Jol Wilkinson

Rex, I think that'll be a long way down the road. The carriage and wagon wheels are more of a possibility, but the loco wheels may not happen. I believe that the ownership of the dies, etc. remains with the person that originally commissioned them. David, 2.0mm steel rod and 2.0mm ID/3.0 mm OD tube is available on eBay. Why not make up what you need from that? Jol

Does that mean you will have to change your non de plume (or is it a nom de guerre)?

Tony, there are kits that may be "better" than some of Danny's. As I model the LNWR I can only suggest that the LRM 6 wheel LNWR carriages have "better" underframes (with the Cleminson sytem) than the two former D&S six wheeler kits now in the LRM range. Whether they are easier or quicker to build is subjective. The former D&S kits are 23% cheaper than the later LRM designs, but that is a reflection of the amount of metal in the kits. The David Geen GWR carriages are said to be very good, as were the Slaters MR six wheel carriages (currently in the Coopercraft black hole). However, like yourself I suspect, I haven't built any. Danny's kits are very good, but unless somebody has built everything on the market, how is it possible to offer an objective assessment of what is "best"? Jol

John, George modelled in EM gauge, but I don't think that explains the tender underframe options. I think the kit may have been originally reduced from 7mm artwork. The fold up u/f may have been for that and the separate side frames/spacers provided for OO. The GOG B2B for O Finescale is 29.0mm, which is 16.57 in OO speak. DOGA Finescale B2B is 14.8mm, so you would need narrower frames for OO in proportion to O. I am surprised by the loco footplate wheel clearance. Perhaps an email to LRM through the website might help. Jol

If it's entertainment that's required, then perhaps this provides the answer. http://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/ Isn't that like some railway layouts. Great architectural and scenic modelling but surprisingly indifferent representations of the railway infrastructure. Perhaps that's because the builder puts his effort into the stuff he actually creates and accepts what the manufacturers supply for the locos, track, signalling, etc.

Mike, the artwork for the new LRM B16 49a boiler has gone off for test etching. It includes an extra, EM and P4 friendly, footplate. So there will be two in the kit, giving the opportunity for experimenting with building a bent one. Jol

Probably a maximum spacing, reduced when relevant.

A simple internet search turns up several threads, including some on RMweb. These give various figures, including 6 ft for tubular rodding, 9 ft for channel section, 6 ft to 8 ft on the GWR and possibly others.

Chris, that's true, but it seems that IKB is the only "recognised" Victorian engineer. History as presented by the meedja is often over simplified and hence provides an inaccurate picture. We usually only get to hear of Telford, the Stephensons, and others as a byproduct of programmes about canals, early railways, etc. not, as in this case, as important contributors to industrial and engineering developments in their own right. F W Webb of the LNWR is usually only recognised (and derided) for his attempts at building compound locomotives - often not very successful - but not for his long lasting "simple" locos, the development of Crewe into one of the finest manufacturing works with it's own iron and steel production facilities, etc. Of course, as designer of the GWR, IKB scores a double whammy, as it is the only pre-group railway that carried its name into the post group era and is consequently better know by the man on the Clapham omnibus. Jol

I don't know how they did it, but Woodbridge Council have managed to get all the houseboat owners to tidy up their abodes. Generally most house boats on the East Coast seem to be owned/designed/decorated by those who want to live some sort of alternative lifestyle and display it to others. Sometimes they are delightful, more often not.

It varied, both for the railway company and period. Also depending on the actual location, to suit position of cranks, point tie bar connections, compensators, etc. It is best to research the information for your particular railway, era, etc. The LNWR generally used 7ft spacing as far as I could find out, so that is what I used.

Hear, Hear. Unfortunately, by being the best self publicist in his profession during his era, he is now the only engineer who existed in Victorian Britain as far as the media and educationalists are concerned.This will just cement his undeserved reputation. His successes are applauded, his failures overlooked. Jol

Or, to put it another way, badly observed reality and poorly modelled layouts.

Thanks, Ivan. I lived in North Finchley for several years (just up the road from Golders Green, for those who don't know Lunnon). I would much rather stay in Suffolk. Jol

Rob, a delayed reply, as we have been away on a visit to Lincoln. All I can say is that you obviously never met my father, a native of Pately Bridge. Like his brother in law, one of my Yorkshire uncles, he was a little too "blunt" to aspire to the title of "Gentleman" but were probably a good Yorkshire man. As a child of a Yorkshire father and Aberdonian mother, I am able to take the fabled Yorkshire trait of "carefulness " with money to new heights, or so my wife believes. Jol

The first LRM GNR/LNER kits he drew were under the instruction of the late Malcolm Crawley, ex Doncaster Apprentice, experienced EM gauge modeller, close friend of George Norton and, although a Yorkshireman, a real gentleman. You could ask him via the LNER Forum, or contact John Redrup at LRM though the website.

