Jub45565

Horse, Rumney do the latter and are apparently lining up the former...

I am (as yet) a customer of neither enterprise, but both look to be well designed and have items I have my eye on!

The LWB chassis out of the Caprotti kit hasn't changed since it was released. I bought one soon after it was released, and the frames are definitely designed with Brassmasters bearings and coil springs in mind.

 

That's not the way I built it; I used the Dave Bradwell system of independent leaf springs

I thought, and I may well be wrong, that the Caprotti kit came out before the Comet chassis' started being designed with the tab for the Brassmasters style spring above the 6mm hornguide.  I don't yet own one though, so will happy accept it if they are included!

This is more of a placeholder to start with - I have several things to clear from the workbench, and a 2 week holiday from the end of next week - but I hope to have made good progress before the Ultrascale wheelsets for it turn up in around July.

I plan to do 41904 of Royston shed in the mid-late 1950s.

I might just add a small note to the above.  My Comet Caprotti kit was missing some parts (lubricators, sand fillers) and Andrew sent spares within a week or so of receiving the stock.  This was much appreciated as there can always be concerns when a business changes hands.

Out of interest Paul, does Caprotti kit include a 'springing ready' style chassis?

Well, the 9F has the same number of wheels as a P2, however not quite in the right configuration!

 

Keith

The loco might, but the P2 has an extra axles worth on the tender... :-O

Hmm. Good news, but having seen the lightweight for the first time the other week while visiting the parents it makes it an even greater shame that Bachmann havnt sprung their extended shank buffers. Still, leaves something to do!

Having generally been tempted by branch line modelling based on the Worth Valley over the last few years, the lure of moving to the Aire Valley with it still having the local passenger and goods but also bringing in the likes of the Thames Clyde and Waverley through traffic, and Lancaster parcels for all that NPCS that I couldnt really get away with on a branch, is all too much!

I was wondering whether to add a ficticious station in the Beckfood/Cottingley area (Between Bingley & Saltaire, which was never quadrupled) but I seem to be settling on Bingley itself.

This will be some time in gestation. I pick up the keys to my first house tomorrow, but am bringing my current housemates with me initially so wont have a spare room to go at. There is a shed which I need to investigate the options for though...

Bingley works nicely in that a fair amount could be achieved in 6ft of scenic length (just including the ends of the platform, and going past the goods shed), and could be built up in chunks from there if the room allowed.

My main issue with going for a through station though (which is still niggling) is the need for either two fiddle yards or room for a full circuit (in P4). This makes even the basic 6ft scenic layout take up 14ft x 8ft!! This wouldnt allow full length expresses, but I dont think I would want to run those until/unless the scenic area was large enough to accomodate them without looking silly anyway.

14ft x 2ft (min) would allow the 6ft section to be built with a 4ft fiddleyard at each end - but this restricts to 3 coach trains...

Im talking roughly 1958 to 1962 too. What I am yet to conclude is when the Aire Valley was converted to flat bottom rail (sometime during this period from what I can tell). It looks like the goods yard entry was altered during this too, simplifying the interaction with the mainline.

Fair enough! Though your point about them being billowed out is what makes them quite noticeable. Better to have them not modelled than there and over scale, or not behaving in a realistic manner, though.

Hi Tim,

Just caught up with this - looking good! One question about the 4MT though, are you intending to try to fabricate the bellows as fitted with that style of tender? Its something I intend to do (on a Brit), but using a full width of folded paper (MJT gangway style) would obliterate the tender front detailing,and I dont know how thin a structure could be made for a set per side.

Hi James,

Good to see you and the layout at the weekend - some good inspiration. I'll keep an eye on this!

Suitable LMS parts - depending which variant one would want to do - are available from Comet, 5522 & Bill Bedford at least.

The 'easiest' way would be the Mailcoach LNER version, which is a plastic kit.

The Roxey ones, as you say, would be best for an SR based layout though. My knowledge of the SR is minimal, so I dont know whether using replacement sides and end with the Hornby SR offerings is a possible way forward? The Hornby model may not sound cheap, but if you look at the cost of full etched brass kits and the time taken to build them it may be a cost/time effective solution.

HTH in some way, shape or form.

Cheers,

Thanks for that Steve - and sorry for the highjack MD - but was it ever available separately? Brassmasters detailing kits include one similarly, but being in the middle of an etch it isnt available loose. I suppose If I wanted a whole sheet I might be able to pursuade them...

I do have a workbench thread, but its not got the Black 5 marching towards it yet! Well, not that one anyway. The next loco on it might end up being a whole hog Brassmasters Black 5 though... Currently there is a 4F in residence. One thing I wish I could find separately is an AWS bang plate, but as far as I have looked they arnt available separately anywhere.

Has anything further been done to this? Ive only just found the thread, having located it via google. Excellent modelling!

I have a Hornby body to play with somewhere down the project list, Im yet to decide whether to get the Brassmasters detailing kit as it will have a Brassmasters tender and Comet chassis which bypass a fair few bits.