Wright writes.....

[chris p bacon]

I would have thought that kit development took far more time and resources.  Once production is under way, things are relatively more easy.

If a manufacturer is going into production, they should look at running the commercial side, or co-opt someone to do this.  I find trying to chase down and order products unecessarily tedious and time-consuming.  If the punters are willing to buy, let's see decent product back up in the sales department.

 

D&S was one man designing etched kits and white metal wagons and always run as a husband and wife team for packing and despatch, Dan is now on his own and continues to produce etches when he has orders for them, I think he deserves a retirement that so many others enjoy, and I'm grateful that he still produces what he does.

 

If you find it tedious, then do what I do and etch and cast your own parts.

[The Blue Streak]

 

It's running on a set of borrowed LNER carriages, in anticipation of LBs journey back next year. I weathered the leading one for Ian Wilson (it's Hornby). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

My goodness,hasn't the weathering made all the difference to that  "discount furniture store knotty pine" finish as seen on the latest batches of Hornby Teaks.

 

I do like the kitbuilt D9 Tony, but the difference in that coach is astounding.

 

Regards Ted

Edited July 13, 2017 by The Blue Streak

[t-b-g]

As soon as I see the name "McGowan" my heart sinks!

 

I started building a GCR Atlantic many years ago and rapidly came to the conclusion that it was up there with the worst kits ever produced.

 

A new pair of frames, a new bogie, a new footplate, a new cab and a new tender were needed to make it look anything like what it was supposed to be. I used their boiler and firebox but after soldering them all together I had to file off all their detail and then shorten the assembly by 2mm and lower it by the same amount.

 

I lost the will to carry on and it never did get finished. Funnily enough, the chimney, which so many kits get wrong, was spot on!

 

It appears that the D9 kit might be a bit better but to a true GCR enthusiast, there are a few things that are just not quite right. The splashers are one of the most attractive features of the D9 and on the kit, the lovely curve doesn't go down to the footplate enough between the wheels and the beading on the cab should carry on curving and not straighten towards the back. The coupling rod pin cut out should be at the centre of the arc of the rear beading and in the kit it clearly isn't, which just spoils the elegant lines and proportions for me. The cab roof is poor too. There should be an angle on the edge with the thin part to the outside, so the edge of the cab roof should be thin rather than thick.

 

I think, as always, it is a balancing act between work involved and final results. The choice between putting a kit together quickly and getting the loco running, rather than spending many a long hour altering bits or replacing them for what some may regard as a tiny improvement.

 

The D9, in original form, was one of the best proportioned locos ever to go on the rails in this country. With many locos, I can look at them and think "If that bit was a bit longer or shorter, it would look better". With the D9, I cannot think of anything I would change. They were less well proportioned after rebuilding with bigger boilers but still fine looking locos. One did get rebuilt again with a smaller boiler later in life.

 

I look forward to seeing the finished loco, although I suspect that I am hoping for too much if I want to see it in full magnificent GCR livery rather than 1930s black.

Edited July 13, 2017 by t-b-g

[pom-pom]

That's the boiler diameter, what we see is the cladding - the diameter given on the GA I have is 5'3 1/2".

 

Aha, yes good point there. I've not seen a drawing, only gleaned information from the literature in which the thickness of the cladding is quite probably omitted from quoted diameters. However, and being rather pedantic, that still leaves an oversize diameter for the McGowan boiler, albeit only by about 2mm now (i.e., 23mm equates to 5' 9")... barely noticeable.

[Tony Wright]

Much obliged Tony for the insight into your build. It just goes to show that the McGowan kit does actually go together well in the right skilled hands. I'm most interested in your approach to the chassis vis a vis the bogie attachment and its springing. I am still battling with an old DJH D6 which was designed to pivot the bogie on a bolt mounted vertically under the smokebox but your approach seems emminently more satisfactory.

 

It's also interesting to learn of your findings on the dimensions on the etched splasher overlay. Talking of dimensions, the boiler diameter discrepancy I noted was that ultimately all D9s were fitted with 5' 0" diameter boilers which equates to 20mm in 4mm/ft scale. The McGowan boiler is approximately 23mm in diameter which is of course a scale 9" oversize. However, upon re-examination of the boiler castings the section is nowhere near as oval as I thought it was.