Hi Tom, I can't recommend a motormount* for the D2 as I haven't been involved with it's design (only the later LRM LNWR locos and the NER G1/LNER D23). I haven't seen the instructions but there should be a recommendation on motors, gears, wheels, etc. in the introduction. Most Motor Mount suppliers provide drawing that can be overlaid on the model or scale drawing to work out what will fit. HL and LRM do so (the LRM Motor Mounts section of the Gears, Motors, etc. page has a link to a pdf download). HL Motor Mounts have become the most popular, possibly because they have a wider range of "sizes" for fitting larger motors in OO chassis, where the motor can be mounted above the frames. Jol *A motor mount attaches to the motor and has bearings for the drive axle and intermediate gears (if used). It relies on the motor bearings to support the first stage worm or bevel gear. A gearbox has its own input shaft bearings and can be mounted remotely from the motor. AGW, Sharman. Exactoscale and others have all supplied these (some are still available) but Motor Mounts are more popular as they are easier to use.

One way of dealing with flux fumes is to use a small worktop extractor fan. Maplin supply one and I am sure there are other sources. https://www.maplin.co.uk/search/?text=fume%20extractor For holding bits together when soldering, fingers may be replaced by locking tweezers, aluminium hair grips, wooden clothes pegs, soft iron wire (very good for bringing rolled boiler seam joins together). Carrs used to supply a High Temperature tape, which was probably a generic product such as this available from Apetap. http://www.apetape.co.uk/index.php?app=ecom&ns=prodshow&ref=polyimide-heat-chemical-resistant-tape-3mm&sid=0i3680nb45k8976yln5l6ie7004g0ym4 Generally I have more problems holding bits together while the glue dries than I do soldering stuff.

John, I am just one of the unpaid assistants of LRM, but unfortunately the best known one as I have helped out John Redrup at shows for many years. The J25 came to LRM from the Connoisseurs Choice range when George Norton retired. The design may even predate George who passed away some years ago. Quite a few kits have been sold over the years with, other than a couple of RMweb members, very little feedback, either positive or negative. George's own designs have been, at least the ones I have built, quite good apart from the instructions. Like George these could be quite terse. Most have been revised, while the kits were updated with mainly cast brass, as opposed to white metal, fittings but usually retaining the original etch designs. Jol

Thank you Mike, I have now corrected my typo. As far as I know, each of these kits can be built to OO SF, OO Ordinaire, EM (18.0 or 18.2mm), P4 or S4, so should suite anyone but the most totally weird. OO Ordinaire should not be confused with OOO, the Lonestar 2mm models. I think OO Ordinaire more suitable than OO Normal. And shouldn't SF be FS? So confusing. Jol

London Road Models have introduced two new LNER/GNR 4mm loco kits. The first is for the LNER J5 (GNR J22) 0-6-0. This further addition to LRM's range of LNER/GNR 0-6-0 locos has the body etched in brass with a nickle silver chassis. Fittings are mainly brass fittings. The kit includes a jig to help with the accurate forming of the one piece cab side/roof. Price, including tender is £112.00 The second is for the LNER Q2 (GNR K1) 0-8-0. The kit was developed by Frank Davies for the Shipley MRS “Clayton” project. Beautifully designed, it is etched in brass and nickel silver with optional parts to build inside valve gear, which can be made to work if required. Castings are mainly in brass. Price, including tender £140.00 Wheels, motor and gears are required to complete either kit. Further details can be found on the LRM website; https://traders.scalefour.org/LondonRoadModels/locos-tenders-chassis/great-northern/ or by emailing London Road Models at; londonroadmodels@btinternet.com

Surely railway modelling is about having an enjoyable and satisfying hobby, rather than an investment opportunity. Or I have got that wrong?

John, motor size is usually dictated by gauge, i.e whether it will fit between the frames. If using a motor mount that lifts the motor above the frames you have more choice. The width inside the firebox will be about 15.4mm as they were designed to fit between the frames which were usually 4 ft (scale 16.0mm) apart on the real things. So you could use a 1020, 1024, 1224 or possibly even a 1420/24. With small boiler Iocos I like to mount the motor in an "underslung" position, which leaves as much room as possible in the firebox and boiler for ballast. That limits you to what motor will fit between the frames, a 1020/24 being ideal for 00. This photo of a LNWR Jubilee 4-4-0 will give some idea. This has a High Level Roadrunner 54:1, although I normally use London Road Models single stage motor mounts with 30:1 gears on small wheel locos, 50:1 on the larger wheel passenger locos.

Dave, the price differential withe LRM GNR tenders is rather greater when you include the items that the 3D print model also requires. Buffer heads, springs, handrail wire, etched rear coal rail, etc. The difference is however still small enough to make the ease of building the 3D tender appealing to many. I look forward to seeing it painted. So far I haven't been completely happy with the surface finish of 3D printed models or, in some cases, resin castings from 3D printed masters of wagons I have bought. It isn't too much of a problem for wooden bodied wagons but wouldn't be acceptable to me for locos or steel carriages. So far only the small 3D items I have bought from Modelu have a totally smooth surface, requiring no work prior to painting. Jol

What a strange statement. Good modelling in any 4mm gauge is still good modelling. Choosing to model a gauge 1.7mm or 2.33mm wider than 00's 16.5mm, with specific pointwork and wheel standards makes no difference to how well you research or make your locos, stock, infrastructure, buildings, scenery, etc. Are Little Bytham, Gresley Beat and a myriad of other well researched and modelled 00 layouts built by modellers lacking in moral fibre? Or have I missed the humorous intent of your post?