Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

You would be lucky to find the lifting link modeled as a separate item on most representations of 4mm valve gear, usually it is produced as a simple extension of the radius rod, thus it is in a straight line. I like to have my locomotives notched up but still in forward gear so that the lifting link is at an angle.

 

The attachment point for the lifting link wasn't always to the rear of the expansion link, The Thompson A2's had an arrangement were by the lifting link passed through the expansion link, attaching to the radius rod forwards of the expansion link. The BR standards had a similar arrangement, though it went up and over the top. Watching the little lifting link wiggle back and forth is poetry in motion on a big 9F.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Headstock

[ecgtheow]

 

I've got to say, like Tony does, those Thompson pacifics, they were an everyday sight on the ECML. As such, I like them, and they add variety. An ECML with only A4s in sight, would be like today's railway with HSTs or 91s. And, to be honest, some of them have a certain "super-pacific" feel to me anyway. I don't have an opinion on either Gresley or Thompson, or Peppercorn either come to that. They were just part of my youth, from a magnificent scene never to be witnessed again. How I would like a Tardis to return me to Offord or Abotts Ripton  to once agin see those namers roll past.

Seasons greetings to everyone.

 

Stewart

 

All the chat about the relative performance of ECML pacifica has encouraged me to write about the the New York Central J3a Dreyfus Hudsons. Though they were clearly bigger then the UK pacifics, their performance was remarkable for 1938. Their maximum tractive effort was nearly 54,000 lb & they produced 4,700 hp at 77 mph allowing them to haul the 20th Century Limited with up to 17 coaches the 961 miles between New York & Chicago in 16 hr with an average speed of 60.1 mph including 6 intermediate stops. They had roller bearings on all axles & the last 5 had roller bearings on their connecting & coupling rods as well. In case they are not familiar to some here is a photo.

[micklner]

A question on this comment, Tony: is this because the throw of the driving wheel is greater than the run of the crosshead? i.e. the driver's throw is not quite prototypical/overscale?

 

Cheers

 

Scott

 

I agree ,something amiss somewhere, Cylinders out of position?.I have never seen a elongated hole to that extreme size/shape needed on a Connecting Rod.

I have built one Wills W1/A4 chassis and it worked fine with a normal clearance hole for the crankpin and a easy build as well.

 

I don't remember the one I built having lost wax parts . Perhaps the lost wax parts are causing the problem being too thick/deep? I cant look at the A4 chassis I made, as it was sold on a while ago.

Edited December 28, 2016 by micklner

[Blandford1969]

SE Finecast A4 08.jpg

 

If one models locos with outside motion, then stuff like this has to be done. 

 

Two hours' work resulted in the nearer bits and pieces for the LH side of the A4. Note the elongation in the big end. Anathema if the connecting rod actually did the driving, other than the other way round, but necessary otherwise the crosshead jams when fully forwards. Just one of the necessary dodges for getting outside motion to work smoothly with no tight spots. 

Tony,

Thanks for the photos on the A4 connecting rod. I could never work out why the chassis I built did not want to work. I'll be going back to that now and getting it running.

Best wishes for 2017 and lots more interesting reading

Duncan

[Corbs]

Good evening Tony. I was inspired by Tom's video of your Little Bytham layout posted a couple of pages ago to have a go at doing a video sky replacement on a clip. Here is the result, I hope you like it (and I hope Tom doesn't mind me 'borrowing' the clip for this purpose):

 

 

I've posted this only as a unlisted link (not viewable for anyone who doesn't have the link) as it uses Tom's video and another youtube user's audio, it's just for fun on RMWeb.

 

At the end of the edited clip I've faded to the original to show the difference. I took the background from a google streetview image of Little Bytham, although I may not have the orientation right. You may not be able to tell but the clouds drift a bit (I was quite chuffed at getting this to work without losing the telegraph pole). I added more foliage in on the right hand side as it was quite difficult to mask the model trees, easier to take them out and add them back in, so to speak.

