Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony,

 

The photos you've posted are around 25 years later than I model and therefore I'm struggling to work out how to identify the A4 boiler. Could you, or someone else, please tell me the secret?

 

A second question as well. In regard to the A3 with the round dome, would this indicate that this locomotive is fitted with a Thompson boiler?

 

Many thanks

Steve,

 

The A4 boilers were fitted with a one foot long combustion chamber ahead of the firebox. This means that the separating cladding band is further forward - by a foot. It doesn't, then, fall where the firebox sides' slopes begin, but a foot in front of them. It also means that the dome (always with a streamlined cover) is further forward. The washout plugs on the firebox lower sides are also in different positions. 

 

None of these differences are apparent on an A4, because A4s were always fitted with A4 boilers. 

 

As for the round dome on the A3. It could be a Thompson one, but it could also be one of the original 94HP A3 boilers, refurbished. When the last batch of A3s was built, they had 94A boilers fitted, with banjo domes ( the only A3s thus equipped and, then only pre-War). The RCTS gets these descriptions hopelessly muddled up in Part 2A. In typical fashion, Thompson had some new 94HP boilers built after taking office - he seems to have had an aversion to perforated steam collectors on his new-build boilers, even though they were superior to the round-dome type. 

 

These are the sort of things I'll be mentioning in my forthcoming Booklaw book. It'll either drive folk to total boredom, or actually be of use to modellers. Time will tell. 

[stewartingram]

Willie Wizz,

 

I am aware of the likes of Coopercraft, but that situation is simply a product of a certain type of human being - they will always be with us!

 

The fact remains that the people who produce this niche stuff have a finite capacity.

 

If someone has a genuine interest in an obscure subject, they will definitely be aware that it is 'off-piste' and that they will need to seek out such products as are available.

 

RMweb is the perfect arena for such research.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

And I will add my tuppence worth in here if no-one minds?

 

Regardless of how much a fine scale person I am, if ever I come across a reference to a website with useful items in it, I save it to my "Favourites" (under a listing of Transport-Models-Manufacturers), so that I can refer back to it later. The name of the individual listing can of course be modified to something more memorable, rather than "Homepage" or similar! My list is amazingly extensive nowadays.

 

Stewart

Edited July 20, 2017 by stewartingram

[micklner]

Nothing beats asbestos fingers!

 

I'm afraid my years in teaching kick in - do as I say, not as I do. 

 

I've fiddled with all the various 'safety' devices you describe but they never hold the bits to be soldered together as well as human digits. 

 

Braver than me !! I don't do pain !!

Edited July 19, 2017 by micklner

[Tony Wright]

Manna: Double chimney 107 boiler. Streamline non corridor tender

 

Fairway : Single chimney 94hp boiler. Streamline non corridor tender. I think 60092 was the last to receive a double chimney. I think Sandwich was the last on the southern end of the ECML

David,

 

You're right about the boilers (and the fitting of the double chimneys), but not the tenders. The streamlined non-corridor tender type (built for the A4s, but exchanged for second-hand 1928 corridor tenders - ex-A1/A3) was never fitted to either of the featured locos. What you see are high-sided, new-type non-corridor tenders - more modern equivalents than the original GNR coal-rail, eight-wheeled tenders. These new tenders had curved-in fronts to the tender sides (to match the A3 cabs) and beading. At first glance, the streamlined non-corridor type is similar, but it has no turn-in at the front and no beading. Only six A3s ever towed these A4 tenders at any one time. Examples included (off the top of my head) DIAMOND JUBILEE, SIR VISTO, MINORU, BLAIR ATHOL, FLAMINGO, TRIGO and, no less than FLYING SCOTSMAN itself.

 

The differences are quite apparent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope all this helps. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Willie Whizz]

Gentlemen

 

Something for the brains trust. I have the sad task of disposing of some models following the passing of a dear friend. One of them was a super model which had been professionally painted and worked like a charm. The finish included the brake blocks being painted a rusty colour and other small touches which both the late owner and I thought added to the model. (I have never seen a loco with black shiny break blocks. The ones in the store at Bridgnorth are rusty before they are fitted!)  However the potential purchaser on looking at this exclaimed that the model had been weathered and as such was not as marketable as if the brakes had been painted black!  If this is true, then it to me reflects a perception of perfection which never existed. Now I like seeing models that look workmanlike and purposeful such as those that grace LB. They are entirely believable. Am I in a minority here or do you chaps feel that models should be pristine just out of the works paint shop with no fire set in the firebox?