 

Drawings-wise, the only 4mm/ft scale I am aware of is the one published in the September 1963 MRN which I don't believe I have seen. It would be interesting to know if this is accurate.

 

Irrespective of these issues, your build is coming on nicely and is certainly inspirational, thanks again - can't wait to see it finished.

 

Nick

Thanks Nick,

 

I've just checked the diameter of the smokebox on the McGowan D9, and it comes out at 23mm. Since the smokebox is a greater diameter than the boiler, then that's right, I assume? 

 

Having spent the morning thus far in dealing with post and e-mails, I'm just about to resume construction of the D9. I'll let you know how it progresses. 

[pom-pom]

As soon as I see the name "McGowan" my heart sinks!

 

I started building a GCR Atlantic many years ago and rapidly came to the conclusion that it was up there with the worst kits ever produced.

 

A new pair of frames, a new bogie, a new footplate, a new cab and a new tender were needed to make it look anything like what it was supposed to be. I used their boiler and firebox but after soldering them all together I had to file off all their detail and then shorten the assembly by 2mm and lower it by the same amount.

 

I lost the will to carry on and it never did get finished. Funnily enough, the chimney, which so many kits get wrong, was spot on!

 

It appears that the D9 kit might be a bit better but to a true GCR enthusiast, there are a few things that are just not quite right. The splashers are one of the most attractive features of the D9 and on the kit, the lovely curve doesn't go down to the footplate enough between the wheels and the beading on the cab should carry on curving and not straighten towards the back. The coupling rod pin cut out should be at the centre of the arc of the rear beading and in the kit it clearly isn't, which just spoils the elegant lines and proportions for me. The cab roof is poor too. There should be an angle on the edge with the thin part to the outside, so the edge of the cab roof should be thin rather than thick.

 

I think, as always, it is a balancing act between work involved and final results. The choice between putting a kit together quickly and getting the loco running, rather than spending many a long hour altering bits or replacing them for what some may regard as a tiny improvement.

 

The D9, in original form, was one of the best proportioned locos ever to go on the rails in this country. With many locos, I can look at them and think "If that bit was a bit longer or shorter, it would look better". With the D9, I cannot think of anything I would change. They were less well proportioned after rebuilding with bigger boilers but still fine looking locos. One did get rebuilt again with a smaller boiler later in life.

 

I look forward to seeing the finished loco, although I suspect that I am hoping for too much if I want to see it in full magnificent GCR livery rather than 1930s black.

 

Some would say the GCR atlantic was "one of the best proportioned locos ever" and it is a tantalist. I would venture that one way of approaching such a model would be to salvage what is useable from the McGowan kit but acquire a sacrificial Bachmann O4 for the smokebox/boiler/firebox assembly which I believe is the same. The O4's chassis might well be used as the basis for a Q4 if you have a Millholme Q4 kit lying about. The Bachmann O4 ROD tender could also be modified and assimilated into the fold.

 

This is off the top of my head so please excuse me if I've overseen any glaring dimensional errors with the above little lot!

[Tony Wright]

My goodness,hasn't the weathering made all the difference to that  "discount furniture store knotty pine" finish as seen on the latest batches of Hornby Teaks.

 

I do like the kitbuilt D9 Tony, but the difference in that coach is astounding.

 

Regards Ted

Thanks Ted,

 

My weathering is (like the rest of my modelling) 'sketch-book' in approach. In the case of the non-gangwayed Gresley, it's a wash-over with a No. 5 sable brush with little more than dirty thinners - matt brown/grey/black added. I work really rapidly (it takes about 20-30 seconds to apply to each side). Then its in with the cotton bud, taking it off windows and panels, but leaving an overall residue, particularly in corners. After that, it's weather the underframe and ends with neat matt tones of black/grey/brown, then brush-paint the roof with Humbrol 67 (let down with a dash of matt black). It does make a big difference. 

