TheWeatheringMan

Hi, Lets get the facts straight if you want to make a point. You state 'this year alone'. The late class 23 was produced several years ago and yes a mistake was made with the window positioning and nose shape. When Heljan decided to produce the early nose style, to their great credit they undertook (at considerable expense) new tooling having listened to the critics. This is not 'hit and miss' as this is an example of listening, admitting mistakes and evolution of their product is it not. Personally I havnt bought either 23 for my fleet as i've a couple of Silver Fox kits waiting a start. If you want to see an example of what Heljan can do look at the class 15 and 16 - especially the North British - this is one of the best diesel models ever. Regards

Hi Dave, In view of the above comments can we be assured that coupling rods falling off and cabs leaning backwards due to over length handrails forcing the cab backwards on the Well Tank will be 'designed out' in future products under your name?. Regards

Hi, Well, well, well, What a lot of frothing this has caused. What seems to have slipped through the net is the point that in these times of increasing production costs and therefor retail prices, that this duplication is lunacy. Look at the facts: Two models of the same locomotive = divided sales = its possible neither model produces the returns required on the outlay = no money for another development = market choice reduced. We have seen this before - Airfix versus Mainline versus Lima versus Hornby. Result = the first three went bust. No, duplication may not have been the only reason but it didnt help did it. Heljan have a track record of 'comming up with the goods' - OK some have had their problems but overall they have been pretty good. DJM has no track record at all - anything he was involved in at Dapol was as an employee doing his employers bidding. Lots of promisses made but at this stage no models. CAD images and information do not equate to hardware for modellers to see perform and get an opinion of. If Kernow want a winner then perhaps a 14xx to modern standards would be a better bet and leave 'humpy' and 'tiddler' to the Danes. Something that seems to have been confused here - I appologise if its me misreading something - but the Kernow Beattie 'Well Tank' was made by Dapol. This fact is what i've always assumed is behind some of the models suffering from mechanical problems and assembly faults. In view of these matters and considering who was at Dapol at the time I feel that until we actually see and can handle/run a model from DJM we should reserve judgement on who will do a better job. At this stage we have an unproven promise versus a well proven fact. Regards

Hi, The 4Cor units were not fitted with either British Standard gangways or Pullman type. They were in fact fitted with a design that was unique to those Southern Railway units, along with the matching 4Res and 4Buf units. The gangways are well remembered for their distinctive side to side motion on the cab ends when the units were running at speed. These gangways were much wider than the BS type and could not be coupled to a BS gangway, with or without an adaptor - neither could they be coupled to a Pullman gangway. Please note that the term 'corridor connector' is not the term used by real railwaymen - to us the floppy thing on the end of a coach for passengers to walk through is always called a gangway. Regards

Hi, There is a perfectly simple way to sort out ALL issues with decoder programing. Buy a 'Sprog' and then you can see on a computer screen EXACTLY whats going on !!. No connection with Andrew at SprogDCC except as a totally satisfied user of his product and Customer Service. Regards

Hi, As we have seen there is much speculation over this. The answer is 'yes' but not able to say at the moment. However, I think whats happening will as usual please some and dissapoint others. We will be seeing a model or two that will be of a good standard but at least one that will 'plumb the depths' yet again. More over the comming weeks. Regards

Hi, From my understanding the coach is fictitious but was intended to 'look typical' of the type. For use as you suggest there is little at all that looks wrong as the general sizing of details is totally convincing. Like the old Triang clerestory coach the four wheeler is a very good starting point for such builds. I dont think you will be disatisfied with the results in any way. Regards

Hi, It is well recorded that what seemed like a good idea at first - making further use of now under used straight electric locos - ended up actually costing more for the rebuild than had brand new locomotives been built. The costs spiralled during the rebuild due to many problems. The finished result was very poor as a traction unit and avaiability was one of the worst of any BR loco at times. Engine room fires were common due to insufficient cooling and I know from personal experience that driver's hated the 'big electro-diesels' - much prefering a less powerful JA or JB (class 71/0 / 71/1) if possible - or better still a 'crompton' (class 33). None of which makes them any less attractive as a model of course. Regards

Hi, Whilst I imagine this project has been looked into properly it should be pointed out that we have seen similar projects before, particularly for a wagon, and that one fell through due to various reasons. Its a brilliant idea in the right hands and I wish Dave every success - particularly as i'll be subscribing for two class 71 and two 74. Now Dave where do I send the money. Regards