 

Martin Long 

 

I agree with you, Martin.  Certainly the majority of my own locos have already been (or will be once they come back out of the loft) been at least lightly weathered.  Those 8-coupled freight locos coming from Annesley way have (or will have) dirty-great off-white limescale streaks too, "just like the real thing".  I seem to recall that some of the earlier Airfix wagons from the 1980s used to have their underframes moulded in 'dirty brown' plastic, which to my untutored eye back then made them look far more realistic than the usual glossy black we still get from manufacturers today.  Pity it didn't last.

 

Two thoughts occur to me regarding your question.

 

Firstly, ask does the buyer intend to run the loco or put it in a cabinet as an item in a 'collection' that's only ever looked-at?  if the former, try again to persuade him that it will look horribly unrealistic once on the layout.

 

Secondly, if the latter, tell him you see his point - especially if it will be 'out of keeping' with other pristine items in the cabinet.  Then offer to "expertly de-weather" it for him (since it sounds like he lacks the skill or confidence to do it himself), and charge him £50 extra for a tinlet of Precision Paints black, your time (actual duration carefully unspecified), your 'expertise' and the use of your tools. All for the eventual benefit of your late friend's estate, of course.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Willie Whizz

[Headstock]

Hi Andy

 

I fully agree with what you are saying but as technologies improve and become widespread the costs normally come down. It was only a few years ago that rapid prototyping entered the model railway world. I think by the time my hands refuse to model make printed 3D coloured models might be the norm, no RTR or kits. It doesn't stop those who want to make things from scratch from doing so......................my hands not working might.

 

Clive,

 

hopefully by then we will have 'nanopaint' that applies where we tell it and to the colour we specify. No doubt 'nanodrivers' will render DCC obsolete.

[landscapes]

David,

 

You're right about the boilers (and the fitting of the double chimneys), but not the tenders. The streamlined non-corridor tender type (built for the A4s, but exchanged for second-hand 1928 corridor tenders - ex-A1/A3) was never fitted to either of the featured locos. What you see are high-sided, new-type non-corridor tenders - more modern equivalents than the original GNR coal-rail, eight-wheeled tenders. These new tenders had curved-in fronts to the tender sides (to match the A3 cabs) and beading. At first glance, the streamlined non-corridor type is similar, but it has no turn-in at the front and no beading. Only six A3s ever towed these A4 tenders at any one time. Examples included (off the top of my head) DIAMOND JUBILEE, SIR VISTO, MINORU, BLAIR ATHOL, FLAMINGO, TRIGO and, no less than FLYING SCOTSMAN itself.

 

The differences are quite apparent. 

 

213.4 - 60046 Retford 31.3.58.jpg

 

1892 . 60095 Haymarket Shed small.jpg

 

3239 . 60103 Nottingham Victoria small.jpg

 

4197 . 60058 Doncaster Station small.jpg

 

A3 60103 York 17.08.59 2452.jpg

 

E112.jpg

 

E199.jpg

 

E470.jpg

 

I hope all this helps. 

 

Hi Tony

 

Some nice examples of Gresley A3's, do you have any idea where the colour photo of 60046 was taken?

 

Thanks for posting them.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited July 19, 2017 by landscapes

[great central]

Hi Tony

 

Some nice examples of Gresley A3's, do you have any idea where the colour photo of 60046 was taken?

 

Thanks for posting them.

 

Regards

 

David

 

I'll hazard a guess at Grantham, as it was allocated there accoarding to rail uk. I seem to remember seeing it quite frequently on visits in the early 60s

[Guest Brighton_JunctionLNER]

Good afternoon Jesse,

 

I describe the building of just such a tender in my Crowood book, which should be on sale this week. 

ill keep an eye out for it, everything arrives late in Australia

[The Blue Streak]

Fabulous photographs in the past few days, thank you Tony. I really enjoyed looking at them.

Would it be possible to see more of Your pictures of 1:1 subjects occasionally, please?