[pom-pom]

Thanks Nick,

 

I've just checked the diameter of the smokebox on the McGowan D9, and it comes out at 23mm. Since the smokebox is a greater diameter than the boiler, then that's right, I assume? 

 

Having spent the morning thus far in dealing with post and e-mails, I'm just about to resume construction of the D9. I'll let you know how it progresses. 

 

Hello Tony,

 

yes, I think with Michael's helpful alert regarding the necessity for boiler cladding thickness to be taken into consideration we are now surely approaching very near correct dimensions. I'm fascinated to see your progress, yes please.

 

As an aside, I've seen this McGowan B4 model (below) somewhere here on RMweb but can't fathom whereabouts:

 

 

I was under the impression that you had constructed this Tony? Apologies extended if incorrect. But the salient point is that with considerable will the most challenging of McGowan offerings can be built into something above and beyond presentable... inspiration and a glimmer of hope for all those peering into McGowan boxes with an air of despair!

 

Nick

[Tony Wright]

As soon as I see the name "McGowan" my heart sinks!

 

I started building a GCR Atlantic many years ago and rapidly came to the conclusion that it was up there with the worst kits ever produced.

 

A new pair of frames, a new bogie, a new footplate, a new cab and a new tender were needed to make it look anything like what it was supposed to be. I used their boiler and firebox but after soldering them all together I had to file off all their detail and then shorten the assembly by 2mm and lower it by the same amount.

 

I lost the will to carry on and it never did get finished. Funnily enough, the chimney, which so many kits get wrong, was spot on!

 

It appears that the D9 kit might be a bit better but to a true GCR enthusiast, there are a few things that are just not quite right. The splashers are one of the most attractive features of the D9 and on the kit, the lovely curve doesn't go down to the footplate enough between the wheels and the beading on the cab should carry on curving and not straighten towards the back. The coupling rod pin cut out should be at the centre of the arc of the rear beading and in the kit it clearly isn't, which just spoils the elegant lines and proportions for me. The cab roof is poor too. There should be an angle on the edge with the thin part to the outside, so the edge of the cab roof should be thin rather than thick.

 

I think, as always, it is a balancing act between work involved and final results. The choice between putting a kit together quickly and getting the loco running, rather than spending many a long hour altering bits or replacing them for what some may regard as a tiny improvement.

 

The D9, in original form, was one of the best proportioned locos ever to go on the rails in this country. With many locos, I can look at them and think "If that bit was a bit longer or shorter, it would look better". With the D9, I cannot think of anything I would change. They were less well proportioned after rebuilding with bigger boilers but still fine looking locos. One did get rebuilt again with a smaller boiler later in life.

 

I look forward to seeing the finished loco, although I suspect that I am hoping for too much if I want to see it in full magnificent GCR livery rather than 1930s black.

Your points are well-made, Tony, but, though I'm an enthusiast, I doubt if I'm as true as you (in anything). 

 

Though I hope I'm not perceived as being slap-dash, in the case of this D9, I'm building it more as a guinea pig for use in Geoff Haynes' forthcoming Crowood book on painting and lining. I'm sure the faults you list are quite true, but (being untrue) they'll be staying, and, yes, it'll be painted black when finished; in answer to another question, though I'll be doing the painting, Geoff will be lining it. 

 

It'll be finished with all those faults, but I'll have spent no more than a couple of days on it. That's not to excuse any faults, but there are more important calls on my time (finishing another book, for instance). In my defence, I runs perfectly and should look 'all right' when fully-painted, finished and weathered. That philosophy has been central to my loco/stock building over the last 40+ years. We all have different priorities and imperatives. I knew from a very early stage of my own building limitations and what I wanted to achieve. As you know, my personal modelling is entirely self-indulgent; that is building models of those big ECML locos (and carriages) I saw as a trainspotter - lots and lots of them. To date, there are over 90 RA9 big units to call on for duty on LB, all of which (with very exceptions) I've made. Perhaps not made to your standards of accuracy, but they belt along, look the part, do everything asked of them, don't derail and run really smoothly (I'm not implying that yours don't, it's just that I've seen too many 'beautiful-looking' locos which don't run properly at all). How many smaller locos there are, I've lost count. 

