Miss Prism

Penhros - many thanks for the U25, T49 and T32 drawings. Very nice!

Apropos the coach at Didcot (it must have been hiding until recently under one of their tarpaulins in the coach sheds), assuming it really is 416, then yes that would make it a T49 according to Harris. However, Harris denotes T49 as an 8'6" wide body, which would make it City stock, and not what Buffalo was after in the OP. And if T49 is City stock, why hasn't Didcot's example got the Holden doors? So is Harris wrong*? Is this a 8' body or an 8'6" body?

I'll start that second para again - having looked at my primary copy of Harris (I have two, no, don't ask), I have done a pencil amendment at some time in the past to denote lot 700 as 8' wide, rather than 8'6" as given in the list. Didcot's specimen is definitely 8' wide, because the 8'6" wide City stock didn't have duckets. Looking at some old correspondence with John Lewis, he confirms that figure 59 of GW Coaches Part One is a T49, and that lot 582 (which includes Didcot's example) is T49.

* there are some typos in his list

Ultrascale has a suitable wheel.

(Edit: subject to knowing Bachmann's driving axle size of course, which is probably 3mm, so the Ultrascales as they are at present will require rebushing, or the Bachmann blocks will need to be rebored.)

Will it also do a scale 104mph with three coaches, or is this just propaganda...

You'd have to refit the old slide valves and boiler to find that out...

That's interesting. I didn't realise passenger trains actually went down the dock branch - it's not a long walk from the station to the ferry entrance, really. The path of the dock branch through the town is still traceable, but there are no signs of track on it now. But there are a few remains of the end of the branch within the dock area itself, and here's a couple of snaps from early this year.

Intercity 125s are still used on the Pembroke Dock run actually, summer Saturdays only though.

Ok, thanks for that. I wasn't aware that diagram still existed, and I've tended to travel on the line only in winter weekdays. I'm trying to find my current timetable, but I've lost it somewhere!

There was a brief spell when HSTs worked through and from Pembroke Dock, but I'm not sure about the Fishguard line.

In the late fifties the frames were much browner

A bright mid-bauxite, to be more precise.

Mmmm. Needs a suburban Toplight set in crimson lake.

I wanted to build a rake of GWR coal wagons

The only thing carrying coal from Ratio or Coopercraft is the Coopercraft N13, and that was specifically for loco coal. You should be thinking private owner wagons for general coal.

A good rant, Brian! Integral side and solebar mouldings are indeed a bit crazy. It is possible in the 5-plank open to split (piercing saw) the side from the solebar, but that will mean destroying and having to replace the solebar to body gussets later. The split can't be done on the Iron Mink because of the narrower body width. (The brake van has solebars separate from the body.) I fit W-irons to mine, so the problems you had don't arise, but I make sure there is enough room between solebars for rocking or sprung irons to go in - 25.4mm clear is usually about right for rocking irons, a bit less than 25mm for sprung ones. This clearance distance usually requires filing a recess in the rear of the solebar where the W-iron is, and I seem to remember the solebar on the Ratio open got very thin to give the required clearance. Floor heights need watching if using rocking irons.

Even if I was in OO gauge I would fit separate W-irons because of the constructional conundrum you describe.

Yes, they are pretty, but please note (thread title!) these were 4-wheelers, not 6. I don't think there were any end-ducket 6-wheelers. Anyway, these end-ducket 4-wheelers are a T diagram 31' brake 3rd, but the diagram number is unknown. (John Lewis might know.) Batch 582, completed 4/7/1891. Numbers were: 400/10/1/3/4/6/9/20/2/7/9/42/4/53/61-4/75/6. There might have been a pre-1890 batch(es), but I don't have that info. You already have probably the best broadside view - figure 59 of GW Coaches Volume 1. See also fig 45 for another 3/4 view. I think the Ratio sides would cut up fine, as the compartment widths are standard as far as I know - the only problem is the lack of panelling detail on the sides of the Ratio duckets.

tea boy - my apologies - the bogie frame shape is the same as the 20 (ignoring of course the sandbox and brake cylinder differences). I should have studied my Marsden & Fenn a bit more thoroughly!

I apologise for giving offence. It was not my intention, but I admit the inclusion of 'tiny' was a gratitutous adjective too far, although it reflected my indignation when I wrote what I did. So let me re-formulate the (essentially simple) issue in non-emotive terms - why is it, in the face of a customer demand, that UK manufacturers are unwilling to entertain a business model that includes the selling of an undecorated model for the same price as a decorated one.

Once people have lettered a plain black one, what incentive is there to buy a fully-finished one?

Not a lot. But you make a sale, so who's complaining?

Also, the plain unfinished one would need to sell at the same price as a fully finished example.

Err, so you and your manufacturer could actually make more profit!! But again, who exactly is complaining at such a prospect?

The costs of producing it would be exactly the same but buyers would expect an unfinished one to be cheaper.

The costs of producing it would not be the same. Whether buyers expect the price to be cheaper is neither here nor there, really; if they want it, they will buy it. Look at what the American market has been doing for the last 20 years.

All you are admitting is that UK manufacturers still cannot get their tiny brains around the market for undecorated models. And whilst we're on the subject, didn't I read a magazine editorial a few years back extolling the virtues of the availability of undecorated models? I wonder what magazine that was.

Well this is a long shot, but here goes - if anyone is doing a replacement chassis job, and consequently has a spare one they don't want anymore, I'll give you the price of postage and packing.

It's important to let any point actuator complete its proper movement, and Fulgurexes are no different.

Martin - use one of the two sets of auxiliary switch contacts on the Fulgurex to switch your crossing polarity:

The other auxiliary set can be used for indicators etc.

More Fulgurex wiring information can be found here.

There is about 8.5mm movement at the Fulgurex motor itself, but it is suprising how much of that can be lost between the motor and the destination turnout if using thin wire, sloppy cranks, and inadequate guides for the wire. I read the Fulgurex instructions, but they were gobbledegook to me. Have a look here.

Just to say I saw one of the rechassised Claytons in my local yesterday, and the running was suberb.

If memory serves, I thing that the real 23 ran under the same bogie as the 20s

No. There are similarities in the design, but the frame shape is different.

23.5mm clear between axleboxes will be adequate for EM/P4 purposes. 2mm axles please. 20 smph max.

Ken - excuse my usual fetish question, but please report what the all-up weight of your County is when you have finished it.

A well-balanced post, CK. I think you've covered the bases, and the distinction between the operation of a purely private layout, where shunting and coupling time are not paramout, and the demands of an 'exhibition' one is crucial. Personally, 3-links or screws of whatever size drive me a bit nuts, particularly the more inflexible ones, and thus I am an AJ fan, although these bring their own set of problems of course.