 

Edit - P.s   May I ask what will be the name of your upcoming Booklaw project with all this a3 information, please Tony? I have looked back through the thread but have failed to find it.

 

Kind Regards, Ted.

Edited July 20, 2017 by The Blue Streak

[Atso]

Steve,

 

The A4 boilers were fitted with a one foot long combustion chamber ahead of the firebox. This means that the separating cladding band is further forward - by a foot. It doesn't, then, fall where the firebox sides' slopes begin, but a foot in front of them. It also means that the dome (always with a streamlined cover) is further forward. The washout plugs on the firebox lower sides are also in different positions. 

 

None of these differences are apparent on an A4, because A4s were always fitted with A4 boilers. 

 

As for the round dome on the A3. It could be a Thompson one, but it could also be one of the original 94HP A3 boilers, refurbished. When the last batch of A3s was built, they had 94A boilers fitted, with banjo domes ( the only A3s thus equipped and, then only pre-War). The RCTS gets these descriptions hopelessly muddled up in Part 2A. In typical fashion, Thompson had some new 94HP boilers built after taking office - he seems to have had an aversion to perforated steam collectors on his new-build boilers, even though they were superior to the round-dome type. 

 

These are the sort of things I'll be mentioning in my forthcoming Booklaw book. It'll either drive folk to total boredom, or actually be of use to modellers. Time will tell. 

 

Thank you Tony,

 

That makes perfect sense and looking again at the pictures, it is very apparent now.

 

I wasn't aware that any of the 94HP boilers had survived that long. I do have the relevant copy of the RCTS series so I'll be doing some reading up on the subject when time allows. Thompson seems to have had some 'interesting' ideas about how to do things when he took office. I always find this interesting as he was apparently responsible for some good ideas under Gresley (the B12/3 was largely his work wasn't it?).

 

Again, many thanks.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Some nice examples of Gresley A3's, do you have any idea where the colour photo of 60046 was taken?

 

Thanks for posting them.

 

Regards

 

David

David,

 

It was taken at Grantham.

[Tony Wright]

Fabulous photographs in the past few days, thank you Tony. I really enjoyed looking at them.

Would it be possible to see more of Your pictures of 1:1 subjects occasionally, please?

 

Edit - P.s   May I ask what will be the name of your upcoming Booklaw project with all this a3 information, please Tony? I have looked back through the thread but have failed to find it.

 

Kind Regards, Ted.

Thanks Ted,

 

As you'll appreciate, I'm reluctant to post too many prototype pictures on the web because they'll be going into books for sale. 

 

The forthcoming Booklaw book I'm writing is called Locomotives in Close Up The London & North Eastern Region (I've asked for it to be altered to ER/NER/ScR). David Addyman has provided captions for the NER and ScR locos, so he's (quite rightly) co-author. Due to my indolence, though it's scheduled for publication in late July, it'll now be in September (launched at the North East Show I believe). It covers most of the classes. Right now I'm just completing my part of it. 

 

Further books by me commenting on Keith Pirt's pictures (which are brilliant) for Booklaw will deal with the A1s, A2s, A3s, A4s, V2s and B1s - if they sell well. 

[Tony Wright]

Thank you Tony,

 

That makes perfect sense and looking again at the pictures, it is very apparent now.

 

I wasn't aware that any of the 94HP boilers had survived that long. I do have the relevant copy of the RCTS series so I'll be doing some reading up on the subject when time allows. Thompson seems to have had some 'interesting' ideas about how to do things when he took office. I always find this interesting as he was apparently responsible for some good ideas under Gresley (the B12/3 was largely his work wasn't it?).

 

Again, many thanks.

Thanks Steve,

 

I have no wish to stir up another anti-Thompson frenzy. You're right - it was his work which produced the superlative B12/3s. The B1s were also very good, and the O1s.

 

The rest of his designs? Though I've asked these questions before I've never had a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask them again.

 

Why did he feel it necessary to make sure all of his designs were designated the lowest possible number, thus relegating surviving classes to be pushed down - B1 to B18 and so forth? Gresley was quite content to take the next available number - D49s for instance. 

 

Why did not one of his designs (yes, not one) outlive the locos they were either rebuilt from (where class members survived) or were built to replace? 