 

What's also well-known is my insistence (with a few exceptions) on making the locos and carriages I need myself. Today, there's RTR excellence and a rising number of those who have locos/stock built for them. That they can achieve their aims that way is good (and the results are - and should be - very good), but that is not my way. I'm 'blind' enough to live with the faults on my 'layout locos'. 

 

Though I've no recollection of ever seeing a D9, the chances are I saw one. Early childhood recollections are of being taken for an evening walk by my Nan from her home in Bishops Street, Hoole, Chester, to Newton Lane bridge over the CLC line into Chester Northgate, some quarter of a mile away. Whether the beading was dead right, the cab roof too thick or the piercings in the splashers lined up correctly on these elderly 4-4-0s, I have no idea (would a four/five year old notice, anyway?). I just have those infant memories of dirty, small locos on light trains, though I do remember the D11s very well. 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony,

 

yes, I think with Michael's helpful alert regarding the necessity for boiler cladding thickness to be taken into consideration we are now surely approaching very near correct dimensions. I'm fascinated to see your progress, yes please.

 

As an aside, I've seen this McGowan B4 model (below) somewhere here on RMweb but can't fathom whereabouts:

 

mcgowan_b4.jpg

 

I was under the impression that you had constructed this Tony? Apologies extended if incorrect. But the salient point is that with considerable will the most challenging of McGowan offerings can be built into something above and beyond presentable... inspiration and a glimmer of hope for all those peering into McGowan boxes with an air of despair!

 

Nick

Thanks Nick,

 

Though I have built ex-GCR locos for customers, I don't remember this one (but the memory fails!). 

 

In the acceptance that I didn't build it, I have to say it looks very good. The painting would certainly not be mine. 

[Torper]

Clearly there will be no statistics, but I do wonder how many people back in the day did have a go, mucked it up, tried again with a different kit and still couldn't get it to run well and/or look right; and so at best stuck with R-T-R and at worst gave up and reverted to plastic model aircraft.

 

That certainly applies to me.  Many many years ago I tried building some DJH, Wills and MJT white metal kits.  The bodies were usually OK, the chassis invariably a disaster.  Basically i didn't know what I was doing.

 

Now, however, loco kit building is the branch of the hobby that gives me greatest satisfaction and in which i usually achieve satisfactory results, even in P4.  The main factors behind that are the purchases of an Avonside chassis jig and a GW wheelpress, and the use of High Level gear boxes.  Using these carefully (and the Avonside is not without its faults although these are fairly easlly overcome once you know what they are) it's not too hard to produce smooth running chassis.  I far prefer etched brass to white metal, so I must be a bit of a masochist because I've also gone back to some of my failed kits of years gone by (but not the MJT standard class 5 which is totally beyond redemption) and with replacement chassis have managed to get them running fairly well although an awful lot of white metal usually has to be carved away.

 

DT

[jrg1]

D&S was one man designing etched kits and white metal wagons and always run as a husband and wife team for packing and despatch, Dan is now on his own and continues to produce etches when he has orders for them, I think he deserves a retirement that so many others enjoy, and I'm grateful that he still produces what he does.

 

If you find it tedious, then do what I do and etch and cast your own parts.

Thanks for your intemperate observations-I actually do produce my own components.  I also say that if a manufacturer produces something, at least have the commercial back up to deal with customers.  A computer and pay facilities are not difficult.

If you wish to see the hobby thrive, move with the times, and enjoy the increased customer base that a decent commercial outlook produces. 

[Focalplane]

This problem of poor customer service is compounded for overseas customers.  When I worked full time I also had a sideline selling photographs to advertising agencies.  Since many of my photos were from overseas it made sense to have a PayPal account (in dollars, as it happens) to handle stock photo sales from abroad.  Setting it all up was not difficult.  Also, defining "abroad" was an interesting option for me as a lot of the time I wasn't even sure which country I was in.  But it was almost as easy selling an image from Kinshasa as from home, the difference being the slower broadband speed in some countries.