 

Edit: I should probably add there are a few rough bits on it where the masking isn't great, but overall I hope it's ok.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Corbs

[Barry Ten]

Good evening Tony. I was inspired by Tom's video of your Little Bytham layout posted a couple of pages ago to have a go at doing a video sky replacement on a clip. Here is the result, I hope you like it (and I hope Tom doesn't mind me 'borrowing' the clip for this purpose):

 

 

 

That's phenomenal! I've rarely if ever seen a more instantly convincing video scene.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

[Mallard60022]

NYC Dreyfus Hudson 4.jpgNYC Dreyfus Hudson 4.jpg

 

All the chat about the relative performance of ECML pacifica has encouraged me to write about the the New York Central J3a Dreyfus Hudsons. Though they were clearly bigger then the UK pacifics, their performance was remarkable for 1938. Their maximum tractive effort was nearly 54,000 lb & they produced 4,700 hp at 77 mph allowing them to haul the 20th Century Limited with up to 17 coaches the 961 miles between New York & Chicago in 16 hr with an average speed of 60.1 mph including 6 intermediate stops. They had roller bearings on all axles & the last 5 had roller bearings on their connecting & coupling rods as well. In case they are not familiar to some here is a photo.

Blimey that's a huge TE and h.p. for a 4.6.4. Most of our Pacifics were 'light' except for those we know that were 'beasts' such ast the Corries and the big A2s. Surely it could not just have been the Hudson wheel arrangement that added that ability to produce such haulage power? The Whale's (60700) certainly didn't seem to benefit particularly from the 4.6.4 arrangement......or did it?

Quite an interesting looking loco as well and just look at that tender.

Phil

Edited December 28, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony and best wishes for the season, to you and all RMWebbers.

 

Looking at your photo of the elongated hole in the connecting rod and also at the assembled valve gear makes me wonder if something is slightly amiss with one or more of the components. When the crankpin is at the rear of the loco, the crosshead should be right at the back of the slidebar, which is as it is shown in the photo of the valve gear on its own. When it is assembled onto the loco, there seems to be a gap between the rear of the crosshead and the back of the slidebar.

 

Maybe the connecting rod is too long, or the cylinders too far back, or indeed the wheels to far forward, or a combination of those factors. The easiest to fix on a model would probably be to slightly shorten the connecting rod (or fit an alternative sightly shorter one if there is one available. Apart from doing away with the need to make the hole bigger, it would improve the appearance generally as by moving the crosshead slightly further back, you also alter the relationship it has with the union link and combination lever.

 

It was one of Malcolm's pet subjects and we spent many a happy hour poring over photos and drawings when he was working on some of his express locos. I am not telling tales by saying that some of his locos never quite got fettled properly in the running quality but he certainly taught me much about valve gear on LNER locos and the relationship between the components.

 

Nowadays, I can look at a model loco and quickly decide whether the valve gear looks right or not. One failing that I see many times is that on many classes of  loco modelled in mid gear, the lifting arm (the crank that is attached to the reversing lever behind the expansion link) should be in alignment with the radius rod to form a straight line. In many models I have seen it pointing up or down. It didn't bother me at all until I was educated. Now it stands out like a sore thumb.

 

All the best for the new year and I hope this thread will continue to educate and inspire.

 

Tony Gee

Many thanks Tony,

 

My salutations to you, too, and all the other contributors.

 

In answer to some of the comments on the A4 chassis, I'll try and explain. 

 

There is something slightly amiss with the relationship of some of the components. On checking with the Isinglass drawing, it looks like the connecting rod is the right length. So? It could be that the cylinders are a twitch too far back and/or the lost wax slidebars/crossheads are a bit 'chunky' at their front ends, resulting in the front of the crosshead clouting the front of the slidebar when it's fully forward.

 

Why can't I remember things I've done before? I've examined a couple of other Finecast A4s I've built and what I did with those was cut the big end off, and then overlap it on the 'rod, soldering it securely back; effectively shortening the connecting rod. That worked. This way works as well, but it's not so simple. It might be that the slidebars are a bit too long as well, because, without filing a bit off their back end, they clout the leading crank pin (and this is in OO!). 

 

Whatever, the end result, after a day of profanity, is a very powerful and sweet-running A4. These things are sent to try us, of course, but there must be a few SE Finecast A4s (and A3s) with potential motion problems. That said, anyone with reasonable experience should be able to circumvent them. It's not as if such valve gear issues are unique to SEF's kits. On some others, I've had to chuck away large numbers of the motion bits and replace them (in some cases with SE Finecast frets) because the originals have been useless. 