 

Why is no group contemplating a new-build A2/2? 

 

Why did someone once write on here that he was a 'genius'? 

[islandbridgejct]

I will, on reflection, dip my toe into the debate on internet sales.

 

I think the two sides of the debate are both correct, and can be reconciled.

 

I accept that many kit makers are providing something of a service as a sideline, and may not want all their time taken up in selling and providing after sales service, and I note Atso's unpleasant experience of trying to make and sell a kit; but I also accept the argument that promotion and sales over the internet will improve the hobby by making parts known to people and making it easier for them to obtain them. From my own experience, use of Paypal or credit card to buy from the UK has become almost obligatory as the banks try to discourage us from buying sterling drafts or even writing cheques. (Why, oh why, could the UK not have signed up for the euro? - Sorry, that's strictly tongue in cheek.)

 

I think it should be possible to reconcile these two positions if somebody offered to fulfil a middle man role of operating a website to accept orders, take payment, pass them on, and deal with after sales queries. I have in mind a model shop or online model rail retailer (Eileen's or Wizard or C&L for instance all have a strong web presence) that already has an expertise and could offer it for a proportion of the sale cost, thereby freeing up the manufacturer to do what he enjoys. Of course, there would be a need for trust and communication in the relationship between manufacturer and middle man, but that should be manageable with good will on both sides. Indeed, the Scalefour Society already provides this facility for a number of retailers, so the commercial model should not be too hard to put in place. Perhaps some member of this forum might like to take up the idea and run with it.

 

Two pence worth now fully exhausted. I will cease and desist.

 

Alan

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Steve,

 

I have no wish to stir up another anti-Thompson frenzy. You're right - it was his work which produced the superlative B12/3s. The B1s were also very good, and the O1s.

 

The rest of his designs? Though I've asked these questions before I've never had a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask them again.

 

Why did he feel it necessary to make sure all of his designs were designated the lowest possible number, thus relegating surviving classes to be pushed down - B1 to B18 and so forth? Gresley was quite content to take the next available number - D49s for instance. 

 

Why did not one of his designs (yes, not one) outlive the locos they were either rebuilt from (where class members survived) or were built to replace? 

 

Why is no group contemplating a new-build A2/2? 

 

Why did someone once write on here that he was a 'genius'? 

Hi Tony

 

Like many modellers it was his railway (well his engines) and he could do what he liked.

 

You can tell Mr Wright wasn't a maths teacher since when has K5 been the lowest? 

[The Johnster]

To take the 'middleman for kit suppliers' line a bit further, my recent experience of trying to find out about the availability of kits for, in my case, a 94xx chassis to sit under a Lima body, and any form of pre Collett designed auto trailer at all, has been a bit fraught.  The problem, and again I accept that I am not dealing with large manufacturers with access to professional services and not doing it in their own time, was obtaining reliable and up to date information on line.  Dense and un-navigable websites, outdated information (one catalogue had not been updated since 2010, and I doubt the range available at all), etches and castings being sold as original developer retire or pass on, to people who seem to have some intention of doing something with them when they've sorted themselves out, a general feeling of 'something or other will be done somewhere or other to something or other by someone or other at some time or other somehow or other, only in an unspecified way.  Websites are under construction, new catalogues are being compiled, all sorts of things are happening in a vague sort of way.  Well, they were exactly the same 6 months ago, so, with a few exception such as High Level, I can only assume that kits are, by and large, moribund or about to become so.  Kits generally are at a low ebb, and I do not feel that it is a comfortable environment to be a customer in, and need re-assurance.

 

Now, this statement is likely to elicit a whole batch of responses from modellers who have recently obtained kits, which is not what I am seeking at the moment, and the fall back 'there's always eBay', but it seems to me that if the suggested middleman could also act as a correlation point or sort of clearing house for online information, so that catalogues, information, price lists, proper explanations of what items are required to complete a kit, including their price lists and current state of availability, perhaps the ability to download instructions, a sort of kit maker's online information bureau and central point, it would be of considerable benefit to both the kit makers and their potential customers.

 

Please note that I am in no way volunteering or offering myself as a candidate for being the person who does all this; I'd be highly unsuitable anyway.

 

I am not sure that an online box shifter would be suitable either, though they are certainly people with the experience, skillsets, and contacts to make it work.

