t-b-g

Sorry, I can't help with that one but I will ask Vernon when I see him (if the old memory works).

I have added photos to my original post but then it crossed my mind that if it doesn't appear as a new post, nobody might know that I have done it, so this is just to say that they are there now. If that makes any sense! Tony

Perhaps I can help with that one...... I have managed to miss this one up to now but now that I have found it, I will just say that it looks like a superb project. I think that the colouring etc. round the loco shed looks just right and any layout that has a bit of GC on it is OK with me! Edit. I tried to add some photos to the original post but they vanished. Hopefully, even if the project is under review, they will provide some inspiration as to what is possible. The main part of Buckingham is 12' x 2' to give an idea of what size of space would be needed. Tony

The late great Chris Matthewman would have made the bogie live to one side and the rear pony truck live to the other, giving 4 pick ups on one side and 3 on the other. He would have insulated the bogie/pony mountings as appropriate. I haven't done a loco like that myself but I have seen his in action and it works superbly and you don't need to add any wiper pick ups.

I may well have been standing beside you, if you were at Leigh. Great fun, as you say. When you see or read of people worrying about how to get their highly accurate models round less than scale curves, I think of such things and smile.

I have always been most careful on RMWeb to express my personal opinions but in a way that is, I hope, not detrimental towards the views of anybody else. As far as I know, I have never tried to tell anybody else how they should or should not construct their own models railways. All I will say is how I have done mine and why I did it that way. So if anybody wants to try to stoke up a bit of a row over DCC vs. DC, please count me out. I prefer DC. I have played with DCC and don't like it and I am very happy for those who do like DCC to carry on using it. Incidentally, both Buckingham and Narrow Road have facilities for following a departing train up the platform by the simple press of a push button to detach the main controller as soon as the train loco has gone beyond the platform end and to connect a second one to allow the "trapped" loco to follow it. Dead easy. It was one of those aspects of model railways that pioneers like Peter Denny got the better of many years ago, with not a microchip in sight.

I am not negative to change at all and if I came across that way then I apologise. The last thing I would want to do is to contribute to anybody deciding to leave RMWeb. There have been some excellent discussions about DCC compared with DC. My only concern was that it has already been covered in great detail on this thread and several others. The pro DCC folk telling us how good they think it is and the pro DC lobby telling us that DC is best. No conclusion is or can be reached as different people like different things. So I just thought that it had been covered as much as it needs to be but that is just my personal view. If people want to have the discussion again, then it should be me who avoids it rather than you and I will be happy to dip out of the discussion gracefully. As one of the first volunteers to stand in front of Alan Buttler's figure scanning gizmo and in my enthusiasm for his superb 3D printing ventures, I reckon that I am pretty much at the cutting edge of technology. I have just ordered some 3D printed items from Shapeways and I have a couple of friends who have laser cutters and such like should I wish to indulge in that sort of thing, which I may well do at some stage. But in the main, I find that most of my modelling needs can be met to my satisfaction by more traditional methods. The fact that I prefer to sit at a workbench and make my models using more traditional methods shouldn't really be any reason for anybody to leave RMWeb. I hope not anyway.

Are we going to have yet another pro/anti DCC/DC sound/no sound discussion? By now we should probably all be aware that some people like it and some people don't. Can't we just leave it at that?

I have a photo of him in the shed/workshop, up on the top shelf, looking down on me and every time I get stuck with something, or find myself on the point of accepting some less than adequate work, I think of him and try that bit harder. He did have a few RTR locos but his conversions to EM were always a bit half hearted. Perhaps the best was, of all things a B1. "Not really a Thompson design at all, the credit for the design should have gone to Darlington drawing office." as he used to say to mitigate against his professed dislike for all things Thompson. That had a RTR body and a set of Comet frames/valve gear and a lovely paint job in LNER green. He is still much missed after 4 years. Good news on the K2. I am pleased that it has found a good home. Edited to add a slight p.s. I am reliably advised by an impeccable source (or should that be sauce) that the B1 mechanism was by Dave Bradwell rather than Comet.

I got my revenge on him once or twice but more often than not he wouldn't ever acknowledge that he might have got something wrong. I recall at least a couple of times when I queried why something on one of his locos was not quite as straight as it might be to be told that the solder he used must be dodgy as he had put it on straight and it must have moved later.

