Miss Prism

It's so important to match one's hairstyle to boiler fittings these days...

Thanks for the UJ screen shot. What are your: - wire shaft diameter; - UJ ball diameter; - UJ body diameter.

Coach - would a light coat of semi-gloss with a few drops of black in it help to improve Hornby's finish?

An interesting conjecture. I don't think Swindon's boiler maintenance records differentiated between top-feed and backhead-feed boilers, and the overall picture is therefore something of a moving target, with the topfeed types coming in from WWII. The No 21 boiler was I think shared with the 54xx and 74xx, and this total of 125 working locos would have needed a pool of say 150 (?) boilers, most of which soon became topfeed but with a rapidly-declining number of backhead-feed types still in good enough condition. On the Bachmann model, the top feed is IIRC a separate add-on, but a backhead-feed version would need the considerable expense of a completely new tank moulding. My guess is that Bachmann will not introduce a backhead version unless sales of the currently projected ones are fantastic, and it's interesting to note Bachmann has never made a backhead version of the Mainline tooling on the 57xx, of which approx 550 prototypes appeared before topfeeds were introduced. Dapol's new 2mm 57xx pannier caters for the riveted tank variant, but are also all topfeed. All of which goes to underline Dunsignalling's analysis of where the largest market is, and 1930s fans will therefore need scalpels and scrapers. The seemingly overlarge splasher size Bachmann has adopted on the 64xx (although it was difficult to judge from the EP pictures) indicates hedging its bets on a potential move to a topfed 54xx, which would also complement their new A38/40 1951 autotrailer.

I do like the UJ - is the end view of the recess something like this?:

There are a couple of pics in the Pannier Papers softback showing them working in non-auto mode, but in general, it seems not - the 64xx was a numerically small class designed for auto-work, and there were hundreds of other more powerful tanks available for regular non-auto work.

The bounciness of the radials will always be a bit of a compromise:

??? Which footplate are you referring to, and what do you regard as the tender 'floor'?

Colin - are you intending to prime first?

As a general rule, the shunting truck was between the loco and the wagons. I don't recall ever seeing them out on the mainline, even for transfers between yards in the same locality.

The chimney is looking a lot better.

Probably. 6971-6990 (lot 366, 1947-1948.)

Should be fine for 1939: brown starting appearing on some full brakes from c 1934.

When you say they were 'subsequently modified', what are these modified from - older Churchward frames? Or what you call the '1925 frames'? Do any pictures of these tenders exist?

Type of paint?

Ah well, now there's the question!

If I were at Swindon erecting shop in 1944, and had to decide whether my brand new 6959 of a brand new class was an 'express passenger engine' (G <coat> W) or an 'ordinary passenger engine' (G W R), would you blame me for inclining to the former view, particularly if the boss was present admiring his wonderful new design?

I've learnt not to trust anything on Hornby's website, but it would appear Hornby's GW-liveried Wellington is fitted with BR 'curly' steam pipes.

Thanks for the lamp body colour information, Nick. I've done a little mod to the GWR Modelling livery page accordingly.

The Hornby Macaw H J25 was not converted for military use. The longer Bachmann J21 would be more suitable.

The two Churchward 3500g tenders behind Bachmann's Dukedog are the flush-sided one behind 9017 and the riveted one behind 9022, the latter being more typical for a Manor or a 2251.

Mike Smith's SN182 article now appears in slightly expanded form here.

Here's 4090 Dorchester Castle running with a standard 3500g in 1928: http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls904.htm

Hornby's Star chimney is just about high enough for a Star chimney, but at 7.4mm body diameter, is still too fat. (7.4mm is what the Castles had.) So much for Hornby "using the correct drawings"!

The height (7'?) of the larger girders is probably a bit overengineered for the GER, even for double track, but the look of the bridge is good with the low water and the rail level 'half way up' the longer girders.