 

As to web design, one of the best ways to keep customers coming back is to offer a "latest news" section, using a blog format.  So many web pages are too static and can't justify becoming a "favourite".

[cctransuk]

This problem of poor customer service is compounded for overseas customers.  When I worked full time I also had a sideline selling photographs to advertising agencies.  Since many of my photos were from overseas it made sense to have a PayPal account (in dollars, as it happens) to handle stock photo sales from abroad.  Setting it all up was not difficult.  Also, defining "abroad" was an interesting option for me as a lot of the time I wasn't even sure which country I was in.  But it was almost as easy selling an image from Kinshasa as from home, the difference being the slower broadband speed in some countries.

 

As to web design, one of the best ways to keep customers coming back is to offer a "latest news" section, using a blog format.  So many web pages are too static and can't justify becoming a "favourite".

 

As usual, whenever this discussion comes up, there is the basic assumption that the owner of a range wishes to maximise their customer base, and attract as many sales as possible, by making their sales practices as simple as possible for the customer. Why should we assume any such thing - especially in respect of long-standing product ranges which usually have elderly, one person staffing.

 

So many of these ranges developed in the Royal Mail and cheque era - a method of trading that very much puts the proprietor in control of calls upon their time. There is an expectation nowadays that communication should be instantaneous, payment should be hands-off, and delivery should be by return-of-post.

 

Sorry, but many of the longer-standing niche traders are long past retirement age, and only continue to supply their products on a basis of minimal impact upon their time - they certainly aren't reliant on sales to provide their daily bread. This is surely better than them shutting up shop completely and withdrawing their products?

 

Those who winge about outdated communication, ordering and payment facilities should consider how badly they want a particular product - the alternative may be the response "S*d it - I can't be a*rsed with the hassle"!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Michael Edge]

Thanks Nick,

 

I've just checked the diameter of the smokebox on the McGowan D9, and it comes out at 23mm. Since the smokebox is a greater diameter than the boiler, then that's right, I assume? 

 

Having spent the morning thus far in dealing with post and e-mails, I'm just about to resume construction of the D9. I'll let you know how it progresses. 

 

Smokebox diameter isn't quoted on the GA but it is considerably larger than the boiler cladding.

[chris p bacon]

Thanks for your intemperate observations-I actually do produce my own components.  I also say that if a manufacturer produces something, at least have the commercial back up to deal with customers.  A computer and pay facilities are not difficult.

If you wish to see the hobby thrive, move with the times, and enjoy the increased customer base that a decent commercial outlook produces. 

I'm intemperate and yet you want manufacturers to work to your idea of how it should be done.  Good luck with that.

 

Surprisingly not everyone does this for commercial gain, they do it as a hobby.

 

As usual, whenever this discussion comes up, there is the basic assumption that the owner of a range wishes to maximise their customer base, and attract as many sales as possible, by making their sales practices as simple as possible for the customer. Why should we assume any such thing - especially in respect of long-standing product ranges which usually have elderly, one person staffing.

 

So many of these ranges developed in the Royal Mail and cheque era - a method of trading that very much puts the proprietor in control of calls upon their time. There is an expectation nowadays that communication should be instantaneous, payment should be hands-off, and delivery should be by return-of-post.

 

Sorry, but many of the longer-standing niche traders are long past retirement age, and only continue to supply their products on a basis of minimal impact upon their time - they certainly aren't reliant on sales to provide their daily bread. This is surely better than them shutting up shop completely and withdrawing their products?

 

Those who winge about outdated communication, ordering and payment facilities should consider how badly they want a particular product - the alternative may be the response "S*d it - I can't be a*rsed with the hassle"!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

You put it much better than myself John, I'll send you my favourite Estwing hammer so you can hit the nail again.

 

Edit, for those interested I had one of Dans lovely handwritten letters last week advising a list will be produced shortly.

Edited July 13, 2017 by chris p bacon

[t-b-g]

When Malcolm Crawley started building his superb GCR Atlantic, he was originally going to paint that black until I niggled away at him and he gave in. I used to say "When you can paint a loco like this (I would then wave a GCR livery photo under his nose) why would anybody want to paint one black?"

