whatever's on the box, generally.

 

These are among the newer Parkside models and the fit of parts is as good as you could wish for, fully up to the quality of any aircraft kit I've built recently. Where

I think the plastic kit manufacturers do lose some ground is in the instructions, which can still be a bit on the sketchy side, if there's any guidance at all. I recently

finished a 7mm Toad and the lack of guidance regarding the underframe detail was quite disappointing. 

 

The David Geen Mica B, by the way, is a white metal kit and very good in terms of the quality of the parts, but the instructions are basic to say the least.

 

I'm a bit surprised that none of the RTR manufacturers has (yet) nabbed the Mica B, other than the one Wrenn used to do. To my eye they're very interesting

and characterful vehicles.

 

Al

 

[Tony Wright]

As always, thanks to all for all the recent contributions regarding plastic rolling stock kits, and plastic kits in general.

 

At no point was it my intention to appear highly-critical (as opposed to constructively-critical) of plastic wagon kits, and I will continue to recommend the likes of Parkside (which are the most-usual ones on sale at shows) to newcomers who ask me questions. Indeed, such was the (surprise?) level of interest in what I was doing at Peterborough (building plastic rolling stock kits) that I'll have one on the go at all shows I now attend as a demonstrator (as well as working in metal, of course).

 

I think it's fair to say that, in general, the building/finishing/running of freight stock lags a bit behind (in terms of accuracy?) than other loco/rolling stock 'disciplines' in the hobby. I recall the late Andy Rush (an expert on freight workings) visiting LB, and telling me in no uncertain terms how 'inaccurate' most of my goods trains were, particularly in their make-up. 'Fruit vans in ECML consists? Yes, on the M&GNR, but not on the main line!' he said. I must admit, I'd done no more than just look at prototype pictures, and sort of made-up trains from those. And, though a goods train might look very mixed indeed, there would be a purpose in how it was made-up. I very much doubt if mine are correct, even after taking on Andy's advice (at least in part). 

 

I must also admit a much greater ignorance with regard to freight stock. Andy complimented me on (most of) my passenger rakes, and liked the locos (which rather confirms John Isherwood's comments). If admitting is good for the soul, then please (when any visitors come) don't scrutinise too closely the numbers on all those empty 16T mineral wagons in that train of 42 trucks. Most of them are weathered Bachmann 16 tonners, and several might even have the same numbers! The full minerals (which is built from kits) does not have duplicates, I'm glad to say. Not only that, some of the 90+ modified Bachmann Mk.1s might still have a 'W' prefix to their numbers! Many have been changed, but not all. 

 

Which all rather goes to show how loco-centric my approach to modelling is. Imagine two locos with the same number being run on LB! I have seen it on other (usually club) layouts, though.  

[Enterprisingwestern]

Although they don't always get it right do they? Doesn't the Hornby Blue Spot Insulated Fish have an incorrect roof profile? I would guess the Parkside kit is still probably the best option?

 

Personally I'd say this one was;

 

http://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/general-merchandise-wagon-kits

 

Mike.

[LNER4479]

I think it's fair to say that, in general, the building/finishing/running of freight stock lags a bit behind (in terms of accuracy?) than other loco/rolling stock 'disciplines' in the hobby. I recall the late Andy Rush (an expert on freight workings) visiting LB, and telling me in no uncertain terms how 'inaccurate' most of my goods trains were, particularly in their make-up. 'Fruit vans in ECML consists? Yes, on the M&GNR, but not on the main line!' he said. I must admit, I'd done no more than just look at prototype pictures, and sort of made-up trains from those. And, though a goods train might look very mixed indeed, there would be a purpose in how it was made-up. I very much doubt if mine are correct, even after taking on Andy's advice (at least in part). 

 

I must also admit a much greater ignorance with regard to freight stock. Andy complimented me on (most of) my passenger rakes, and liked the locos (which rather confirms John Isherwood's comments). If admitting is good for the soul, then please (when any visitors come) don't scrutinise too closely the numbers on all those empty 16T mineral wagons in that train of 42 trucks. Most of them are weathered Bachmann 16 tonners, and several might even have the same numbers! The full minerals (which is built from kits) does not have duplicates, I'm glad to say. Not only that, some of the 90+ modified Bachmann Mk.1s might still have a 'W' prefix to their numbers! Many have been changed, but not all. 

 

Which all rather goes to show how loco-centric my approach to modelling is. Imagine two locos with the same number being run on LB! I have seen it on other (usually club) layouts, though.  

I think, Tony, that the majority of railway modellers are loco-centric when it comes to stock! Mea culpa

 

I think, when it comes to layout stock, it goes: 1) locos, 2) coaches and 3) goods / freight (I much prefer word 'goods' for pre-'68 layouts incidentally)

 

Aside from the locos, like yourself, I try to at least put some effort into assembling reasonably representative passenger stock rakes and must of my stock is uniquely numbered. Not so goods stock, unfortunately. My best effort to date is the fully fitted van train on Shap which are largely Parkside kits, all individually numbered.

 

It's only when I see the exquisite attention to detail lavished by Jonathan (Wealleans) on his goods stock (other notable wagon builders are available) that I realise how much of a specialism / art this is within the hobby.