Hi, Yes indeed there were several modellers who effectively pioneered the modelling of the Only Proper Gauge and these excellent modellers helped to form the Broad Gauge (Model Railway) Society which then worked (and still does) hard to make information and parts available. I remember the talents that existed within that group - for instance one modeller (Alan Garner) who took Code 100 rail and milled the head off in his lathe to produce 'Bridge' rail. A dedicated group of modellers and historians who have given the hobby much. Yes Mike Sharman (oh how I wish his wheel range was still available - but it went down the drain after he sold it) produced a couple of loco kits in whitemetal and a few other parts. He was very much a pioneer of Broad Gauge modelling with his layouts that included Broad, Standard and Narrow gauge in the one layout. Wonderful days indeed - although I fear some of that group will regrettably no longer be with us I sincerely hope that those who are will be in good health. Regards

Hi, You are most welcome, pleased to have been of help. Regards

Hi, As a general rule these types of acrylic all have essentially the same or similar formulations and a thinners for any of them would work without a problem in any other brand -to which can be added Humbrol , Railmatch and Precision Acrylics. The use of water is normally perfectly ok provided the water is fairly pure. Its best to use distilled water if possible but purified water (from a pharmacy) or deionised water (as used for steam irons etc) comes a close second. If you have a water filter jug at home use water from this or even boiled water left to go cold (and yes you can boil water and yet it be cold in the right place !!). This is because the minerals in most tap water (not to mention the chemicals we are force fed by the water companies) in tap water can react with the paint formulation and cause problems - most common being adhesion problems. Some acrylic thinners contain a trace of isopropyl alcohol to act as a 'wetting agent' for the paint so a drop into the thinning medium can help but its not essential. Put simply, if the paint is a water borne material then any thinners for that family of paints will work. Hope that is of interest and answers your question. Regards

Hi Mark Thankyou very much for your reply. I too have worked with the 'expert' who had learnt all there is to know in a few months - in that case it was on a heritage railway and his 'knowledge' ended up costing that railway several thousands of pounds and over 400 man hours to put right the 'benefit' of his 'knowledge'. I have always found it a real pleasure to have tried to help fellow modellers making use of my training etc. and yes of course i'll continue to do so. Over the very many years I've been active in the hobby we have seen a large number of 'wonderful discoveries' from people that have turned out to cause nothing but problems in the longer term - helping to prevent fellow modellers falling into such traps is, in my eyes at least, very worthwhile and a part of the friendship within the hobby. Best Regards

