pete_mcfarlane

As I see it, the worst case is that the Government has overestimated the growth figures and so has HS2 ready a few years earlier than it's needed. So a little bit of my taxes has to go on subsidising a slightly underutilised train service for a few years until is becomes more heavily used. And that's not a massive problem.

And that's the irony - the Government have done their job properly and come up with a long term strategic solution, and are being criticised for not thinking about the short term bodges. I'd love to know how lengthening Pendolinos on the WCML will free up train paths for more commuter trains on the ECML. Because HS2 will do that.

I'm not massive fan of resin, but that looks rather good.

They do an 8 wheel option as well.

I've given in to temptation and have an order in the post to SEF for their E class tender, complete with etched chassis. It looks a lot less dimensionally compromised than the DJH one (which I think comes from the D1/E1 kit, which is one of their very early offerings. And yes, I have one of those in the to do pile as well.....)

I had a response from the MSIM. The Science and Society picture library now handle the requests. The L drawings are on there already. But not everything is (the instructions were to tell the MSIM about anything you want, and they'll get it uploaded on to the SSPL site). Loco: http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10673893&itemw=3&itemf=0008&itemstep=1741&itemx=1760 Tender: http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10673897&itemw=3&itemf=0008&itemstep=1741&itemx=1764 I've now mailed the SSPL about getting copies. There are quite a lot of other drawings on there. Mostly export locos, but how about the GA for a Manx 2-4-0T or a County Down 4-4-2?

This is the link posted in the page on BCDR tanks: http://emu.msim.org.uk/htmlmn/collections/online/search.php?type=images I'm confused as to how you get hi-res copies of the drawings so I've dropped them an email. I'll keep you posted.

I had a spot of free time after tea, so I got the kit out and did some checking. The loco appears to sit somewhere between 0.5 and 0.75mm too high. There are some raised pads on the underside of the running plate, which can be filed off to make it sit at the right height. IIRC the C2X i did was similar. That and the missing ashpan probably account for why the example on the box lid looks too high. The firebox is about 1mm too long and the footplate has been stretched to match. Otherwise the boiler and the rest of the loco looks to be dimensionally accurate. The tender is 2mm too short. The sideframes have an extra 1mm in height, and the tender sides are also getting on for a mm too high, which is why it looks slightly distorted. It's also a bit crude (axles running in whitemetal bearing anyone?). I'm increasing drawn toward ditching it and getting the SEF tender, as it will save a lot of work replacing the underframe. I'll probably live with the extra mm in length as it won't show.

I'll probably start in a week or so - I'm finishing off a couple of Roxy LBSC coaches at the moment. I've got the bits I need to start work although I could do with better copies of the drawings off the MSIM website. I'll decide what motor and gearbox to use once the build is underway. If the tender looks to be bad then I may ditch it and buy the SEF one from their E class, which Mr Bradley's book on SECR locos tells me is the same as the one behind the L.

My approach is that I'm building these kits in OO, so there are always going to be compromises, but I do want the result to look like the real thing. So I'm prepared to hack the kit about a bit if needed.

You could do a diorama of it on fire at Manchester Central, complete with 1950s fire engines in attendance.

Joking aside, did the Fell have a toilet? Quite a few diesels do have loos.

I've yet to properly check it for accuracy. There's something weird about the tender chassis though. Sometimes I despair of this site with all its whining about RTR prices and badly spelt Hornby bashing. But sometimes it's brilliant, and whilst idly browsing this thread I discovered that the Beyer-Peacock works drawings are online thanks to the ever brilliant MSIM (always worth a visit if you are in Manchester). A couple of minutes searching turned up copies of the L class GA: http://emu.msim.org.uk/web/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=16236 The tender is on there as well: http://emu.msim.org.uk/web/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=16240&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=35320 So i now have copies of the GA drawings and can measure the kit against them DJH kits seem to generate a mixed set of opinions. These seem to go together well, so some people think they are brilliant, but they seem to date from an era when people accepted more compromises than we do now.

Having looked at the box picture again, I think that as well as the loco being slightly too high, it also doesn't have an ash-pan between the driving wheels. This kind of gives the thing a light and airy look- when the real L class were big and bulky by 4-4-0 standards. An ash-pan should be easy to fabricate. It does have some Romfords in the box but the old kind with deep flanges. I much prefer Gibsons to these.

My turn to dig a kit from the to-do pile. I bought this about 10-12 years back and it's been waiting to be built ever since. I'll probably start this in a few weeks. As is often the case with DJH kits the professionally thrown together as quickly as possible built example on the front doesn't look quite right. I suspect it's sitting too high on its chassis, so the first task will be to work out what can be done about this. I also need to find where I put the Gibson driving wheels.......

I think the reason for removing the centre coupling roads was because they duplicated the gearing that linked the two centre axles together. Which implies that they'd always stay in the same position relative to each other. Years and Years ago i saw a film (at one of the films shows put on by a chap called Rob Foxon) which explained how the contraption worked and had an animation showing the four engines cutting in as speed increased.

Are you doing it as a 4-8-4 or 4-4-4-4?

IIRC they had the same issues as the class 50s - the physical construction of the electronics wasn't up to the level of vibration that it got in a locomotive (which is a lot more than had been experienced by previous uses in aircraft or or nice air conditioned computer rooms). So the electronics used to get shaken to bits.

Thanks heavens for that - the last thing we want is a million disgruntled RMwebbers moaning that they've not got one yet.

But Woolmer says they'll be great to travel in, and he knows everything about railways ever. That's why the BBC always use him as a rent-a-quote on railway stories.....

That's good to hear. When I did it the effects were obvious as soon as I'd got the paint off.

Whatever you do, don't try Modelstrip on an aluminium bodied Phoenix coach. It attacks the aluminium and leaves it all pitted (found that one out the hard way....). Despite their relative crudeness they do make good models with a bit of detailing.

There were also a number of articles in the old Model Railway Constructor in the 1970s, again by Gordon Weddell. One of the only magazine indices should point you in the right direction, and the mags are normally available cheaply.

Based on this article about helicopters, you do wonder how much extra weight the paint adds.

I'm wondering how similar these are going to be to the stock that CAF have produced for IE.