 

It is a shame considering that, pre-'68, goods traffic was the pre-dominant source of revenue for the railway. Passenger trains - especially express ones - were a bally nuisance most of the time as they disrupted the steady 'conveyer belt' flow of the former (four-track stretches of railway excepted). And photographic books of the era don't exactly help either as most photographers saved their precious camera roll for the prestigious express passenger trains. And tended to photograph at weekends (when traffic patterns were different), as paid time off work on weekdays was a rare commodity.

 

The poor ol' goods train doesn't stand a chance does it?

Edited December 21, 2018 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

I think, Tony, that the majority of railway modellers are loco-centric when it comes to stock! Mea culpa

 

I think, when it comes to layout stock, it goes: 1) locos, 2) coaches and 3) goods / freight (I much prefer word 'goods' for pre-'68 layouts incidentally)

 

Aside from the locos, like yourself, I try to at least put some effort into assembling reasonably representative passenger stock rakes and must of my stock is uniquely numbered. Not so goods stock, unfortunately. My best effort to date is the fully fitted van train on Shap which are largely Parkside kits, all individually numbered.

 

It's only when I see the exquisite attention to detail lavished by Jonathan (Wealleans) on his goods stock (other notable wagon builders are available) that I realise how much of a specialism / art this is within the hobby.

 

It is a shame considering that, pre-'68, goods traffic was the pre-dominant source of revenue for the railway. Passenger trains - especially express ones - were a bally nuisance most of the time as they disrupted the steady 'conveyer belt' flow of the former (four-track stretches of railway excepted). And photographic books of the era don't exactly help either as most photographers saved their precious camera roll for the prestigious express passenger trains. And tended to photograph at weekends (when traffic patterns were different), as paid time off work on weekdays was a rare commodity.

 

The poor ol' goods train doesn't stand a chance does it?

Very true, Graham,

 

Now, some real goods trains for anyone to comment on...........................

 

 

Taken at Grantham in 1962. Typically, cattle wagons are at the front of this fully-fitted goods. Going north, though, wouldn't they be empty?

 

 

Taken at Retford in 1962. Are these ex-SR vans behind this A3?

 

 

Another from 1962. And, don't anyone moan that they don't have the space to run prototypical-length trains! 

 

 

From a decade earlier, near Benningborough. I was told that any overhanging load was placed away from the loco/direction of travel. What about the fourth wagon, though? And, didn't someone say that bogie wagons were marshalled at the front of mixed goods trains? It's formation like this which I've 'copied' on LB. 

 

 

Obviously barrier wagons needed here.

 

 

Anyone care to comment on the wagons in this train?

 

 

Or in this?

 

If nothing else, what these shots show is how much variety there was in the wagon/van stock in steam days. In most of these trains, one has to try hard to find two identical vehicles. Isn't this one of the reasons why modelling this sort of period is the most popular today? I've just looked up from typing this to see a real freight train go past. All the wagons are the same! 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Tony Wright

[31A]

Photo 1 - maybe, or maybe not - presumably animals could be sent from anywhere in there country to anywhere else.

 

Photo 2 - yes, SR PMVs or CCTs.

 

Photo 4 - yes, I have read that too but have always been a bit sceptical as surely a wagon's direction of travel could easily change en route.

 

Photo 6 - the first two are carrying A  type containers with wagon sheets over the top.  The 5th seems to be a pre-Grouping CCT of some kind.

[bbishop]

 

Photo 4 - yes, I have read that too but have always been a bit sceptical as surely a wagon's direction of travel could easily change en route.

 

Photo 6 - the first two are carrying A  type containers with wagon sheets over the top.  The 5th seems to be a pre-Grouping CCT of some kind.

 

4. Container in an open wagon.  Presumably baulks of timber are involved.

 

6. Container in a LOWFIT.  Naughty, it would be lettered that containers were prohibited.

 

Bill

[Barry Ten]

Personally I'd say this one was;

 

http://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/general-merchandise-wagon-kits

 

Mike.

 

Who just builds one Blue Spot van, though? 38 pounds is quite steep if you're considering multiple vehicles. I wouldn't

object to paying that much for a guard's van or an interesting one-off but not for a batch build. The Parkside kit is one

of their best models, in my view. I musty have built half a dozen or so and I don't even model Gresley's Wonderful Railway.

[The Fatadder]

Over the past couple of weeks I have been working hard to try and finish off the first batch of coaches for Brent, 

dThis comprises a mixture of complete metal kits from Comet for an A20 first and H26 diner, and brass sides on plastic for a full set of Centenaries 

 

Having sprayed them into GWR chocolate and cream, painted all the droplights, a weathered grey roof and a dirty underframe, I finally got round to lining them using the HMRS GWR coach lining set.  The first couple (A20 and a Centenary Third) went well, however the next two ended up like the below photo with a random shininess around elements of the line.  

 

If you run your finger over it, the transfer feels smooth (certainly it feels like it is fully touching the side).

 

I am interested to know what I have done wrong, and more importantly what I can do to fix it (and avoid a repeat when I get hold of another pack of transfers to do the next batch.

