Jol Wilkinson

I have taken a look through a selection of LNWR books, so as all photos are in B&W, started by converting the picture in Penlan's opening post to monochrome. There is a definite difference in the "tone" between the jacket and trousers. So for initial comparison I looked for photos where we could expect jacket and trousers to be of the same colour. "The LNWR" by, M C Reed, Atlantic Pub. has a group photo of the Directors on P192, mostly wearing suits or jackets and trousers where there is no apparent difference. In every other photo I looked at - with one exception - the "tone" of the trousers and jackets look the same. Some are close up, some at a distance. Books included LNWR Liveries, THe North Western at Work, Railway Heritage - LNWR, Birmingham New Street, Vol. 2, and others. The one exception was in the Reed LNWR book, page 195. This is a photo of Pen -y-groes station, with several members of staff on the platform. One is wearing trousers and jacket of different tones, while the others, one in what looks like a similar uniform have jackets and trousers that look the same. The colour picture postcard shown here (Posts 268 and 288), of the interior of an LNWR Dining Saloon, show the attendants wearing a jacket and trousers of the same colour. Did the Dining Saloon staff wear different colours to staion staff and guards? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74787-4mm-edwardian-figures/page-12&do=findComment&comment=2889533 So, despite the "authority" of this new information about guards green jackets, I am still unsure.

Miss P, super, especially in relation to the thread on LNWR uniforms.

Keith, unlike the US of A where there is no apparent shortage of police, we don't have enough to deal with the very evident levels of abuse of the law. Here in Suffolk the police seem to have spend all their time dealing with the more serious motoring and criminal offences than minor offences. Northamptonshire, where we used to live, have a more dedicated approach to speeding offences, but I always wondered if it was seen as an income stream. Until motoring offences become socially unacceptable, rather than an attempt to stop people doing as they please and where getting caught is seen as an affront to their personal liberty, then it'll take a lot more money than the government is willing/able to spend on policing.

I agree with Rex that cellulose thinners is a good solvent for soaking out enamels, cellulose, etc. If you can strip the airbrush down so that it would fit in a glass jar with metal lid, then that would make a good container to leave the bits to soak overnight. You shouldn't need to fill the jar as the fumes will soften up any paint not immersed and a shake will usually do the job. You should be able to buy cellulose thinners in a good local car spares shop ()who will also be cheaper than the likes of Halfords). If you can get "gun wash" standard thinners, this should be cheaper. Check first though that your airbrush has no plastic parts, one of the reasons I have stuck with the metal Badger models.

Three more parked in a "street food oasis" at South Quay Walk, Canary Wharf, when we were there in the summer. The catering equivalent of a VW camper?

Was it a w/m dome? The current LRM domes are lost wax brass and , judging by the one on Paul Cram's model, have less taper. GN used originally to supply turned domes IIRC, but supply of these ceased, possibly before LRM took over George's kits. My first GN LNWR kits, a Whitworth and a Cauliflower both had them.

I am starting to wonder if there are two versions of F1? The one that most of us follow and the parallel universe one that some here appear to watch.

Surely a foregone conclusion with most modelling topics on RMweb, especially where OO or RTR are involved.

Today's prize goes to the driver of a black Ford who having followed us for some miles through a 60 mph section of the A137 where I was doing 50-55 in our 73 MGB, then decided to overtake - at speed - in a 30 mph limit through a built up area with several side roads and a cross road. There was an ambulance with its Blues on a 100 yards or so further back, so presumably he wanted to get past and away before he had to let it overtake as he continued to drive away at speed..

I don't recall your previous posting, but then my memory isn't what it was. I am surprised that the ex George Norton kit was so wide of the mark. Yes, his products were early examples of etched kits and were hand drawn before the advent of CAD programmes. His LNWR locos - at least the ones I have built - have not displayed the sort of inaccuracies you have described, although he made little or no allowance for P4 wheels in his designs. That may have been because he modelled in EM or perhaps because P4 wasn't so well established when he produced his designs. His instructions sometimes left something to be desired, but any comment to that effect was usually met with a blunt Yorkshireman's response. John Redrup possibly accepted your criticisms at face value as, like me, he probably doesn't have your level of knowledge of NER locos. The J21 and J25 have been popular kits since they were introduced by GN. Perhaps those that bought and built them were less dissatisfied with the models the kit created, or simply accepted that they were fairly accurate. When kits like the J25 were introduced, the alternatives were usually cast whitemetal and quite often poor quality too. Most modellers, in my experience, tend to accept that a kit has been adequately researched and correctly designed. While there have been some kit suppliers whose products seem to show that is not the case, most designers put a lot of effort into getting it right, within the practical constraints of the manufacturing processes involved and at a reasonable price. However, as Arthur has now designed what will probably be the definitive J25 4mm kit, problem solved.

I am no expert on NER locos so would like to know what other "errors" the George Norton kit has. I don't understand the reference to "step down" between the firebox and boiler, surely the cladding followed a straight line along the boiler/firebox top and sides. Or are you referring to the smokebox/boiler joint with the "quarter round" brass cladding?

While I dislike the use of "train station" it probably seems logical to younger generations that, if you catch a bus at a bus station, then you get on a train at a train station. Now, with the London Underground, do you go to an Underground station because it is part of the Underground system, or to get on an Underground train? And, to keep on topic, I am looking through my LNWR library, in the hope I can avoid the need to repaint all my station staff.

Ooops, I think I may have got that wrong as I was thinking of the side openings and the large end opening in the NLR van (old age is my excuse). A further look at the LNWRS website photos shows that glazing can be seen in the small end windows of some vans where the angle of the photos is oblique, including the D18 and especially the Crystal Palace D17B van. That means I'll now have to fit glazing to mine. The LNWR also had "Ballast Brake Vans" based on the D16 I believe but I can't find any details at the moment. Could that have been the open veranda brake van in the Preston photo? Nice models, I particularly like the NLR one.