 

So here is a D9 on a certain old layout.

 

 

I know the tactic won't work here but you can't knock me for trying.

 

Many years ago, I used to be able to sit down and put a kit together in a couple of days. More recently, I probably spend too much time checking details and correcting the little things that are not quite right. It makes a tiny difference to the finished model but puts a huge amount of time onto the build.

 

As I have said before, we each have our different approaches and I will never be as prolific at building locos as Tony W if I live to be 150!

[Poggy1165]

Nor me. Not so much because I fuss over details, but because I am both lazy and impatient, which is a bad combination.

 

I do think the D9 is a lovely prototype. And while I would always prefer GC condition, the truth is that even if the livery is black covered in filth the fine lines of the design shine through. Being a heretic (and quite contrary to my usual arguments about locomotive beauty) I actually prefer the rebuilt condition (GC 11D, aka LNER D9 as I don't think many, if any 11Bs survived post 1923, or not for very long) which probably makes me a Bad Person. 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Poggy1165

[pom-pom]

Smokebox diameter isn't quoted on the GA but it is considerably larger than the boiler cladding.

 

There's negligible difference between the two on the McGowan D9 boiler hence Tony's measurement of the smokebox diameter being approximately equivalent to a measurement of the boiler diameter which as you can see comes out at 23.5mm, i.e., an overall scale 5' 10.5" diameter.

 

 

In reality, it's probably not going to be noticeable and we, sorry I, are delving deep into rivet-counting territory!

[teaky]

Hello Tony,

 

yes, I think with Michael's helpful alert regarding the necessity for boiler cladding thickness to be taken into consideration we are now surely approaching very near correct dimensions. I'm fascinated to see your progress, yes please.

 

As an aside, I've seen this McGowan B4 model (below) somewhere here on RMweb but can't fathom whereabouts:

 

mcgowan_b4.jpg

 

I was under the impression that you had constructed this Tony? Apologies extended if incorrect. But the salient point is that with considerable will the most challenging of McGowan offerings can be built into something above and beyond presentable... inspiration and a glimmer of hope for all those peering into McGowan boxes with an air of despair!

 

Nick

One of Graeme King's masterpieces Nick.  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97218-kit-build-2015-entry-mcgowan-great-central-immingham-class/&do=findComment&comment=1876540

[t-b-g]

Nor me. Not so much because I fuss over details, but because I am both lazy and impatient, which is a bad combination.

 

I do think the D9 is a lovely prototype. And while I would always prefer GC condition, the truth is that even if the livery is black covered in filth the fine lines of the design shine through. Being a heretic (and quite contrary to my usual arguments about locomotive beauty) I actually prefer the rebuilt condition (GC 11D, aka LNER D9 as I don't think many, if any 11Bs survived post 1923, or not for very long) which probably makes me a Bad Person.

 

Yes it does! Is there some sort of loco appreciation training course we can book you on?

 

No 110 "King George" got a smaller boiler again in 1918 so would have probably gone to the LNER in that condition. The main change that upsets the look of the loco for me is not so much the bigger boiler it is the longer firebox and shorter cab.

 

When they put the smaller boiler back on they rebuilt the cab to original form and give it the original chimney and dome too, so to all intents it was back to early condition. The books I have looked in don't say how long it ran like that but it may have been until withdrawal as no further rebuilding is mentioned.

[pom-pom]

One of Graeme King's masterpieces Nick.  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97218-kit-build-2015-entry-mcgowan-great-central-immingham-class/&do=findComment&comment=1876540

 

Thanks for that, I knew I had seen it on here somewhere.

 

And reading the text there's yet another approach to mounting the front bogie using a pin in a curved slot... perhaps this is the best approach for a locomotive with outside cylinders? I'm unsure but would welcome an education on the merits of both approaches. If I recall correctly, the new Hornby B12 has just such a pin running in a curved slot but this is of course an inside cylinder machine.

 

I do like Tony's solution on the D9 as what with the tender bearing slightly on the rear of the locomotive frame and the front being sprung slightly upwards by the bogie attachment method the inherent heavy forward weight distribution problem of a 4-4-0 is seemingly solved.

