Miss Prism

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.

Fabulous finish. Interesting to see you separated the smokebox from the boiler for the painting process.

And looking remarkably similar to a square-cornered Iron Mink.

Putting most of that lamphut on the platform ramp is very odd. Presumably a brick perimeter base.

I was banned from modelling the LNWR from a very early age.

Bachmann production samples now showing on't website. 9017 is described as "a preserved example", which I find odd given how keen Dennis Lovett was to stress it isn't 'as preserved'! The weathered 9022 has the riveted tender. Bachmann has done its homework well considering the variations in the class, but these two locos are unique in their respective 'feature sets' as far as I can tell, so be wary if considering renumbering. 9003's bogie probably isn't correct (I don't think bogies would have been swapped between locos), nor is its cabsheet handrail height, and the jury is still out on its livery. They're all a bit drop dead gorgeous, though.

The plan would certainly still work with a plain diamond. I suppose my previous message, had I expressed it better, was that cutting and shutting a broad gauge slip to standard gauge would have amounted to a complete rebuild anyway, and if the broad gauge layout had originally been a plain diamond, converting it into a slip would probably have meant a more modern construction. On the DN&S, plain diamonds were the norm until WWI-ish. Slips were put in only on the busier stations where the traffic density demanded it.