Hi, remember that Wikipedia contains a great deal of articles placed there by people who dont always know or check their facts. I am a fully qualified paint and solvent research chemist trained at one of the worlds largest paint and solvent manufacturers. To clarify once and for all : White Spirit is a light hydrocarbon oil that in this country is required to meet the specifications laid down in British Standard 245. White Spirit is used by far and away in the largest part as both a component in some types of paints and as a paint thinner (particularly for spraying) Turps Substitute is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE the same liquid. Turps Substitute is the left over rubbish from a refining process. Many years ago when many paints were of the traditional oil based type ie. heavy and relatively thick they were made up by grinding pigment into oil (oil gave the paint its gloss), this was then thinned with pure turpentine which was (and still is) distilled from wood resin. Other ingredients were added to the paint mix such as binder (to keep the mix from 'splitting' and dryers (for obvious reasons and the source of lead in paints of that era) and 'talc' to reduce the gloss to a satin or matt (flat) finish if required. As the cost of producing pure turpentine rose a search was made for a 'turpentine substitute'. It was found that a by-product of refining that had little or no other use could be used in place of pure (or real) turpentine. This product therefor came into use and in everyday language as turpentine substitute (logical) as it was used to substitute for pure turpentine (it also became known as 'turps' in common parlance but strictly speaking the term 'turps' should only have ever been used as a shortening of 'Pure Turpentine'). White Spirit is a much purer, low volatile solvent that is deliberately refined from petroleum products. As the chemistry of paint moved on the use of the impure 'substitute' became less common as new paint formulations were based around the use of synthetic pigments and White Spirit. The substitute liquid has continued on sale as it offers a cheaper alternative to White Spirit FOR CLEANING BRUSHES ETC. and of course little other use can be found for the liquid. So once again it must be clearly understood that Turps Substitute (or Turps) is not the same thing as White Spirit - they are as different to each other as Water and Diesel. As I said in my previous post Turps Substitute can contain a proportion of water - I'm sure that most people will understand the effects of putting water into an enamel paint. If not get a tin of conventional gloss decorating paint and put some tap water into it. You will soon see why Turps Substitute is not intended for or suitable for paint thinning. Of course Turps Substitute does a good job of cleaning paint from brushes because it is a solvent that will mix with the paint - this does not however make it suitable for thinning - petrol will clean paint from brushes for the same reason but would you thin your paint with it - to do so will not only badly effect the make-up of the paint but will also open up a whole new can of worms (poison, cancer, explosion to name a few). As to a modeller saying that he has thinned paint for years with 'turps' - all I will say from an experts point of view is that a person has been very lucky if he is actually using 'turps substitute' and it has always worked. Make no mistake - I'm not saying it wont work because I know it can - 'turps substitute' is after all a solvent of the paint (or it wouldn't clean brushes) but what it can do to a white spirit based paint could result in the total ruin of the model. Turps Substitute can also more readily attack the plastic the model is probably made of due to what it can also contain. What I said in my first post was that thinning paint with 'turps substitute' is very unwise for the above reasons - and all I would ask is why take a totally unnecessary chance when White Spirit to BS 245 is freely available and cheap on the high street. To cover the Halfords thinner - yes this does contain Xylene (an aromatic hydrocarbon). This is more to do with the painting methods used in the automotive refinish field where the need for the paint solvent to 'flash out' quickly is uppermost. This may seem to contradict the statement that Halfords paints are now acrylic. This is because there are several different types of acrylic paint and not all are water based as most modellers have come to understand (such as the Railmatch range) There are 'acrylics' that use modern acrylic pigments but are still a solvent based paint - Halfords paint is of this type hence the use of a thinner containing Xylene. And yes to confirm what another poster said the xylene WILL attack enamel (even long dried) in the same way that the old cellulose paints and thinners did. Xylene can be used to thin White Spirit based enamels to speed up the 'flash out' of the solvent in the paint to enable quicker 'coat on coat' build up of the colour with less risk of runs. Precision Paints used to sell (they may still) a 'rapid flash' thinner - this was nothing more than neat xylene. However I'd advise very great caution doing this as Xylene is carcinogenic, the vapour is highly explosive and being a light hydrocarbon is also a very good and fast acting solvent (dissolver) of polystyrene - need I say more. I really do hope the above has clarified the matter of 'Turps Substitute' versus White Spirit. My only interest in answering the original question was that I felt able to offer my expertise to fellow modellers in the earnest hope I might save a fellow modeller from a painting disaster. Sometimes I think its all in vain when it gets contradicted in a way that might just lead a modeller into that very disaster - but hey, that's life I suppose. I really do hope this long winded post might just be of interest to someone and if it helps you too i'll be happy. Best Regards PS. I have not commented on differing primers for differing surfaces as the post from my fellow expert from the automotive field 'Angry meercat' is spot on correct in what he says - I know that his advice in this respect is correct because he works in the practical side of paint application if I may put it that way.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are confused about unless its the common mistake of thinking that White Spirit is the same substance as Turpentine Substitute. White Spirit is the solvent in most common solvent borne paints including enamels. Turps Substitute is an entirely different material that is not at all suitable for thinning paints - ANY PAINTS!. Turps Substitute is as previously explained basically the rubbish that is left over during a refining process and has virtually no use except as a cleaner for brushes and other equipment. Because Turps Substitute is able to dissolve White Spirit based paints it can be used to clean equipment but it must not be used to thin paint for spraying due to its chemical action on the formulation of the paint. Basically : White Spirit = refined petroleum product (light hydrocarbon oil) = thinning paint : Turpentine Substitute = left over rubbish from refining = cleaning brushes etc. ONLY. : Pure Turpentine/Gum Turpentine = natural product from tree resin used to thin/mix oil based paints as used by artists - can be used to thin enamels The use of Pure Turpentine in enamels is good when spraying gloss finish as it does not effect the gloss level in the way White Spirit can. Just to repeat what I've said before : never buy a so called 'enamel thinners' from a model shop - all you are doing is buying a very very expensive small container of White Spirit - go to a DIY shop and buy White Spirit from the paint counter - if you want to be absolutely sure check the label to see that the White Spirit conforms to B.S. 245 - this means it meets a standard that is strictly controlled. One last point regarding Turpentine Substitute - it can contain a proportion of water - imagine thinning Humbrol / Railmatch or Precision enamels from the kitchen tap and consider the effect. That's one of the reasons its unsuitable for thinning paint!. Hope that helps. Regards.

Hi All, Don't do this under any circumstances - you will be courting potential disaster on your models. Turps Substitute is not and has never been intended to be a paint thinner. To use this to thin paint can and often will destroy the paint make up by causing the binder to cease to bind or the dryers to cease to cause drying. It might just work in some washes as these are not paints in the conventional sense but to use Turps Substitute in paint is very risky and can very easily result in problems with the paint coat that cannot be overcome without destruction of the model. There is also the fact that the nature of Turps Substitute will also be very likely to cause chemical damage to the underlying plastic due to solvent attack - turps substitute does not 'flash out' from the paint layer like white spirit as its less volatile and so remains active within the paint film far longer and thus is likely to attack the plastic. Turps Substitute is basically rubbish left from another process that has little use other than cleaning brushes due to its solvent nature. Due to what it can contain Turps Substitute is totally unsuitable as a paint thinner - please don't use it for that - the risks can totally ruin a model. As a trained paint and solvent chemist this is something I've been asked about many times - as a modeller I've seen the results that can happen. Regards

Hi, British Railways used both white and pale cream lettering for steam locomotives. Although the size was specified for all classes from several standard sizes of number, several works used a size other than the 'correct' one from within the range - this often harked back to pre-grouping practise and was another example of works not towing the line as dictated by the BTC/BRB. Regards.

