Miss Prism

Yes. You won't be getting yours until all the mags have announced it's the best thing since sliced bread. (And I note Mr Kohler has avoided the motor bogie question in his response to MREMag.)

I'd be interested to know the loco's final weight, Ken.

On the Pannier chassis, I think it is just possible to use a jig 'B line', but a jig C line is much easier, and does not involve any alteration to the rear spacer. I'm not familiar with the 2251 spacer elevation, and of course the axle datum line is higher than the Pannier, so the situation is slightly different. Chris is probably wise to let the CSB fans determine their own chosen favourite fulcrum line from his standard carrier height settings. Besides which, if Chris really did want to go fully CSB, he'd have to start providing beam apertures in his spacers! (Which will antagonise his non-CSB customers, who in are in the large majority.) What CSBers really want on frame etches is a thin mark to denote the axle datum line - not difficult on a HL etch, but far from easy for frames having a bare 6mm rectangular cutout.

I think Chris Gibbon is considering the idea, but the problem is not so much the choice of the longitudinal plot positions, but the choice of the vertical position. (The latter would constrain a builder to a particular choice of hole in the carrier, and given the different final weights builders might want to adopt, that constraint could be seen as being too inflexible an approach.)

Jeff - the term 'sprung hornblocks' covers a multitude of sins. The system you describe in your OP is what is commonly called 'spring-assisted', which is where a (comparatively weak) spring depresses a wheel into a hollow, but where the chassis is otherwise sitting on fully-compressed springs, i.e. the chassis is still, in effect, for the most part, rigid, and where the screw does set the ride height. Other coil spring hornblocks, e.g. the Brassmasters one in 4mm, is where the strength of the spring is such where the wheels do sit somewhere in the compression range of the spring without compressing it fully, i.e. when a wheel encounters a track hump, upward movement is accommodated without a hard bump being fully transmitted to the chassis. The problem with small coil springs is that their springrate cannot easily cope with widely differing loco weights, as you correctly surmise. The problem with 'fully sprung' (if I may use that term) springs is that setting the ride height and getting the spring strength correct are interrelated, and therefore somewhat problematic. CSB technology provides a good route to addressing this holistic issue. Whilst 7mm CSB applications are still relatively rare (Adrian Cherry is a convert), I think one of the problems in 7mm is that, unlike 4mm, where we have a reasonable consensus on what locos of a certain size should weigh, there appears to be little discussion or consensus on that matter in the 7mm world. Most 7mm builders, on being asked what their locos are finally weighed at, often respond with a puzzled "I have no idea" or "Sufficient!" or "I don't understand the relevance of the question."

Do you mean the fulcrum located 16.5mm forward of the centre axle? It's not easy to alter this dimension by much, but I could have a play with another possible plot to see if anything could be done.

A key issue for Garretts was whether the boiler was big enough to serve the engine units. The 'supercrab' looks great, but I doubt whether the King version was viable, and there wouldn't have been any point in the expense of 8 cylinders.

When will the 2-BILs be reviewed in the model press? (The recent Modeller blurb didn't count as a review IMO.)

I'm currently at an Mac running Safari as well! (But still no images.) About one-third of the images show in Chrome however.

I can't get any images to appear on that site.

The depth of the Cambrian P15 solebar does seem rather small. I think this is a case where builders using separate W-iron (rocking or sprung) are at an advantage, since the key dimension for those users tends to be buffer height: thus the build sequence derives from the buffer height setting, and the W-iron height is set accordingly, with springs/axleboxes stuck on later. Tension-lock users do not need functional buffer height alignment, so can use, albeit reluctantly, the kit bits as supplied. Nice pics, Castle.

The square downpipes are a nice touch.

The Nick Campling drawings are in MRC April 1970, together with some good pictures and notes by Stevens-Stratten.

The differences in the bogies are shown on the Nick Cambling drawings, which are the best 2-BIL drawings I know of. Shame if Hornby didn't refer to them.

