Jub45565

I'm no GCR expert so may well have gone off at a tangent while looking to see what these locos looked like, but according to this: https://traders.scalefour.org/downloads/gcm/GCR4000GTenderInstructions.pdf B3 6 built – standard 4,000 gallon with Iracier boxes, all were replaced with self trimming type by 1925 but except for 6164 and 6166 all reverted to standard 4,000 gallon by 1933 – see RCTS 2B

I purchased a BCK at Trainwest over the weekend, and thought I'd make a couple of points which may or may not be of wider interest: - Excellent glazing, on a par with the Portholes. There is always going to be a bit of a prismatic effect with plastic coach sides, but it is extremely minimal - and is light years ahead (IMO) of the Hornby take on coach glazing. - Unlike the Mk1s, but like the Portholes, the coupling cam cannot be removed without disassembling the body (the keeper plate for it screws in from the top of the underframe, rather than in from the bottom) - but the 4 body retaining clips are easy to find and disengage (you don't have to take a leap of faith when you think you're about to shatter the coach side!) - again this is something Bachmann commonly achieve, while Hornby coaches I find rather more solid and brittle. I have broken a couple of Hornby tabs in the past. (I will be using Kadees at bufferbeam height on these, as I do with my Mark 1s, hence removing the cam - both prototypes used buckeye couplings). - Similar style of bogie to the Portholes (in terms of pickup strips which double as metal pinpoint bearings), but much improved! 26mm axles fit in easily. The brakeshoes are on a separate clip in moulding, but they do actually clear P4 wheels anyway. My straight swap runs excellently. Nice touch to include vac pipes, steam heat pipes, and dummy buckeyes in the box. I may not be the key market from Bachmann's point of view (or maybe I am, as I know it is still the cheapest and quickest overall route to get these prototypes!) but I hope the above it useful to someone. I should also say that I am not trying to Hornby bash with my comments, but just making a comparison between the products I have purchased and use. The Portholes were let down by the bogies, Bachmann have had that feedback and seemly learnt, so raising these points give Hornby the chance to see my opinion and choose whether they wish to take it on board. It is a shame about the moulded handrails, but it isnt a show stopper for me.

He was alive and well at Scalefour North at the wakefield. It can be a busy time for traders around show weekends, so it could be that he is still trying to unpack and turn around before checking emails/getting back to you. I've only ever dealt with Brian at shows so can't add comment on other routes of contact. He was alive and well at Scalefour North at the wakefield. It can be a busy time for traders around show weekends, so it could be that he is still trying to unpack and turn around before checking emails/getting back to you. I've only ever dealt with Brian at shows so can't add comment on other routes of contact.

Hi Mike, It's looking lovely (if you squint at the cab, those low windows do spoil the look in my eyes, but that's an issue with the prototype not the model!) - and thanks for the tender front photo, which will come in handy once the kit is released. Does the tender have an empty coal space, or would a motor in the tender driving a gearbox in the loco be an option? Which wheels did you use? Cheers, Pete

Yes, as Dave says it is in the instructions, but thanks nonetheless Mark. The only deviation I made was to use Rizla paper rather than tissue as it was closer to hand (& possibly thinner?). I had fitted those on Sunday, & cleaned them up last night, though have as yet neglected to photograph them.

Sounds good Tom, please do share the photos when you have them. A busy weekend balancing Bristols beer festival, making use of the good weather, and disappointing football results (no, I'm not Lithuanian, I'm referring to the big game today in League 1), has managed to include some progress. The realigned pointwork has been laid, and all wired up. Before tackling more pits, I decided to build the Lanarkshire Midland bufferstops. These were procured at Scalefour North last year, so I thought I should do something with them before this years show next weekend! Lovely kits, well designed and detailed and really do fall together. There will be a few of these needed in the future with Embsay too, though I will also need 1 heavy duty variant.