 

I hope the following pictures will be of further use to those building their SEF A4s. 

 

 

I always split the motion into two halves when erecting it. It's soldered in place. However, should the need ever arise to remove the motion (very rare in my experience), the reintroduction of the iron (after the eccentric crank and big end have been disconnected) will release the cylinders, then the motion-support bracket. 

 

 

The filing off the back end of the slidebars is evident here.

 

 

 

The complete chassis. The crank on the LH rear crank pin is to simulate the drive to the speedo (it's not actually attached) and I've made-up a representation of the lubricator drive. Again, this isn't fixed to the body (unlike Hornby's - what a ridiculous fag to have to dismantle the lubricator drive to get the body off!). I've arranged the motion to be in (just about) forward gear. 

 

 

Even though I have a ruling minimum radius of 3' on the running lines, I still had to carve chunks out of the backs of the cylinders. The backs of those on the insulated side were smeared with Araldite, made microns thick by applying my wife's hair-dryer as the epoxy cured. Heating it makes it very runny, and also shortens the curing time. When hard, there are no chances of stray shorts on the bogie wheels. 

 

 

All now as it should be, I hope. The Cartazzi truck as supplied is hopeless - just the same as RTR Pacifics used to be; a useless, sloppy truck, designed, believe it or not, to pull the tender as well! I fixed the Cartazzi frames solid, making a simple sub-truck from what was left, and used a piece of small-bore brass tubing to carry the axle, soldered to the white metal truck. Additions worth making are the footplate supports adjacent to the firebox bottom. 

 

 

Ready to be painted in Garter Blue. I've brush-painted the wheels, though they'll need touching-up after being scuffed a bit in the process of fixing on the gear. The speedo was made from a wire-wound vacuum pipe, with a brass washer soldered to its end. 

 

When I look at the layouts populated now with so many RTR A4s (and not just A4s), I have to admit to thinking, don't the owners have an easy time now? In OO before Hornby's A4 came along, the alternatives were Bachmann (still with its awful split chassis at the time - at least it's now got a proper one), Trix, Hornby-Dublo/Wrenn or kit/scratch-build. I've fitted proper chassis beneath the Trix/Bachmann bodies in the past (as Roy Jackson has) and the results are quite passable. 

 

 

 

Here are a couple of them, naturally aided by having Ian Rathbone paint them. Obviously, the Bachmann tenders were not used. 

 

Why do I still prefer to build my own locos then, rather than just alter/improve/detail/modify RTR ones? After over a day of getting the SE Finecast A4 right, I wonder. However, when the layout this is destined for is exhibited and a heavy train is expected to be pulled up its steep gradient, the layout builder isn't going to be very pleased to be told 'Sorry, though the SIR NIGEL GRESLEY I've provided looks very pretty, cost a lot less and didn't take me long to do, I'm afraid it won't pull your train'. I suppose, as always, it comes back to my personal feelings on making things, which are already well-known. 

 

I have no idea what the haulage-capacity of Dapol's (£400.00 - is that the right price?) A4 is. Does anyone know, please?

 

I hope (mainly through the contributions of other modellers) this thread continues to be useful and even 'inspirational' (not my personal description) in the coming New Year. I'm astonished how popular it is, and how many look at it and contribute to it. My most grateful thanks.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited, because, as usual, I cocked up the picture arrangements. They should just about make sense, though. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Good evening Tony. I was inspired by Tom's video of your Little Bytham layout posted a couple of pages ago to have a go at doing a video sky replacement on a clip. Here is the result, I hope you like it (and I hope Tom doesn't mind me 'borrowing' the clip for this purpose):

 

 

I've posted this only as a unlisted link (not viewable for anyone who doesn't have the link) as it uses Tom's video and another youtube user's audio, it's just for fun on RMWeb.

 

At the end of the edited clip I've faded to the original to show the difference. I took the background from a google streetview image of Little Bytham, although I may not have the orientation right. You may not be able to tell but the clouds drift a bit (I was quite chuffed at getting this to work without losing the telegraph pole). I added more foliage in on the right hand side as it was quite difficult to mask the model trees, easier to take them out and add them back in, so to speak.