 

 

Definitely buying into the "Layout Coach" concept, with a few end details omitted and for the foreseeable the coach only lined on the visible side.

 

Thanks 

Rich

[Tony Wright]

4. Container in an open wagon.  Presumably baulks of timber are involved.

 

6. Container in a LOWFIT.  Naughty, it would be lettered that containers were prohibited.

 

Bill

Thanks Bill,

 

It just goes to show.................................

[PMP]

As with any range of kits there can be significant variation in quality, early Airfix mouldings are still in their range which compared to their contemporary releases would be considered poor quality. Much the same can be said for the Parkside range, early kits whilst good for the time they were introduced are a poorer quality than the current releases. The same for Cambrian kits too and I wonder if the new release slaters 4mm kits have had any improvements made? I suspect not, but they are of a good standard anyway. As with loco and coach kits it’s what the modeller makes of them that makes the difference. This LNER grain is from Parkside and I don’t think in the current range under Peco. One of the most challenging wagon kits I’ve built ( times three of them), but after the effort they hold their own. It’s not one I’d recommend to a beginner though.

 

On the other hand, this Parkside kit, a recent one, would be an excellent starter for ten

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

In part they do. But perhaps not to the detail of a modern aircraft kit. I appreciate that detail can be added as demostrated here. It would be helpful for some if the detail was described and step by step instructions provided.

I had in mind the Slaters 4mm carriage kits in particular. Although it is some years since I built one of their MR six wheel coaches it was, IIRC, a cut above most of the other kits. I believe the same also applied to their GWR carriages.

 

Should we deduce anything from the fact that these are Slaters kits are no longer available in 4mm (as far as I know) unlike the 7mm versions. Other than the Coopercraft saga, the most likely reason would be insufficient demand and higher pricing for a more detailed, comprehensive kit in a hobby where 4mm RTR product pricing sets the levels for most buyers.

 

The wide variety of prototypes available and modellers partisan preferences effectively limits the sales prospects for specific kits. It isn't like the RTR loco sector where a new model often creates a lemming like rush to the online ordering site. In a loco centric hobby as this is, then carriages and wagons are something of a necessary evil for many.

[Tony Wright]

Who just builds one Blue Spot van, though? 38 pounds is quite steep if you're considering multiple vehicles. I wouldn't

object to paying that much for a guard's van or an interesting one-off but not for a batch build. The Parkside kit is one

of their best models, in my view. I musty have built half a dozen or so and I don't even model Gresley's Wonderful Railway.

I agree Al,

 

I have 26 Parkside long-wheelbase fish vans in a train. All built/painted/weathered for me by a friend. I bought the kits and handed them over to him. 26 x 38 quid seems rather a lot to pay! 

[MarkC]

I can only agree about the Slaters 4mm Midland carriages - gorgeous models.

 

Regarding Kitmaster carriages - is there still much of a demand for them? I have a feeling that I have a big box of unbuilt kits that I acquired several years ago, for a Club project that sadly never materialised

[jwealleans]

Some lovely pictures of goods trains there, Tony. That shot with the WD seems to me an elegant solution to what someone pointed out would be the issue with overhanging loads if the train reversed. I think those wagons are all for the same destination and they've been loaded as a self-contained set of three, the middle one actine as barrier wagon for the outer two.

 

The comment about bogie wagons was actually referring to a bogie CCT and came from Stationmaster Mike, so I'd take it seriously. It's not a regulation I've heard before, though. A bogie bolster as here would be just another wagon.

 

The B1 train shows how filthy wagons could get - I thought those were black Class B wagons, but there's what looks like a clean silver Class A towards the back and something in the back of my mind says two barrier wagons were needed for Class A loads. Is the whole train made up of Class As?

 

The K3 has two containers sheeted (leaky roofs?) including one roped into a High. I think the 6 wheel CCT is an LMS constituent, maybe CR or an LMS build. Look at the splayed sides on the steel high behind it. Some of the ex-LMS vans Andrew was referring to back upthread as well - you can see the flatter roof profile.

 

The leading wagon on the V2 train shows no sign of the container being roped, despite being a faster working - presumably it couldn't move much if at all.

[Denbridge]

I had in mind the Slaters 4mm carriage kits in particular. Although it is some years since I built one of their MR six wheel coaches it was, IIRC, a cut above most of the other kits. I believe the same also applied to their GWR carriages.

Should we deduce anything from the fact that these are Slaters kits are no longer available in 4mm (as far as I know) unlike the 7mm versions. Other than the Coopercraft saga, the most likely reason would be insufficient demand and higher pricing for a more detailed, comprehensive kit in a hobby where 4mm RTR product pricing sets the levels for most buyers.

The wide variety of prototypes available and modellers partisan preferences effectively limits the sales prospects for specific kits. It isn't like the RTR loco sector where a new model often creates a lemming like rush to the online ordering site. In a loco centric hobby as this is, then carriages and wagons are something of a necessary evil for many.

Slaters have retrieved the 4mm tooling from the debacle that is cooper craft. The 4mm kits will be re-introduce over time once they've sorted the mess out.