Thanks Rob, by the metal strip it looks ominously like the bogies are of similar design to the LMS ones as developed for the Portholes. If you round to taking more, could you do one from the underside of the bogie please? Thanks, Pete

The frame of the next pit is underway, but not yet to a state which would warrant a photo call. This weekend I will be at the Leamington & Warwick exhibition, helping Robin (a fellow member of the Scalefour soc Bristol area group) operate Rolvenden. If you're there, please say hello!

Cue someone to say that for the price the curtains should be DCC operated ;-) From the above photo as my only guide, the curtains look nicely done. There are a lot out there which are garish and can clearly be seen from several feet away, which rather spoils the illusion.

Hi Mike, I've only just caught up with this thread for the first time since the B16/1 appeared on it. I have been aware of the Steve Barnfield design since Dave Frank's covered it, and was hoping that it was still in the LRM pipeline for release. The DJH and PDK ones are not very friendly chassis designs as far as I am concerned - I'm sure they go together fine if built as per the instructions, but I like wheelsets to be able to drop out to aid both maintenance and build/painting - so 'standard' hornguide cutouts will be a big plus. Interesting to note that only the diagram 49 boiler variant is to be covered, but thankfully that will be spot on for 61478 which is the beast I am wanting to recreate when the time comes. I am definitely interested in any further info/pics you have of the build which havent made it into the thread. Thanks, Pete

Masokits do a good etched screw link coupling. Only available snail mail but worthwhile doing so for the product.

I know its a joke... but surely the pivot point is in the wrong place?

Thanks Andrew. Being winter here I should be making more progress, but other things keep getting in the way! However, I now have the ash pit in situe. It needs steps and a drain cover, but is otherwise all there. I have the drainage plan so have double checked my drain cover will be on the correct side. I'm not sure which type was in use here, but will go for a metal plate with holes as per the Midland Record ash pit drawing. The packing height required was an easy to find sleeper: Next up will be continuing that road into the shed, which was flat bottom rail. Conveniently the code 55 FB to code 75 bullhead in a chair is a nice round amount: I expect it is just the lighting, but the two shed roads don't look the same to me. The right hand road in the photo below is laid on bricks/blocks on their side, while the left hand road looks smoother. http://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/oldsite/historic/fws084.jpg I will also need to work out how to make the frame solid. On the above pit, the main structure is all brass and nicely solid - but has the chairs to isolate the rails. I am thinking of making a similar brass sub frame and cladding it in plasticard, with openings in the frame for power feeds to pass through.

The question is not what the price is, but whether it is the best value for money of the options available. I don't care how much a Collect is, as to buy one and attempt to convert it into a Thompson would be a complete waste of money (and natural resources). The questions are whether one 'needs' them, how many, and ones required level of detail. If you mainly stare at a loco and want a representation of a Thompson behind it, then the old ones picked up second hand would probably be the way to go. If you want an all bells and whistles finescale model, what is the best compromise for the individual? Straight out of the box I would hope the new model will be an easy winner on a cosmetic level than the old one. The question is, do you enjoy the modelling or the operating, and then choose between the starting point of old Bachmann, new Bachmann, or Comet kit. Are there any other 4mm Thompsons available to make a comparison? MJT do Gresleys but I'm not aware of Thompsons. Do comet produce a roof of the right profile? I can only see C10 in their list of parts, which is presumably the compromised profile to suit all their kits, which would probably mean the new Bachmann one is a better starting point for an accurate model. Is the MJT profile correct for Thompsons or did the profile differ from the Gresley era? (I am not yet up to speed with LNER coaching stock...). The price the Bachmann ones are available for is pretty much indentical to a Comet kit - though the latter then requires time to build, alongside solder, paint, etc... For me the question is how much needs doing other than new bogies and gangways. I appreciate I am not the mass market Bachmann are aiming for, but it will not stop me buying a few if it is the most sensible starting point.

