t-b-g

Very clever! Have you explored the limits of just how thin you can get a bit of plastic with the cutter? Is the limit the settings on the machine or the strength of the plastic, which will probably wave about and break below a certain size? To make the grooves I use a scraperboard knife, which is just a handle with a diamond shaped blade, available from most good art suppliers. It is used for making those foil pictures. Recently I purchased an OLFA cutter and that does the job too. Either will make a nice even groove with little or no burr to clean up. Tony

I forgot to include that bit in the sequence shot! I just scrape it with a scalpel blade to create a slight chamfer. I feel the same about trying harder. I look at the photos and just see the slight gaps and inconsistencies here and there! A coat of paint hides much and the photo is quite a bit larger than real life. At least that is my excuse! It comes from seeing the work of the master of plasticard modelling, Geoff Kent, at close quarters. Sometimes he inspires me and sometimes I just have to accept that I will never ever be that good! This is what it looked like after a coat of mucky black. I can't seem to find the photos of it lettered at the moment. Tony

Hello Andy, Thanks for the kind words. It is one of a very small number of scratchbuilt vehicles I have built in 4mm scale (EM Gauge). This particular one is a model of one that lasted well into the 1960s as an S & T Departmental vehicle. I should do more as I really enjoy scratchbuilding. The window bolection mouldings were made from 20 thou round rod, built up in sections. I found it very difficult to get two curves in the right places so I bent a 90 degree angle, just using fine pointed round nosed pliers and then cut the lengths to fit afterwards. As it happens I took a stage by stage photo of the windows as I was writing an article on the construction for MRJ and I took photos as I went along. I hope this explains it. Regards Tony

A little hint for the beading on the lower sides, in case you hadn't considered it! Try to scribe a groove first (or perhaps your cutter will allow you to do a shallow cut). It is so much easier to keep the beading straight laying it in a slight depression. I would get hold of some 10 thou if I was you. I have used both and the 10 thou looks miles better. I use the Slaters stuff because being red it shows up against the white background and it is easier to spot mistakes. I have never worked out whether it is best to do the horizontals or verticals first but I always do the box round the outside and then cut the centre horizontal to fit afterwards. That is some seriously nice work going on there and I look forward to seeing the finished results. Proper modelling I calls it! At the risk of intruding on your lovely thread, I am attaching a photo of an MS&LR 4 wheeled carriage to illustrate what I mean. This originally had 20 thou lower beading but it looked way too heavy so I took it off and replaced it with 10 thou. Tony

There is a P2 running in BR Green on Retford and it looks quite at home. The number it runs with is 60993, which is what Mons Meg would have carried if it hadn't been converted. You may need to come up with another good story to explain why 2001 didn't get the A4 style front end! Plenty if us play fast and loose with locations and fictitious towns, lines and stations appear all over the place. Why not mess around with loco history too. Part of my fun in modelling is creating scenes that I never saw but wished that I had, so I am all in favour. Tony

I put a posting on the Hornby Interim Results thread about the way some people seem to view Hornby nowadays. It seems that anything they do is wrong for some people. If a moulded handrail on a tender is such a dreadful thing to you, then you have some choices. You can live with it, you can change it, you can decide not to buy the loco and try to kit/scratchbuild a better one, or you can decide not to have a P2 at all. Whichever anybody decides, it won't change the world and it won't cause Hornby to alter the model. On top of that, there are further choices regarding how you convey your views on the model. You can take a fairly pragmatic approach and say that Hornby have produced a model to a particular specification and price and base any comments on what they have actually produced or you can go on about what Hornby could have or should have done (in your opinion). Going on about what Hornby should or could have done achieves little but if anybody feels better for getting it off their collective chests then RMWeb does at least give people a platfom where they can whinge sorry, express their perfectly valid views that they have a right to air until the cows come home. However did people manage before the web? All this negative energy trapped in with no way of releasing it. I, for one, have read so many comments about moulded handrails (often by the same few people) that I am totally bored by them! A few years ago, having a P2 that looks like the one in the photos for around £100 would have had us all drooling (and still does in my case). We have been totally spoiled by the way that economic conditions allowed cheap and highly detailed models to be produced in the far east. Those days are ending for Hornby and for everybody else. Look at the Heljan O2 with a proposed price of around £185. Something had to give in terms of price, quality and the ability of a manufacturer to get models onto the market. Hornby have chosen to lower the spec. slightly to keep prices down. We all have the choice of either purchasing such models or not. We also all have the option of whinging about it or not but if we are going to do that, please can we at least find something new and interesting to say rather than going over the same boring things time and time again? For me, I think Hornby (and Tony Wright) have got their ideas just about right. At the advertised price I will be having a P2 but if it had been as little as £20 or £30 extra I would have been having second thoughts. The P2 is a magnificent loco and I say well done to Hornby for bringing out such a great looking loco at a really sensible price. Tony

That footbridge is looking very nice indeed. Just to clarify a little point. Edwinstowe wasn't on the GNR, it was on the LD&ECR, later the GCR. That maybe explains the slight differences between the two photos. Having done the odd bridge or two from either plastic strips or cut in one piece from a sheet, if I had a plotter/cutter I would have used it too! It certainly isn't cheating, it is just a case of using the best tool that you have available for the job. It does make me think of a previous thread about whether it is scratchbuilding or whether you have designed a kit but to my mind, it really doesn't matter what the process is called, you have just made a really nice bridge! Best wishes, Tony

Erm.......... Seen in Utrecht. Now who will be the first to model that?