With dissimilar materials it can be worth thinking "outside the box" and using a mechanical fixing. I have fitted wood or resin roofs to carriages using small screws from this company, http://www.modelfixings.co.uk/index2.htm I have also fitted plastic roofs to etched carriages simply using double sided sticky tape. If it gives out after twenty or more years (it has only happened on a couple of carriages) simply clean off the old tape using cigarette lighter fluid and do it again.

I met him once at the Opel Record D press launch. He was the only journalist who showed any real understanding of car design, unlike the tw*t from Country Life who was only interested in how many G&T's he could consume at the free bar..

Thanks for the reminder of Richard's book (published by the LNWR Society). Perhaps I should have read it more carefully, as I was one of the contributors. Its publication created some discord within the Society Committee, several of whom had difficulty in recognizing that the modelling community were a major consumer of its books and did a lot to "promote" the LNWR. For anyone interested in the LNWR or the early LMS, the LNWRS has a super archive.

A little research (not too difficult for anyone to do) on the LNWR Society website shows an undated photo of a D16 with what appears to be a lamp bracket on the outside end pillar of the veranda. An official photo of a D17 six wheel brake van, dated 1909. shows a lamp fitted in that position. http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/Wagons/brakes/Diag017.php So pre 1909 would be to be definite, but I don't know more than that.

The lamps may also have been moved "outside" so that they could be seen from the loco (the small white light to the reverse of the red lens) to indicate that the train was still intact, but I can't recall where I read that.

Only the small windows at the plain end and inner end of the veranda were glazed. The red tail lamps were positioned behind the holes in the van ends.

A bit more progress with the LNWR Jubilee. Boiler soldered with the formers in place and, firebox sides formed. Smokebox inner wrapper, front and outer wrapper fitted (in that order). The boiler is held in place by two 10BA screws under the smokebox and one through the cab front into the firebox back former. I've removed the central casting sprues from the brass cast chimney, dome and safety valve and have "machined" the undersides by polishing on a piece of 600 wet and dry wrapped around the boiler or smokebox to get a good fit. The valve chest cover has been fitted and the dummy inside valve gear added to running plate/cab assembly, followed by the front splasher sides and tops. The brake gear is made up, the front axle and hornguide bearings assembled, connecting and coupling rods reamed to the the crankpin bushes, etc. so moving forward steadily.

True, however my point was that collectors who don't run their models are just as guilty of the same misdemeanor those that buy kits but don't build them. Yet amassing a collection of RTR stuff is more acceptable than a collection of kits. Building an EM or P4 layout has always relied on people making their models. Even if we want the OO RTR manufacturers to produce "convertible" locos and stock, I consider they would not see it as worthwhile, partly for commercial "insufficient demand" reasons and partly because they would have to rethink their design and manufacturing approach to accommodate what would be required. DIe casting for example doesn't provide sufficiently thin sections for clearance for P4 (or possibly EM) wheels - even some white metal kits have the same issues. The vast majority of 4mm scale modellers are totally wedded to the concept of OO and increasingly reliant on someone to produce their models for them. Why would Bachmann, Hornby and the others bother to swim against the tide for little or no commercial benefit?

And how many RTR locos get bought and just put in the display cabinet? People who proudly claim collections of one, two or more hundreds of locos surely are no different to others with a stack of (probably fewer) kits.

Are the majority of OO (and N) modellers bothered with better track/wheel standards? I think not and therefore the likelihood of "starter" P4 for young beginners is not likely to get off the ground. There wouldn't be enough support and the entrenched attitudes that OO is acceptable would be a great barrier. I have visited clubs where there has been positive discrimination against EM and P4 and have met modellers who have no idea that there are other track/scale/gauge standards other then OO and N. Against such a background, the young/new modeller is unlikely to get much local support for doing something different. With the increasing quality of RTR models and the move away from making and painting your own models, it is difficult to see things changing from today's status quo. Perhaps more enthusiasm for making models, rather than collecting RTR products, should be the first objective. That might lead to people having more interest and enthusiasm for the finer track and wheel standards (finer as in nearer to scale).

Joseph, any deviation from the established P4 standards will affect the appearance of pointwork, one of the most visible benefits of P4 modelling. Perhaps the most sensible commercial proposition would be EM, which has some compromises (compared to P4) that might make "mass" production more achievable. Jol

Ian, P4 is quite different from OO in that the wheel/track tolerances don't allow for the type of trackwork "accuracy" most OO modellers are used to using. Loco and stock design/manufacture would need rethinking as tolerances for outside valve gear, wheel clearances, etc. are different. For example, thick plastic bogie side frames or wagon underframes are unsuitable for the outside dimensions of P4 wheel sets. Can plastic moulded steam loco bodies provide sufficient clearance for P4 wheels? You might not need compensation/springing for short wheelbase diesel locos, but that only would work with well laid track. The S4 Society produced a small batch of ready converted RTR diesel locos several years ago and the SLW models are available in P4 but have only produced one type. albeit with many livery/modification variants. Modelers who take up P4 or EM standards recognise that they have to work to tighter tolerances in everything they do regarding track and the running gear on their stock. That's not difficult given the tools, jigs and components available but does need more application/dedication/thoroughness than most OO modelers may be used to having to use. As the OO manufacturers have successfully focused on "easy" modelling, including ready painted buildings, etc. the challenge of taking up something a bit more demanding is not likely to find many takers from their target audience and regular customers. Jol