What era is the 27 from? I can get away with a 27/0 very early in its career, green without yellow panel, but have so far resisted the temptation. The pipework gubbins certainly looks the part.

Well, while I have been getting some modelling done it has generally been centred around an Ivatt class 2 tank - until this weekend! I have started the ash pit support castings. These consisted of 5ft long castings butted end on end, as per Barrow Road (and thanks to Robin for the sketch!). It appears that Holbeck had longer castings (far more long sections between the short pairs at the joints) but the photos of Ilkley confirm that they were as per the barrow Road design. One down, one to go...

Thanks - I had noticed the code at the front of the document, & wondered what transverse corridor referred to, but can't see any references to it in use within the document! It is the 1958 set I am looking at. What was the operational need to differentiate? I understand segregation by gangway & coupling type, & number of available seats or quantity of luggage space. The BR mark 1 stock is designated r, & prsumably to show as top link stock. Could it be that the Thompson stock was differentiated in the early 50s, but once enough Mark 1s were in circulation they were seen alongside the Gresley stock?

Interesting stats. Some of it comes down to the useage. As my modelling interests are in Wharfedale, most stock was ex-LMS, and most of my coaching knowledge is of their stock (or BR Mk1s) too. However there was a through summer saturday working from Saltburn to Blackpool - return consist below: BCK (2-2) To West Hartlepool 2SK (8) 4SK (8) To Saltburn BCK (2-2) From Southport, added at Blackburn (so included through Wharfedale) BCK (2-2) SK (8) This is from the 1958 carriage workings, kindly shared via the BR coaching stock yahoo group by Robert CWP and John Evans. In 1958 these used NER sets 417, 418 431 but I have yet to find more information other than a few photos, which generally show a mix of Thompson and Gresley types. This shows that, for excursion traffic at least, the NER had a very different concept to Midland region formations!

Really? I find the glazing on the Hornby LMS non gangwayed stock pretty visually bad! Mind you it is excellent in comparison with the Hornby LMS gangwayed stock, while the Bachmann Portholes look good. Still, it'd be boring if we were all the same, & saw the same things :-)

Well I'm another (at 30, modelling 1958). 'Modern' railways - this side of about the mid 70s - are generally bulk freight and fixed formation passenger rakes. In terms of 'modelling' I can see how it can all be of interest (livery variation, and the fact you can walk outside and do research for detailing and painting) but in terms of 'operating', it doesnt have anywhere near the same level of interest. All a bit too efficient and block trains. (No - I'm not trying to start the what is modelling debate, but hopefully my point is clear enough. Plus yes, this is all my opinion. Everyone is entitled to it ;-) ).

Not to mention a P2...

FWIW, Coopercraft was at Railwells in August 2016.

It doesnt necessarily need to fit in directly - if they went for a period 2 composite that has never been available RTR in any form, then it could be the beginning of a range of their own. I've just looked at the Oxford rail site, and it looks like they are based on a period 3 underframe, but as long as it is rivetted the only difference that I am aware of is whether the corner steps are hung from the underframe (period 3) or a step board on the bogie (period 1/2) which would be a minimal change.

Not to single you out specifically Larry, but there have been several mentions of people alighting from the FR and wanting something to do prior to returning to Port. While I can see hardy enthusiasts doing this, the average family already has 2.4 kids with them for whom the length of time spent doing the FR round trip is pushing the boundaries bordering on bordom for the children - the last thing they want is to break the journey for another while spent on a train... Good luck to them all the same.

Would that be the days prior to Jimmy Saville? (other people chased by operation Yewtree are, unfortunately, available). Edited to add something useful - they could always reuse their new LMS coach underframes (from carflats) and create some push-pull coaches to go with Bachmann's Ivatt and Midland 1P tank engines. (if the carflats are 57' that is, and if they're 60' then they can create a composite coach to make the period 3 LMS coaches that Hornby make actually useable in a rake!)