I only did it once and I was very young. Since then, I took up modelling the GCR so I don't have to do it any more. At least I don't make valve gear so small that nobody can see it and then hide it between the frames, like some folk I know.......

I am not usually one to be too critical of the modelling of others as I have said before and will say again, I would much rather see something that somebody has made rather than something they have bought. But knowing John Houlden and Tony Wright, I am a little surprised that the rearward facing expansion link slipped through on the K2. I only mention it as I have done exactly the same myself and had it pointed out by a certain Mr Crawley, who took a strange pleasure in pulling me up when I made a hash of things. Tony G

The hobby has room for all types of model railway enthusiast, from the Peter Denny type who just likes making everything and would rather make his fences from old cereal packets than buy plastic ones to the true "train set" where everything is RTR and a Pacific with two carriages runs round a tiny oval. Having said that, the trend does seem to be moving away from baking your own things, especially in the loco and rolling stock fields. It used to be the case that if you wanted a good looking loco or carriage, you had to build it yourself. Nowadays, most major loco classes have been produced RTR, certainly in 4mm scale, to a quality that many a builder could only dream of reaching. carriages are another matter as the RTR folk only scratch the surface and in real life, there was a huge variety but for many people, if they can get a brake, an all second/third and a composite they can make up a train that is reasonably representative of many that ran. I can really understand why those people who model periods and regions that are well covered by RTR no longer see the point of making things. It takes time, which could be spent on other things, like scenery and if you are able to get results nearly as good as a Hornby etc. then it is hard to justify unless you are one of the tiny band who make things out of choice rather than necessity. From my own point of view, I do enjoy making things and have scratchbuilt a small number of locos that I wanted to have that are not available as kits. As nobody has yet produced any RTR pre-grouping rolling stock suitable for a GCR period layout, all that is from kits or scratch. When my layouts are exhibited, I look around the show to see if we have the only layout there where every single item of motive lower and rolling stock has been built and there is nothing RTR. In 4mm scale, the answer is nearly always that we are alone. There are a tiny number of layouts, often of obscure prototypes and scales, which feature kit or scratchbuilt locos and stock and to me, they stand out in a sea of "sameness". I am not saying that people should build things or that they are doing anything wrong by not building their own locos and stock, just that there are some, like me, who not only enjoy it but are actively engaged in that side of the hobby.

One of them ran as late as the mid 1960s on the East Coast Main Line. It was a Luggage Tri-Composite in earlier times but ended up in Departmental use carrying S & T supplies between Peterborough and Retford S & T depots. Painted in Departmental black livery, it was attached to passenger trains when needed as it often contained delicate components and they didn't want things to get damaged by being roughly shunted with goods wagons. It is now preserved on the KWVR. http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/MS&L.htm I wish I knew more about GCR carriage livery but this one seems a little odd as preserved. It looks to be Brown/French Grey but I always thought that in that livery the upper panels were not picked out in Brown. I am not sure of dates but these 4 wheelers may have been a wood/teak/oak brown colour before they were painted Brown/French Grey.

The thing is, when you see that new posts have been added to a thread about something as significant as Peco introducing better track, it is easy to be misled into thinking that there may be something worth reading, so you have a look just in case. Damn! I just did it again.

My dad also had collections of old RM and MRC magazines and anything about Buckingham or Borchester was top of my list layout wise. For non layout articles, I always thought that one called "Building a J6 twice" was highly inspirational. It included good drawings and a very full account of scratchbuilding a J6 in EM and another in OO. It was one of those articles that made me want to go away and try it for myself, which I did. The first effort resulting, a J11, was never finished but the article (plus "Locomotives of Borchester in the Constructor) got me into building locos from kits or from scratch and all these years later I still get a great deal of satisfaction from loco building.

Fair point!

I have told the story before but Loughborough University did have a working 4mm scale MAGLEV which would work well the wrong way up. The liquid coolant was put in an open wagon and they tipped it over to show how soon the wagon would fall to earth once the coolant fell out all over the desk. It stayed hanging in the air upside down for a few seconds. So a coffin fitted with a few bits of scientific equipment should do the trick. Jut a power supply and a very cold fridge...... Not a lot of use for those who will end up going where it is supposedly a bit warmer.

