Jol Wilkinson

Ah, Trump Street off King Street. Near Prudence Passage and Honey Lane.

If you were in Spain recently, then that would not be surprising. Most "Western" nations have realised the value of restoring/maintaining old and interesting buildings, especially for the benefit of the economy through the holiday/leisure trade. Moving the Arch sideways would have preserved it. However, the station "facilities" including that wonderful booking hall, would still have needed considerable investment to make them practical for the modern travelers' needs. Edited to add: This is doing nothing to benefit Iain's thread on his great modelling, so I suggest we call it quits.

I agree that the people at BR gave little or any thought to the heritage value of the company's assets. As a long time member of the LNWR Society and a former Committee Member I am well aware of the impact of the destruction of the Euston Arch etc. The Euston booking hall and station complex would, in all likelihood, not have lent itself readily to modernization as St Pancras or Kings Cross have done. Remember that it was the second mainline station built in London (after London Bridge), fifteen years before KX and twenty nine years before St Pancras. Much changed in those early years of the Victorian railways and Euston was was not well suited to the level of expansion that it went through. I take some consolation from the fact that the destruction of the Euston buildings probably saved others that might have suffered the same fate. What you seem incapable of recognising is that what today's society wants is not what it wanted - or thought important - forty or fifty years ago. In addition, those running any business are tasked to provide a product or service within financial constraints. It is therefore not surprising that BR concentrated their efforts in a different direction to what, with the benefit of hindsight, you think they should have done. I am also aware of John Betjeman's (note spelling) efforts in preserving our railway heritage. We stayed in his former London Residence in Cloth Fair last year, as a sort of pilgrimage.

When those (and other significant railway items) were scrapped, it was during a much different period. The railway preservation scene was just starting, mainly by enthusiasts with little money. Personal transport and disposable income were much less than today and the need for spoon fed leisure activities had not yet been discovered. The people running the railways were doing so under difficult and challenging circumstances and they were not historians, so why would you expect them to spend time and money in preserving "obsolete" locomotives. That "Sir William Stanier" was not preserved is rather ironic. During an inspection of Crewe Works when he was appointed LMS CME, Stanier spotted some LNWR locomotives that had been retained and kept back from scrapping. When told what they were he had them broken up.

Iain, Flash, like other cleaners, is alkaline (soap) based and so should neutralise any remaining flux. Cellulose thinners will remove any residual grease, oils, etc. (especially important if you use Nivea, Oil of Olay or similar for lovely skin) and finally the acid will "etch" the surface for good paint adhesion. Carrs Acidip - which is weak solution of phosphoric acid plus unspecified additives as far as I know - is good for cleaning a model before painting. What did you scrub it with? The white residue may be residual flux trapped in crevices reacting with CIF or a similar cleaner. Excellent work, as usual. Jol

Ray, I agree entirely that it is only a tool, so why don't the software designers make it easy for anyone to use and provide the options to allow the more skilled to adapt it. Your comparison with the automobile is interesting. You can buy an entry level spec, add options or buy one to a higher specification. They all do the same job of providing personal transportation, but with greater degrees of sophistication, comfort or w.h.y. depending on what you choose. With Windows it seems we get the fully loaded model and have to adjust it to suit what we want/are comfortable with. Sometimes it seems like having to learn to drive again just because you've got a new car. I "upgraded" to W10 from W7 Professional. I am still lost about how I go about somethings I had already learned to do. Mind you it was the same each time I had to change to a new Windows "improved" model. I've also had to upgrade some other software because my old stuff isn't compatible with W10, although there are no obvious benefits for my needs. Don't misunderstand me, I appreciate the need for progress and recognise that we can benefit from it. However, I believe that those that create much of the software, user interfaces in domestic electronics, cars, etc. are more interested in designing something because it is possible, not necessarily because it is actually better for the user (our Samsung DVD player/HDD recorder is a case in point). Jol

Iain, the use of the original part is probably due to lack of research. Most drawings and photos showing the best detail are those published when a loco is new. If you use just that easily available information, then you get a model of the ex work locos. Photos of the locos in service may not show the truck in sufficient detail for the designer to spot the difference. Hope you recovery continues to go well. Jol

No doubt that computing has come a long way but a lot of it is down to the hardware, rather than the software. It's in the software where others make decisions about how we should do things, what we should like, etc. Whilst I am very happy for them to create software that will make the most out of the hardware, I don't want them to think they know better than I do about what's good in life.