[Focalplane]

As usual, whenever this discussion comes up, there is the basic assumption that the owner of a range wishes to maximise their customer base, and attract as many sales as possible, by making their sales practices as simple as possible for the customer. Why should we assume any such thing - especially in respect of long-standing product ranges which usually have elderly, one person staffing.

 

So many of these ranges developed in the Royal Mail and cheque era - a method of trading that very much puts the proprietor in control of calls upon their time. There is an expectation nowadays that communication should be instantaneous, payment should be hands-off, and delivery should be by return-of-post.

 

Sorry, but many of the longer-standing niche traders are long past retirement age, and only continue to supply their products on a basis of minimal impact upon their time - they certainly aren't reliant on sales to provide their daily bread. This is surely better than them shutting up shop completely and withdrawing their products?

 

Those who winge about outdated communication, ordering and payment facilities should consider how badly they want a particular product - the alternative may be the response "S*d it - I can't be a*rsed with the hassle"!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Well I was past retirement age when I retired, something I now regret. Working long hours and overnight flights to and from West Africa has given me the opportunity to be a good customer with ready funds to support model suppliers. My years living in the US demonstrated that the "customer can and should be right".

 

But perhaps I expect too much? Apparently so.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Focalplane

[pom-pom]

When Malcolm Crawley started building his superb GCR Atlantic, he was originally going to paint that black until I niggled away at him and he gave in. I used to say "When you can paint a loco like this (I would then wave a GCR livery photo under his nose) why would anybody want to paint one black?"

 

So here is a D9 on a certain old layout.

 

11B.jpg

 

I know the tactic won't work here but you can't knock me for trying.

 

Many years ago, I used to be able to sit down and put a kit together in a couple of days. More recently, I probably spend too much time checking details and correcting the little things that are not quite right. It makes a tiny difference to the finished model but puts a huge amount of time onto the build.

 

As I have said before, we each have our different approaches and I will never be as prolific at building locos as Tony W if I live to be 150!

 

What an amazing view. Is this "old layout" Buckingham Central by any chance?

 

That looks to be a GCR 11B, having the original 4' 9" diameter boiler and shorter firebox.

[gr.king]

The building of that B4 pictured above was something of an epic. The McGowan kit provided a lot of what was required, but a number of parts of it demanded a lot of alteration or had to be replaced by scratchbuilt substitutes. The boiler, in two halves and including as far as I remember both the Belpaire firebox and the almost "immovably rigid" shape of the thick smokebox was a swine. As received, the two halves soldered together would have made a narrow vertical oval in section, and given the attached 'boxes I could see no hope of squeezing it to an acceptable shape, of correct size, in a vice. I put the two halves together with huge fillets of solder and epoxy in the joints to make the thing wide enough, then filed off MASSES of whitemetal top and bottom until it approached a circle in section. I never got it quite the whole way there, but nobody so far has been able to see that it isn't circular! The cab roof and top half of the cab front / spectacle plate was an appalling joke too. Had I used the as-provided lumpy bits that were cast on to the front edge of the excessively flat and wide, slab-thickness roof, to form the necessary features, the spectacles would have been ridiculously squat, slit-like features. I filed another load of metal off the bottom face of the roof until it was thin enough to bend to the correct curve, made new parts for the cab front, trimmed and chamfered the edges of the roof and put the rain strips were they should be, inboard, not right out on the edges where nearly every 4mm scale GC kit manufacturer over years has blindly put them!

I recall that none of the major components of the kit actually registered with one another in any obviously "correct" or "intended" way either. It was a case of having to spend a lot of time looking at best available drawings and photos in order to decide which parts were the right shapes and sizes, and how far forward, back, up or down they should be attached to one another in order to get a correct start on the fundamental structure of the thing. Having to go back and start again was the last thing I wanted to find myself doing.....

The body and tender caused enough headaches without getting involved in the McGowan chassis parts. I gave-in and used an RTR B12 chassis, which I eventually re-wheeled.

Edited July 13, 2017 by gr.king