 

Edit: I should probably add there are a few rough bits on it where the masking isn't great, but overall I hope it's ok.

Dear Corbs,

 

What a remarkable job you've done. Thank you ever so much. 

 

Do you fancy working on some others? 

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony.

[Corbs]

Thanks Tony, I'm glad you like it! I will fire over a private message regarding doing more.

[micklner]

Tony

       What version is the A4 going to be ? The nearside Speedo wasn't fitted until 1959 by BR , you mention Garter Blue as the livery plus the Red wheels hence the question.

 

Looking at the new photos of the valve gear to me the "gland" or whatever the part is called where the the piston rod enters the cylinder looks much too deep?hence the rod hitting  on the forward motion. I am 90% sure the one I made never had lost wax parts, I have fond memories of trying to straighten a dire lost wax casting of the slide bar on a Millholme A2/3 . Thats has been sold as well !!.

 

Mick

[glo41f]

That video with the sound and sky was really the top of the tree. I do not know how much work was involved but golly the result is really impressive. It is difficult to tell that it is a model and certainly the scale is not apparent either. Brilliant job!  It almost makes me want to go back to 4mm in my garage as I could really lose myself in a miniature world such as that.

 

Tony you always mention Mr Rathbone's paint work and I agree that he is a master at the art. I can recall in days of yore staring at models on display in Central Hall and wondering how the paint finish was so good. (This was in the days of Airfix paints in the small glass bottles!) I did not know anyone who could get a finish like that and most of the models that I saw at local level were very blobby and uneven in texture. It was all we had at the time. Now the models you show are finished to such a high standard. How things have come on.On the matter of A4s, I thought the Trix effort was pretty good and could be made better. The running gear was awful though. I spent hours messing about with a Hornby body trying to make it better following an article in one of the Model Railway Constructor annuals. It meant some serious cutting and filling and did not deal with the flat profile along the top of the boiler. The result was better that the plain HD version though.

 

I wonder what the Heljan models for Hattons will turn out like?

 

Every good wish to all contributors here. A happy and healthy New Year.

 

Regards

 

Martin Long

[Mallard60022]

Good evening Tony. I was inspired by Tom's video of your Little Bytham layout posted a couple of pages ago to have a go at doing a video sky replacement on a clip. Here is the result, I hope you like it (and I hope Tom doesn't mind me 'borrowing' the clip for this purpose):

 

 

I've posted this only as a unlisted link (not viewable for anyone who doesn't have the link) as it uses Tom's video and another youtube user's audio, it's just for fun on RMWeb.

 

At the end of the edited clip I've faded to the original to show the difference. I took the background from a google streetview image of Little Bytham, although I may not have the orientation right. You may not be able to tell but the clouds drift a bit (I was quite chuffed at getting this to work without losing the telegraph pole). I added more foliage in on the right hand side as it was quite difficult to mask the model trees, easier to take them out and add them back in, so to speak.

 

Edit: I should probably add there are a few rough bits on it where the masking isn't great, but overall I hope it's ok.

That short sound tracked piece absolutely made my day. The approaching Pacific sound was particularly good. In fact it is so good I would pay to have some Bulleid Pacific tracks such as that to present on a short DVD piece for my layout, when it gets sorted. The haunting sound of a BP whistle, especially if it has Doppler effect like that on an old Transacord record I have tucked away  and the visual of a racing Atlantic Coast Express, could be the exit presentation at my 'final departure do'.  

Thank you Corbs.

Phil

[Headstock]

Blimey that's a huge TE and h.p. for a 4.6.4. Most of our Pacifics were 'light' except for those we know that were 'beasts' such ast the Corries and the big A2s. Surely it could not just have been the Hudson wheel arrangement that added that ability to produce such haulage power? The Whale's (60700) certainly didn't seem to benefit particularly from the 4.6.4 arrangement......or did it?

Quite an interesting looking loco as well and just look at that tender.

Phil

 

Evening Phil,

 

the J3a's had 22 1/2 " cylinders, an 82' square grate area and a boiler pressure of 265 psi, however, they were so poor at starting trains that they had a booster engine fitted to the rear truck. It was this that accounted for the high tractive effort figure, once on the move the booster was uncoupled. The loco alone could manage about 41,000 lbs of starting tractive effort, they were highly effective at speed on flat track but not so good on gradients or starting from a dead stop.