A not uncommon, but shortsighted, attitude. It's a problem that has blighted a number of "specialist" ranges. Those items have been about for some time and the design and tooling cost should have been written off (although the owner probably hasn't taken that into account). They probably have small annual sales so anyone investing in them can't expect a fast return. I don't see a good outcome, especially if the owner is who I think it is.

Trevallan, I have been fortunate that my pc converted to W10 without problems, but like you, I don't like being told how I should live my life. A pc is simply a tool for doing work and communicating with others. It isn't, or shouldn't be, a platform for others to decided what I should do, watch, etc. But then that's a form of advertising, which is how many "free" sites operate. And to do that they want to "understand" the target audience. So these machines have become "harvesters" of our personal information.

I somehow think that may be a long wait. Why they weren't part of the handover is a bit of a mystery as there is no other outlet for them as far as I know. At one time I did think they were going to Stevenson Carriages but it appears I was wrong. You might pick up the Modellers World kits on ebay as they crop up from time to time.

The cast couplings are available from Brassmasters; http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/coach_couplings.htm Unfortunately they don't do the non corridor carriage variety, which used to be available.

I spent some hours at Photo Etch Consultants going through the "Steve Barnfield" photo tools on behalf of John Redrup of LRM to identify which were the 4mm tools for the kits to which LRM had bought the rights. Although SB had been paid some many months in advance he had done nothing about it. As far as I know, he never made the original artwork drawings - even if he still has it - available to LRM. I know that the 3mm Society were in some way involved and therefore may hold the rights to the original artwork. Having a hard copy of the original artwork, or a positive or negative produced from both parts of the tool, then leaves the task of converting this into a CAD software file that you can work with. While this may be possible - I have Corel Capture software - I haven't found it easy with even simple drawings. The simplest and most cost effective way is to design any new/replacement parts that may be needed - and given that the kit has been available in three scales and presumably successfully tested and built - and produce a supplementary tool. Redesigning the original tool to incorporate any additional parts may be impractical depending on how it's laid out. The other two kits LRM bought, the BTP and M/Q 4-4-0 went straight back into production. Only because a well know modeller suggested that the B16 could be "expanded" as a kit was it with-held while he researched what could be done. He didn't complete what he started by which time the kit sort of fell into a hole. I have been nagging John Redrup to get it back into production to recover his investment and Mike generously volunteered to test build one to see what was needed. That's where it stands at the moment.

Ian, at those prices, you would be better of with the London Road Models etched Oerlikon set. I believe some progress has also been made with the patterns for the under-fame details, so LRM should be able to offer most of the parts required to build a complete model soon In my view the surface finish of 3D printed items still is not yet good enough for carriages and locos, unless you are willing to spend considerably more. I have several resin wagon kits produced from moulds made with 3D patterns and these are just acceptable, but not comparable with cast w/m or injection moulded kits. Jol

You could photo copy a tool but turning that into artwork is very time consuming. You could even photocopy an etch and try to do the same. I have tried that for a manufacturer who had acquired the right to some kits but where the tooling contained some redundant items for other kits. It was easier to draw new artwork than try to copy and adapt the artwork use software (I have Corel and Adobe), although that added to the manufacturer's costs. I wish it were that easy as I have access to some 98% finished artwork for a loco kit done by someone for a supplier that needs finishing, testing and possibly amending to get the kit into production. It's been generated in some obscure cheap/free software, then exported to another format for the etcher and although I can open it with CorelDraw, the various components have been designed or are presented in such a way I can't make sense of it. Another example of it being easier to start again. The main etchers for our hobby no longer accept hand drawn artwork. Most have no disposed of their special equipment for photographic reproduction, printing straight from CAD files..One specialist company can still do this work, so if you could get the originals to amend, you can still get the tooling produced. However it adds another link in the process, adding more complication, time and possibly cost. I've learned all this from about twenty years of first hand experience.