There is no doubt that a 4mm loco can be made to work with cranks set at 120 degrees. I have seen it done. Is it less efficient? Yes but not enough to cause any difficulty. Is it worth the bother? Not unless you stand a loco in front of a mirror to show off what you have accomplished. The loco I saw it done on, which was a P1 with an inside working crank axle built by Malcolm Crawley, had push on wheels. Much easier than making new axles for Markits wheels. How many modellers nowadays have the skills and equipment necessary to machine new axles to match Markits/Romfords? Then deduct those who don't model three cylinder locos and the number who will be machining their own axles becomes even smaller. In my view, the types of people who will be bothered about their locos having 120 degree cranks are also the types of people who will be using push on wheels because of their better appearance.

I am not too sure if the Cambrian had any locos with a firebox needing a firing shovel that length. Or any other railway for that matter. That looks more like a fire/ash clearing tool than anything a fireman would use on the footplate.

Hello Richard. It is good to see that you are taking some time and trouble to get the signalling right. I will just put forward a thought for your bracket signal. If the RH loop line is for goods only, it would be unlikely to have the same type of arm as the main line. According to the LNER Constituent signalling book, goods loops were signalled with a 3' 6" long arm fitted with an oval ring. A suitable oval is supplied as part of the etch from Wizard/MSE. Just to confuse matters, I have also seen some photos with a round ring rather than an oval one. Also, the cast iron bracket was usually painted black rather than white, although this did not seem to be universal. I hope that gives you a bit of guidance and I hope that you don't mind me bringing it to your attention. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Tony

I don't think that anybody did blame the loco for that one, least of all me. I just remembered the incident after Tony W mentioned that real examples of P2s coming to grief by derailing had not been forthcoming. I am a huge P2 fan and I am looking forward to seeing Prince of Wales even more than I looked forward to seeing Tornado. Lots of people are still around with memories of Peppercorm A1s in service but you have to be pretty ancient (apologies to those in that age bracket) to remember a P2 in original form, so somehow that makes it more special.

I have read an eye witness account of a P2 derailing in traffic. 2001 once ran South of Doncaster on a stopping passenger train as a running in turn and came to grief shunting a horse box on or off the train (I can't remember which) in Bawtry goods yard. Somehow the ancient sleepers in the yard pointwork, (which didn't usually see anything bigger than a GNR 0-6-0) didn't like the big loco trying to straighten the rails out and gave way in protest.

I saw those streamliners at the weekend and they do indeed look lovely. One of the last things Malcolm Crawley was working on was a "West Riding" set. They were nearly done except that he was waiting for some etched numbering/lettering to be produced. One thing he never really found an answer to was how to make the "fairings" that went between the carriages in service to maintain a good surface all the way down the train. Has anybody ever found a way to do this in a realistic and practical way in 4mm scale?

It is quite easy to look back, from an age with computers and diagnostic systems that the railway designers of ages ago would only have dreamed about and to criticize what they did using drawing boards and slide rules. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Many an improvement in design and technology was made as a result of a quest to remove faults of a previous design. Different designers have always had their own policies. Some went for standardisation, with a small number of types being brought in even if there were some duties that they may not have been ideal for. Others looked at the needs of a particular service and designed a class specifically for that service despite the fact that it meant a larger number of types and sometimes quite small numbers of a particular class. Enthusiasts, several generations later, saying that such and such a designer was right or wrong do so from a position of relative ignorance. We base our views on a tiny amount of published information compared to all the meetings and discussions that we know nothing about. Yet some of us express our opinions on what happened many years ago as if they are indisputable facts. Do people really think that a designer would ever deliberately put an "accident waiting to happen" into traffic. The P2s may have been a flawed design as first built but there is no doubt that they could have been sorted out and that the choice between rebuilding them or correcting them may have gone the other way if Gresley had still been in charge. Most classes of steam locos were subject to weaknesses and failures. Do you see people going on about the outside cylinders working loose on Princesses or the poor quality of Crewe casting leading to regular wheel spokes breaking? Or the 3 times that Duchess fireboxes failed (leading to high risk of explosion)? Or their trailing trucks falling to bits? Yet the P2s are remembered for destroying track and breaking crank axles rather than for their superb power and performance. We will, before too long, see just what an "improved" P2 would have been capable of as Prince of Wales will be better than the orignals in several respects.