 

Incidentally, the performance of the W1 was deliberately restricted so that it could provide a direct comparison with the original class A1. The trials run between Leeds and Hull with the dynamometer car and counter pressure locomotive 761 revealed a locomotive of massive potential power. It is to the LNER's eternal shame that they hid the balls up they made in the construction of this locomotive. A revelation that as only recently come to light and makes most of the RCTS green book information of the locomotive null and void. 

[Headstock]

As a final note, the rebuilt W1 was sent up to Scotland to see if a six coupled loco with a fifty-foot grate could work the same diagrams as the P2'S, it did this with aplomb, perhaps ceiling the mikado's fate.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

       What version is the A4 going to be ? The nearside Speedo wasn't fitted until 1959 by BR , you mention Garter Blue as the livery plus the Red wheels hence the question.

 

Looking at the new photos of the valve gear to me the "gland" or whatever the part is called where the the piston rod enters the cylinder looks much too deep?hence the rod hitting  on the forward motion. I am 90% sure the one I made never had lost wax parts, I have fond memories of trying to straighten a dire lost wax casting of the slide bar on a Millholme A2/3 . Thats has been sold as well !!.

 

Mick

Mick,

 

It's going to be SIR NIGEL GRESLEY as she (he?) was first preserved in 1967; that is Garter Blue, transfer numbers/letters, red wheels, red-backed nameplate, valances still removed and the speedo present. 

 

You could well be right about the 'gland' sticking out too far backwards. 

 

You're a better man than I if you managed to use the the Millholme slidebar/crosshead castings. Mine looked like mangled string, only a lot harder. Too hard for me!

 

Looking back at some of my statements, I have no wish to appear too critical of any loco kit parts. They are what they are, and, in most cases, probably always will be. Having built so many, it's second-nature to me now to usually be able to predict what might need altering before it causes a problem. Though the SEF slidebars and crossheads are a bit of a fiddle, when made they're much more substantial and 'heavy-looking' than the puny, stamped components which constitute some RTR locos' motion these days. 

 

Regards and thanks,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tony Wright

[richard i]

I hope (mainly through the contributions of other modellers) this thread continues to be useful and even 'inspirational' (not my personal description) in the coming New Year. I'm astonished how popular it is, and how many look at it and contribute to it. My most grateful thanks.

 

The thread will shortly hit 1 million views I wonder if RM web can cope or if like an odometer it will cycle back to zero. Has any other thread topped the seven figures Mark yet?

[jrg1]

Evening Phil,

 

the J3a's had 22 1/2 " cylinders, an 82' square grate area and a boiler pressure of 265 psi, however, they were so poor at starting trains that they had a booster engine fitted to the rear truck. It was this that accounted for the high tractive effort figure, once on the move the booster was uncoupled. The loco alone could manage about 41,000 lbs of starting tractive effort, they were highly effective at speed on flat track but not so good on gradients or starting from a dead stop.

 

Incidentally, the performance of the W1 was deliberately restricted so that it could provide a direct comparison with the original class A1. The trials run between Leeds and Hull with the dynamometer car and counter pressure locomotive 761 revealed a locomotive of massive potential power. It is to the LNER's eternal shame that they hid the balls up they made in the construction of this locomotive. A revelation that as only recently come to light and makes most of the RCTS green book information of the locomotive null and void. 

What was the balls up?

[Focalplane]

Regarding the Hudson wheel arrangement, the question is surely whether or not 6 drivers could lay down the power?

 

Over on the West Side of America the 4-8-4 arrangement suggests that this was the way to go. Two famous heritage locos remain in regular service, the UP 3985 and the SP 4449. I have had the pleasure of riding behind 3985 with at least 17 on at 62 mph with one cylinder coasting due to a "problem" that was solved overnight by an oilfield welding company in Houston. Videos of the GS4 4449 running excursions at similar speeds are available on line, just search. When in service the GS4s pulled the Daylight from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than 12 hours including some heavy (assisted) gradients.

 

The Northerns were, in many ways, the ultimate North American steam locomotive. But you also have to admire the NYC Hudsons for what they could do day after day.

 

Incidentally, one 20th Century Limited left Chicago with only four passengers, proving that the statistical gaussian distribution curve really does exist.