All too often original hand drawn artwork seems to disappear. The tools exist at the etchers but the original drawings get lost, unlike CAD artwork where a copy remains on the designer's pc. So modifying the originals is not possible and producing a supplementary etch may be the only solution.

No disrespect to Mike, but I always feel that the tyro etched loco kit builder should always have to hand a copy of Iain Rice's books Etched Loco Construction and Locomotive Kit Chassis Construction in 4mm. Although a bit long in the tooth - 1990 and 1993 respectively - nothing has been published which surpasses them.

This hobby has a very wide spread of interests, so how it shapes one person's character would vary from another . Asked another way, does our character define the way we "model railways"? Why does one person feel the need to collect every variant, colour and number of A4s in 4mm, while someone else wants to scratchbuild a model of a Welsh narrow gauge slate carrying railway?

The LRM J21 is from the late George Norton's Connoisseurs Choice range. It has been updated with lost wax castings, etc. although the etches are unchangd as far as I know. LRM "took over" three NER kits in 4mm from Steve Barnfield, the BTP 0-4-4T, M/Q 4-4-0 and the B16. The delay in bringing the B16 back on the market was owing fo a third party proposing a some variations to the kit to represent the different prototype versions (don't ask, I don't know what these were) but they lost interest before the research/designs were complete. LRM have therefore decided to release the original kit (hopefully to recover some of the cost of buying the rights from Steve Barnfield) and Mike became involved to identify any minor changes that might be worthwhile.

No, just 2WD and 4WD badges.

A friend installed a 3.0L V6 in a Mk11 Cortina with a 2000E gearbox in the mid 60's. Only used 2nd and 4th when he discovered it would eat first gear and the torque made 3rd redundant.

DC or DCC?

I have experienced problems with servos and MERG controllers so am looking at alternatives. My use is solely for signals where erratic operation is both visible and can damage the signal mechanism. So far it seems DCC systems for loco control suffer less than DC. My kit built locos are all DC, and with the Pentrollers I have all perform well and I have no intention of changing. The problems I have experienced are random movement on powering up and twitching form loco generated interference (this can be from pickups as well as motors). Long servo leads are a definite problem and I have yet to try a more powerful, "stiffer" power supply. The great benefit of the MERG unit is the excellent setting box, something not usually replicated elsewhere (I can't understand Tam Valley system I have to test). The "unreliability" I have read about with most servo controllers means I want to avoid having to fiddle about underneath the baseboards to get the signals adjusted correctly. With a remote setting box it is much easier. There is also a lot of confusion over servos. Some servo controller manufacturers say the SG90 is okay, others recommend digital servos, others say that good quality more expensive analogue servos are the best value option. So far the best solution for reliability and ease of use seems to be the GF unit as used on Liverpool Lime Street, but at £170 for the two units and setting box I need, I am a bit reluctant to invest until I have tried the Heathcote unit I have to hand.

Webb worked for the LNWR, where economy and hence the ability to pay the stockholders large dividends, were a major consideration. With a large fleet, it is hardly surprising that they sought the lower cost options, although the Chain Brake should never have been used for so long. Although the simple vacuum brake is spoken of rather disdainfully, the LNWR ran quite demanding schedules with it, so it wasn't that bad. The LNWR built West Coast Joint Stock carriages were dual fitted to accommodate the CR, although I imagine they were charged for it.

In the 80's those manufacturers in the UK who already had, or wanted to have, a large share of the fleet market (Ford, Vauxhall, etc.) started to add more and more onto their specification to attract the fleet user who had been given a choice. The more things in the spec. the more likely thesales rep. would want it. For example, Peugeot introduced air con to volume production cars with the 405. Now all cars are fairly heavily loaded, the badge and the image it portrays have become more important. How many people who have the "Ultimate Driving Machine" don't actually have the skill to drive it, but like to think they have. Back to the OP, we spent several weeks in December in NZ and saw quite a few LHD large US and RHD UK classics. We saw one or two in most towns we stopped in during our travels. I would be amazed to see the same during the UK summer months.