Given the significance of the content in this thread, I've asked Andy Y to rename it 'GWR Poster boards and early Structure Colours'.

Jeez, I come back from a week away from RMweb to find that the whole history of GWR structure colours has been deftly overturned... gwr.org.uk will reflect the evidence being posted here, but it may take a little while to get my head around the extent of the changes needed, and it is likely to be an incremental process. Mikkel's point about the need to reset and rethink our perceptions every time we revisit old photos is very pertinent, but we probably also need to recognise that the 3-colour (or even 4-colour) states may be location and time-window constricted. Most stations were built and painted by local contractors - if we are still confused as to exactly what constitutes the application areas of the various stone colours, there's no reason to assume those contractors were any better informed. History is rarely as logical as we might wish it to be. I suppose an initial obvious issue is to try to determine the first appearance date of white window frames.

Thanks for the facebook reference. I think the only substantial remaining error now is the fat Castle chimney. Needs to have the thinner one, which Hornby could then use for its new Hall.

Mikkel - where did you source the new spring castings for the V13?

Not sure about the 0.75" dimension for the as-built window (non-large surround) style.

Sheds and steam pipe fitting: Some first and last shed allocations, with dates of type of elbow or Castle outside steam pipe fitting: 4000-4029 and 4000-4072. (Rob, looks like 4012 Knight of the Thistle or 4054 Princess Charlotte for a late Newton/Laira engine.) Rods: Princesses initially fitted with fluted rods of special steel but later fitted with standard fishbelly. Tenders: first members of the class with the then standard 3000g, very soon thereafter 3500g non-riveted (normally) or riveted was the typical mid-period look, most of the class starting receiving 4000g after 1938. Two of the class ran with Hawksworth flat-sided 4000g, including Malmesbury Abbey, although this also ran with 4000g in late days. (A couple ran with Great Bear's 8-wheeler, and maybe some ran with 3500 intermediates?) Steam pipes: originally all inside, outside pipes started to be fitted 1928 onward, either elbow type or Castle type. Some were never fitted with outside pipes, and Nick notes above. See also Mike's notes above re boiler swapping. Smokebox rivets: initially flush riveted, smokebox riveting started c 1924. A Queen in 1932 has rivets on the back ring but the front ring still flush-riveted, and a rarer form is the converse. The late-surviving Stars ended up with rivets on both front and back smokebox rings. The early external smokebox damper mechanism was removed post WWI and plated over. Buffers: all Churchward standard taper as far as I can tell. (i.e. no Collett tapered or parallel). Safety valve: initially all tall, but a few migrated to low (check dated prototype pics). Inside cylinders front cover: 'square box' on 4001-20, the remainder 'scalloped'. Bogie brakes: fitted from new, removal started 1923 (and quickly completed). Cab front portholes plated over starting c 1924. Splasher brass beading: removed WWI and never replaced. Front lamp iron: from 1932, the upper lamp iron transferred from the front of the chimney to the smokebox door. Chimneys: all high 1'11¾" type, although a few from 1939 received the Grange type of shorter 1'9" chimney. None received the Castle type, short or tall, as far as I can tell. Edit: 4000 removed from list of conventional front cylinder cover descriptions: see Buffalo's later post.

Some interesting 'high' and 'low' loading apertures: http://warwickshirerailways.com/about/mystery1.htm

Although the interiors of these units got very dirty, the exterior BR(S) emu green seemed to wear very well, and generally they did get washed. I hope Hornby can give its green a hint of semi-gloss. It would also be good for unpowered units to be available - BILs often worked doubled- or trebled-up (or more), up trains being joined at places like Ascot. The mainstay of services at Reading South in the early '60s was however a BIL + HAL pairing.

Actually, I can forgive the designer going into a sensible 'non-clever' mode on the compartment side lamp ducting. I doubt whether anything will change now, as they are due for release soon. A turning shaped differently to a handrail knob would do the trick, and wouldn't cost any more to apply.

Or a scalpel.