Miss Prism

2.14mm diameter mild steel is very weird, but since it is only about 600 dollars a ton on the Chinese surplus markets, Kader seems to have bought a shedload.

What published sources, and do they say when?

Thanks, that confirms what I thought in message #721.

Yes, I can see the distinction you're making, Coach, but in this case we have an eccentric driver(s) and the carrying wheels not carrying as much weight as the prototype did (for understandable model tractive reasons), so the overall effect (the pitching) amounts to the same.

Pitching is always a possibility with rigid 2-axle drivers and lightly sprung carrying axles fore and aft. Sprung drivers would help 'absorb' wheel eccentricities, although at the risk of making the tractive weight far more problematic.

Yes. Been having a delve in the gwr-elist archives. According to Bob Youldon, only tender lot A113 was the twin filler. (Not sure what the quantity of that lot was.) Also, tender lots A113 and A117 were initially fitted with shorter triangular body-support brackets on the frames. There is also an unconfirmed suggestion that King tenders initially had longer spring hangars. Both the support bracket length and spring hangar length were subject to later modifications/rationalistions, so neither of these features are necessarily linked with the presence (or later removal) of the twin fillers. The lack of illumination in photos of 4061's tender in BR(W) days do not reveal such detail. One of the original King tenders is reported to be behind one of the preserved Halls (which one I don't know).

What vertical control is present for the carrying wheels?

I have seen a pic of 4019 Knight Templar in 1948 just before she got elbow pipes in May of that year. The photo angle is not good, but there may be BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender. The loco is filthy, and the 'livery' underneath could be WWII black. Interestingly, there is a blanking plate over the smokebox indicating that its boiler (with a lhs lubricator cover) was previously used on an elbow-piped Star.

Lovely. I've been trying to pluck up enough courage to do the handrails on my 4mm version, but now I've seen it done in 2mm, there's really now no excuse for me.

Thanks Coach. Does that specify lining was omitted from: loco valances, tender frames, cylinders, buffer housings, internal cab, and firebox lining over splashers? (And bufferbeam fronts?) (I would appreciate a copy of that post-war painting schedule so that it could be reflected on the GWR Modelling site.)

There's a questionmark over this issue. Apart from the first 4-6-0 County, it seems that lining on express passenger locos was probably simplified compared to the pre-war spec. See: http://www.uksteam.info/wsr/picsc/02032581.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/DSCN2101-earl-bathurst_crop_1200x600.JPG

The second van is the interesting bit. There's no panelling visible (difficult to tell at that angle though), but I would say it's a K22.

I doubt it. The engines aren't clean enough for the Swindon 'tests'.

Somewhat overpowered: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/8384089076/in/photostream/

I'd love to be convinced about that. New insert tooling for a tender body would be in the region of a five-figure sum, and generally, old inserts can't be easily modified, particularly for a complicated cavity like a handrail. It really all hinges around whether Hornby has ready access to its old tooling sets and whether they can be run in the same way on new bolsters. In that respect, there may be no option but to start from new tooling, but that is still expensive of course, so Hornby has to recoup that extra cost. Where the number of bits are few, and the tender product volume is only going to be a few hundred at most, there's not a lot of doubt in my mind that moulds from the old tooling (as it was) plus the cost of adding those bits on a production line would be cheaper than new tooling, even with higher labour costs. I think we've seen from the Star and Hall developments there is little if any consistency over the 'separate v added on' handrails in relation to retail price, so I'm beginning to believe 'the handrails issue' is a secondary aspect, at least a simplistic one, in the debate. Rod and valve gear assembly, painting costs, and bearing-less chassis are to my mind more significant cost factors. Btw, I don't buy the notion of having two versions of the same product, one 'Railroad' the other 'fancy' - the market selling volume will be divided, and thus the tooling costs for both will be even more uneconomic, and Stewart's post above is very pertinent. (Railroad is essentially about using old or someone else's tooling investment, viz the HO continental Electroten 0-6-0 sprayed in green and lettered Great Western.) Since Hornby do not feel inclined to clarify any of the above, and there's no reason why it should, we can only guess in an ad hoc manner from our occasional twilight zone, and any statements to the effect that moulded handrails necessarily cost less money or added-on ones cost more remain speculation where historic tooling exists. The killer for Hornby in my view will be reruns of past 'golden-era, high-spec' Sanda Kan, like a Bulleid, and Tony's "nearer £200.00" is probably very applicable to that scenario. P2 aside, if the prices being quoted to Hornby by Kader are considerably in excess to those quoted to Bachmann, there's little Hornby can do except to ponder its predicament or begin to re-establish itself elsewhere. Toy pricing has always been about what the market can afford. Shafting the opposition is a bonus.

That'll be approximately 90% of the market, then...

Oh yes, sorry for not looking a bit closer! (I'm too used to 4mm stuff, where boilerbands are always a yard too thick!)

Fair enough, David, but as we move increasingly to a situation where model shops will order only on the basis of pre-orders, it is not possible for many potential purchasers to do what you are planning, and consequently they rely heavily on information and views gleaned from the 'twilight world'. Changing tack slightly, one could also say the equivalent of some magazine reviewers, so if we here are in the twilight world, what world are they in?

Dave - I do wonder whether there is a danger of the turntable top warping. If it warps downward at the arc faces, that isn't so much of a problem, because the support at the edge of the board will keep it in reasonable horizontal alignment with the layout tracks. But if it warps upward, there could be a problem. It might help if the turntable had sides. I suggest get your locking bolts in place and working before laying any track interfaces. Btw, I use PVA for attaching cork to wood, but I doubt there's much difference between Copydex.

Only just caught up with this build series. Looks loverly, but one belated question - boilerbands?

It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between Churchward taper and Collett taper buffers from photographs, but the bodystock radius of the former was smaller than the latter, and 'occupied less' of the baseplate area. Hornby's Collett taper rendition is generally too chunky, but was probably dictated by Hornby's standard overlarge buffer shank. Some Stars were fitted with Collett tapers, and 4018 seems to be one of them. 4061 had them as well, at least in BR days. Collett parallels appeared in BR days. P.S. Note the absence of lining on the top feed pipe cladding on 4061.

The only proper bearing surface for a round thing is another round thing. Any other shape is not clever.

What I actually said was "Some late-pattern GWR 22-spoke CBS drivers were like that". It reflects accurately the state Lode Star entered Swindon Works when it left BR(W) service, but whether it reflects what 4018 had in the mid-1930s is quite another matter. I would normally associate that kind of wheel more with a Castle in later years: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3017309512/ (Pendennis) http://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3024627665/ (Clun) but as Tony points out, where this type of wheel pattern might be deployed is another matter: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/9153347689/ Preserved locos, even those of good pedigree, are probably not the best reference point. Stars were born with crankpin on spoke wheels. Can't remember quite when CBS wheels started in earnest, probably mid to late '20s. The webbed-CBS variant was a later development.

Very nice pictures, Tony. As I thought, the Stars' outside cylinders are set too high into the valence, making it nearly indistiguishable from a 'Castle' type cylinder set height: A good prototype comparison showing the distinction: http://www.flickr.com/photos/naughton2010/5361163561/in/set-72157625839160438/

4018 did not have a left-hand side lubricator cover c 1923.