Hi, I just thought that i'd also clarify something in case anyone gets the wrong idea about my modelling. I have been active in the hobby for 56 years now. I work in OO on both hand built track (copperclad sleepers) and Peco code 100 and code 70. I run RTR, detail and repaint RTR, build kits (both etched brass and whitemetal - including older kits -I have a Gem 'Cardean' and 'Gladstone' to start soon) and scratchbuild -I have a GWR 'Kruger' 2-6-0 underway. I turn my own brass replacement fine scale wheels for Lima diesels and re motor them using a motor I've found a source off. I etch my own detailing parts having designed them on one of my pc's and printed the artwork for etching including GWR type name and numberplates. I cast my own resin parts and intend to buy a metal casting machine next year. I have a fully equipped workshop including lathe and milling machine. I have one complete layout -a 1960's Western Region branch line (Spelsbury). I am building a large WR and SR joint terminus layout for completion next year (Milchester). I will shortly be starting a new layout based on the Somerset and Dorset line in its last years (Shilingminster). and lastly the best layout of all: Sodor - yes a Thomas the Tank Engine (including 'Underground Ernie') layout making use of Peco track and the Hornby 'Thomas' locos. All are exhibition layouts. PM me if you might be interested for your exhibition. Yes I'm what might be called an experienced modeller but I've never lost sights of my roots or the fact that many modellers like me still enjoy the kits etc. from older days - and long may we all continue to do so. Regards

Hi Nigel, Just to confirm what I said in my previous post - if you are really stuck the offer to make up a truck assembly (following the original Gem idea) is there if you need it. Regards

Asking a perfectly valid question that's all - and offering information in case the modeller concerned didn't realise just how poor the kit is. If he was really stuck for sorting out the radial truck I could even offer to make him one in my workshop - I'm well aware of how the kit is intended to portray the rear truck, having built several (now replaced) over the years - I often help fellow modellers making use of my facilities - its a pleasure and I don't expect anything for doing it. I wasn't suggesting he'd wasted his money - if he wants to build the kit then I hope it turns out well and he is pleased with the result - after all its his to enjoy. I think a lot of modellers would have asked that question in this day and age. I would suggest your post is of even less value to the OP.

Hi, This kit builds into a particularly inaccurate 'model' of a 56xx - with the far superior Bachmann version available I cant help asking is it worth the effort to end up with a poorly detailed (no rivets etc.) locomotive that will never stand comparison with a modern model?. Regards

Hi, I can say from my own personal experience that this in my book can only be an unfortunate labelling mistake. I have used vast quantities of both Railmatch enamels (don't use acrylic) and Precision and I much prefer Railmatch for a number of reasons. In the very early days when the Railmatch range was first started there were several 'slip ups' with the accuracy of some colours. This happened for a number of reasons that no longer matter and were rectified many years ago. For very many years now the Railmatch paint has been of the highest technical quality and totally accurate in all colours. I'm not going to debate that to one person a colour will look right whereas the same colour will look wrong to another person - this is something that cannot ever change. All I will say is that I know that Railmatch paint is produced by a competent manufacturer for Howes who has been in the business for many years. There is one outside possibility - its just possible that pigment might have settled in the bottom of the can and not re-mixed - this could cause a shade change of course but is very rare in a paint of the Railmatch quality - and as several people have made a similar comment is even less likely. No this is almost certainly an unfortunate 'one off' mistake in miss-labelling a batch. I am not in any way connected with any company or brand mentioned except as a satisfied and long term user of the product mentioned. Regards. PS: Just thought I'd add the following- In paint chemistry terms British Rail Grey (Spec.81 Item 206) as used on Blue/Grey rolling stock is what is considered as a 'brown' shade of grey rather than a 'blue' grey. As I'm sure most will agree the colour does exhibit a certain 'warmth' of tone.

Hi Pete, One factory doing the actual moulding but more than one person doing the tool generation is my bet. The variation, for better or worse, will continue. Regards

Hi Rhys, Although you 'might' be right about the handrails on Evening Star time will tell. Don't read too much into the picture on the website though as what you see might just be something different - lets say not the GBL release version perhaps. Regards

I need to check in the morning in case distant memory is playing tricks on me but I think you will find one of the Class 13's also made it to Swindon Works as well. Also one of them was used on a short section of a railtour away from Tinsley yard on one occasion - will check the loco number too in the morning - so its not true to say that the class NEVER roamed away from Tinsley !!.