 

Edit at 3 am. The UP Northern is, of course 844, 3985 being the Challenger. A senile moment perhaos when a long way from my library. The Challenger 4-6-6-4 could put down even more piwer and go fast enough to pull passenger trains across hilly terrains.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Focalplane

[Headstock]

What was the balls up?

 

In layman's terms, Darlington works decided to ignore the drawings. They decided to pipe up the manifold in such a manner that if any of the auxiliary equipment was operated the boiler pressure was seriously compromised. If boiler pressure was maintained then the auxiliary equipment would fail. The auxiliary manufacturers had an inkling about what the problem was but seemed reluctant to inform the LNER big wigs of what was a rather embarrassing schoolboy error on their part. In the meantime, the running department continued hit various bits of equipment with hammers and the manufacturers continued to replace them.

 

Many experiments were carried out to make the locomotive steam, mainly with drafting and blastpipe experiments. By the time that a red-faced LNER finally worked out that the manifold was strangling the locomotive, time had moved on. The locomotive as a test bed comparison with class A1 was now redundant, he super pacific's and then the A4's had far surpassed the original locomotives. The corrected locomotive was finally given the opportunity to fulfill something like its full potential with the test runs with the dynamometer car on the Leeds Hull runs. The results were very impressive and suggested that the locomotive could have reached just under 4000 IHP at 90% cut off. Sadly, just as the engine was at a last in a condition that was something like 'fit for purpose' the decision was being tacken to rebuild the locomotive. 

[coachmann]

That video with the sound and sky was really the top of the tree. I do not know how much work was involved but golly the result is really impressive. It is difficult to tell that it is a model and certainly the scale is not apparent either. Brilliant job!  It almost makes me want to go back to 4mm in my garage as I could really lose myself in a miniature world such as that.

 

Tony you always mention Mr Rathbone's paint work and I agree that he is a master at the art. I can recall in days of yore staring at models on display in Central Hall and wondering how the paint finish was so good. (This was in the days of Airfix paints in the small glass bottles!) I did not know anyone who could get a finish like that and most of the models that I saw at local level were very blobby and uneven in texture. It was all we had at the time. Now the models you show are finished to such a high standard. How things have come on.

Really? 

Edited December 28, 2016 by coachmann

[Headstock]

Regarding the Hudson wheel arrangement, the question is surely whether or not 6 drivers could lay down the power?

 

Over on the West Side of America the 4-8-4 arrangement suggests that this was the way to go. Two famous heritage locos remain in regular service, the UP 3985 and the SP 4449. I have had the pleasure of riding behind 4985 with at least 17 on at 62 mph with one cylinder coasting due to a "problem" that was solved overnight by an oilfield welding company in Houston. Videos of the GS4 4449 running excursions at similar speeds are available on line, just search. When in service the GS4s pulled the Daylight from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than 12 hours including some heavy (assisted) gradients.

 

The Northerns were, in many ways, the ultimate North American steam locomotive. But you also have to admire the NYC Hudsons for what they could do day after day.

 

Incidentally, one 20th Century Limited left Chicago with only four passengers, proving that the statistical gaussian distribution curve really does exist.

 

Don't forget UP 844, I love that loco.

[Headstock]

Regarding the Hudson wheel arrangement, the question is surely whether or not 6 drivers could lay down the power?

 

 

That really is the question, apparently, the rebuilt W1 could in a way that the rebuilds into A2/2 could not. A longer coupled wheelbase on the W1 perhaps?

[t-b-g]

I am sorry to be picking nits again but isn't the valve gear on that otherwise lovely A4 suffering from a backwards facing expansion link?

 

It is easily done. I have done it myself in the final assembly, by mixing the LH and RH components. It was one of those "Oh flipping heck" (feel free to insert other phrases) moments when I spotted it.

[43078shildoncountydurham]

Tony,

 

"I hope (mainly through the contributions of other modellers) this thread continues to be useful and even 'inspirational' (not my personal description) in the coming New Year. I'm astonished how popular it is, and how many look at it and contribute to it. My most grateful thanks."

 

I think it's because you are a top bloke and always willing to help us no matter how daft our question's are....

 

Take care you and your good lady

 

Regards

 

Craig