 

But I think you are on to something, Alan!

Edited July 20, 2017 by The Johnster

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Like many modellers it was his railway (well his engines) and he could do what he liked.

 

You can tell Mr Wright wasn't a maths teacher since when has K5 been the lowest? 

He'd already 'pinched' K1!

[65179]

 

 

Why did not one of his designs (yes, not one) outlive the locos they were either rebuilt from (where class members survived) or were built to replace? 

 

 

 

What did the B1s not outlive?  The Robinson 4-6-0s, B12s, B16s and B17s all went before them surely?

 

 

Simon (much more at home with matters CLC and ex-LMS)

[t-b-g]

Thanks Steve,

 

I have no wish to stir up another anti-Thompson frenzy. You're right - it was his work which produced the superlative B12/3s. The B1s were also very good, and the O1s.

 

The rest of his designs? Though I've asked these questions before I've never had a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask them again.

 

Why did he feel it necessary to make sure all of his designs were designated the lowest possible number, thus relegating surviving classes to be pushed down - B1 to B18 and so forth? Gresley was quite content to take the next available number - D49s for instance. 

 

Why did not one of his designs (yes, not one) outlive the locos they were either rebuilt from (where class members survived) or were built to replace? 

 

Why is no group contemplating a new-build A2/2? 

 

Why did someone once write on here that he was a 'genius'? 

 

Pure guesswork on my part but I had got the idea in my head that classes that were on "borrowed time" and due for early withdrawal/rebuilding may have been given higher class number because when the fleet was whittled down to the chosen "standard" classes, they would all have the lower numbers. It only seems to have happened on his new build types as things like J11s and J72s were amongst the "standard" classes. Perhaps they didn't get new class numbers as there were no new designs introduced that could have caused him to want to use the lower numbers and give the existing classes higher ones. 

 

As for your other questions..... don't get me started!

 

What we don't know is how long some of his designs might have lasted in service if it had not been for the modernisation plan. We might have been talking about B1s running up 50 years or more in traffic, similar to  some of the pre-grouping designs they replaced.

Edited July 20, 2017 by t-b-g

[micklner]

What did the B1s not outlive?  The Robinson 4-6-0s, B12s, B16s and B17s all went before them surely?

 

 

Simon (much more at home with matters CLC and ex-LMS)

 

Not only the B1 did indeed survive until 1967 , his rebuild of the O4 into the O4/8 (4) also survived longer than any of the original O4's as well.

 

Another reason was that other than the A2/3 they were all very small classes and were the first type of Locos BR got rid off in the late 1950's/1960's cull, including others one offs such as the W1, Thompson D49 and K5 etc.

 

Last BR ER Steam Loco running ? a K1 62005 based on Thompson K1/1 rebuild of Gresley's K4.

 

 

As to making his Locos A1 etc, simple because he could !!

 

Gresley did the same he made his Pacific the A1 the NER version became the A2 .

 

He also  managed to make in 1923 the C1,D1,E1,G1,K1,J1,K1, N1 ,O1,Q1,R1 all ex GNR Loco classes as No 1 as well. The rest were all GCR other then the H1 the only NER Loco worthy of being No1 why? because no one else made a 4-4-4T !!!.

Edited July 20, 2017 by micklner

[Clive Mortimore]

Not only the B1 did indeed survive until 1967 , his rebuild of the O4 into the O4/8 (4) also survived longer than any of the original O4's as well.

 

Another reason was that other than the A2/3 they were all very small classes and were the first type of Locos BR got rid off in the late 1950's/1960's cull, including others one offs such as the W1, Thompson D49 and K5 etc.

 

Last BR ER Steam Loco running ? a K1 62005 based on Thompson K1/1 rebuild of Gresley's K4.

 

 

As to making his Locos A1 etc, simple because he could !!

 

Gresley did the same he made his Pacific the A1 the NER version became the A2 .

 

He also  managed to make in 1923 the C1,D1,E1,G1,K1,J1,K1, N1 ,O1,Q1,R1 all ex GNR Loco classes as No 1 as well. The rest were all GCR other then the H1 the only NER Loco worthy of being No1 why? because no one else made a 4-4-4T !!!.

Hi Mick

 

Many of the ex GNR class designations used by the LNER were the same as used by the GNR, hence they were low numbers.

[Tony Wright]

What did the B1s not outlive?  The Robinson 4-6-0s, B12s, B16s and B17s all went before them surely?

 

 

Simon (much more at home with matters CLC and ex-LMS)

You're right, and I must refrain from making absolute statements. 

 

The Thompson B1 must rank as one of the best 4-6-0s built in this country. The type fared very well in the 1948 Exchanges and was considered by many to be the equal of the LMR Black Five. It had a reputation for rough-riding in comparison when run-down but it was cheaper to build and maintain. 

 

I should have qualified my statement, of course, but it still holds true in the main. For instance, the B17s outlasted (just) the B2s and the O4s outlasted the O1s (not every one, of course). None of his maligned Pacifics lasted longer than any Gresley type (the Peppercorn ones were newer, anyway) and things like his rebuilds of ex-GC 0-8-0s into tanks appeared to be a waste of money, other than they released spare tenders. 

 

As I've already written in books, where Thompson rebuilt locos, very often the best bits came from Gresley. By far the best parts of the A1/1 were of Gresley-origin - the A4 boiler/firebox and the double Kylchap chimney. In many ways the independent gear was more troublesome and, as for the front end; it was awful. ET's defenders have cited that the A1/1 was better than the A1 it was rebuilt from - it should have been, after a further 20+ years of loco development. What cannot be denied is that it wasn't a patch on an A3 with a Kylchap double pot, which GREAT NORTHERN would have become. 

 

All the above said, his locos do make interesting models. I've lost count of the Thompson types I've built, but LB can sport the A1/1, two A2/1s, three A2/2s, four A2/3s, umpteen B1s, two K1s (which were really his design), the K5, a J11/3, two L1s, an O4/8 and three O1s, thus I can't be that prejudiced. 

 

I have no wish, however, to start another Thompson debate. It's been done to death already. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

Ah The Gresely v Thompson debate, it has lasted longer than the LNER did, even longer than BR was in existence. Does it matter because we all know them there 18 cylinder Napiers won the argument.

 

Just think if Olly Bulleyed hadn't been tempted with a transfer to the Southern what wonders he would have built for the LNER?

 

Would there have been Gresley verses Bulleid handbag fights in many a model railway club?

[St Enodoc]

I will, on reflection, dip my toe into the debate on internet sales.

 

I think the two sides of the debate are both correct, and can be reconciled.

 

I accept that many kit makers are providing something of a service as a sideline, and may not want all their time taken up in selling and providing after sales service, and I note Atso's unpleasant experience of trying to make and sell a kit; but I also accept the argument that promotion and sales over the internet will improve the hobby by making parts known to people and making it easier for them to obtain them. From my own experience, use of Paypal or credit card to buy from the UK has become almost obligatory as the banks try to discourage us from buying sterling drafts or even writing cheques. (Why, oh why, could the UK not have signed up for the euro? - Sorry, that's strictly tongue in cheek.)

 

I think it should be possible to reconcile these two positions if somebody offered to fulfil a middle man role of operating a website to accept orders, take payment, pass them on, and deal with after sales queries. I have in mind a model shop or online model rail retailer (Eileen's or Wizard or C&L for instance all have a strong web presence) that already has an expertise and could offer it for a proportion of the sale cost, thereby freeing up the manufacturer to do what he enjoys. Of course, there would be a need for trust and communication in the relationship between manufacturer and middle man, but that should be manageable with good will on both sides. Indeed, the Scalefour Society already provides this facility for a number of retailers, so the commercial model should not be too hard to put in place. Perhaps some member of this forum might like to take up the idea and run with it.

 

Two pence worth now fully exhausted. I will cease and desist.

 

Alan

An excellent solicitor's opinion if I may say so Alan!

 

The idea of a middleman is not entirely new. Way back in the 1960s/70s W&H (Wait & Hope) were distributors for a large number of smaller suppliers, acting as the wholesaler between the manufacturers and retailers. Mainly Trains took this a step further by acting as retailer as well as wholesaler (how we overseas modellers miss that one-stop shop!). I believe that both Peco and Gaugemaster, to name but two, do the same sort of thing now.