Narrow Road is based loosely on Broad Street, set around 1923/4. We have a GEM 0-6-0 and a 10 carriage set of close coupled London Road 4 wheelers. Some of the very early "Jinty" 3Fs were put to work on the passenger trains, so we have an Alan Gibson kit fitted with destination boards for working the passenger train, while the goods tank potters about in the yard. Much of the other traffic is LNWR with a bit of Midland and GNR thrown in, on the basis that after grouping, we can be a bit, shall we say, flexible in our approach. There was a short lived long distance run from Broad Street to (from memory) Birmingham, so we have said that this service was successful and resulted in more long distance express workings. You can see some photos of the layout at www.narrowroadlayout.co.uk It is a certainly a very interesting line to use as a basis for models. Tony

Simply gorgeous! The lining is similar to GCR (as in white/black/white/red) and having done one or two by hand I can appreciate just how neatly the complex livery has been applied. Tony

As a little encouragement for you I will bring along a completed Black Hawthorn, built my my good friend the late Malcolm Crawley. I sat opposite him as he was building it and I lost count of the number of times he expressed his appreciation of the design and quality of the kit. It really is a lovely kit of a delightful loco. I look forward to seeing you there, Tony

Looking very nice. That valve gear looks just right to me. Have you ever tried chemical blackening to stop a joint getting soldered up solid, rather than foil? I find it quite a bit easier, as I had a few problems with bits of foil tearing off inside the joint and I had to take things apart for a second try too many times! Tony

I don't think that an Atlantic is any easier or harder than an outside framed 4-4-0. Having built a kit for a GWR outside framed 4-4-0 I can confirm that getting it to go round corners ain't easy! The bogie wheels go up inside the outside valances. I remember the old Triang Lord of the Isles had a great semi circle cut out of the footplate valance to allow a bit of sideplay round tight curves and I will be very interested to see what Bachmann have done. The need for outside cranks as an extra complication could well mean that the production costs of the Atlantic and the 4-4-0 could well be similar. Doing the Atlantic as a 4-6-0 won't help the clearances around the rear bogie wheels. Taking the fixed wheelbase further back means that the bogie needs more sideplay and there just isn't scope for very much. As a wildcard entry, I would suggest a 2-6-2, with the rear bogie wheels fixed in the frames and a fudged "bogie" where just the leading wheel is pivoted. I have seen this sort of arrangement on a model loco (an outside framed 4-4-0 which will go round 2'3" radius curves in EM) and it works a treat as long as you can disguise the con. Tony

I am delighted to see that another pre-grouping loco is appearing. The differences between the LBSC and the GNR locos are pretty tiny (if the cab, tender and front curve on the footplate were altered along with the boiler fittings it would fool most people!) and if a GNR variety appeared I would certainly have one. The clearance round curves is not quite as easy to sort out as all that. Having been involved in the construction of 4 GNR Atlantics and 2 Jersey Lilies in EM gauge, there are some potential problems, mainly involving the bogie. Just look how close the rear bogie wheel is to the back of the cylinders and to the driving wheels. I can live with slightly undersized wheels (real wheels got turned down by a bit over their lives) but I feel sure that it will take a bit more than that to sort the bogie out. On the O4 the relationship between the pony truck and the cylinder was tweaked to get some side movement on the pony and it is all but undetectable without measuring, so Bachmann do have some experience of such tricks. I wonder if they might put the bogie pivot between the rear bogie wheels, to minimise the movement on that pair. Tony

Roy usually asks that any photographs that are taken are for purely personal use and are not to be published (in print or on the internet) without his approval. That way, when he considers that it is a good time for a published update (which is usually when he is asked to do one by an editor), he has some control over what is seen and how his layout is portrayed to the public. Apart from wanting to retain some editorial control over how his layout appears to others there have also been, in the past, some unfortunate incidents involving publication of photos which could have compromised the security of the property, as they clearly showed access points into the property. I don't think that there is any one of us who would like photos of their security arrangements posting on the internet and for those two reasons, Roy asks that photos are not posted without his specific permission. The superb photos that Andy York took of the layout for MI and BRM give a very good idea of what it looks like now and very little of note has happened since they were taken. Babworth Bridge has moved on and the gardens on West Carr Road have progressed plus there are a few more working signals but nothing spectacular! So you ain't missing much by the lack of photos with the blog! Tony

I am going to be a bit lost now! I look forward so much to my daily "fix", wondering just what treasures will turn up each day. This has been my favourite ever thread on RMWeb and seeing the photos your Dad took has given me many hours of pleasure and a great degree of modelling inspiration. I wonder if he ever thought that his photos would be enjoyed by so many. I can only guess at how many hours of work have gone into scanning the photos and checking details/captions etc. but it will be lots and lots, so many thanks from a very grateful enthusiast. Best wishes Tony

What an offal joke. I thank you, Tony

This particular photo has had me intrigued and while Dave has continued delighting us with new photos, behind the scenes the LNWR "mafia" have been consulted! Many thanks to LNWR Modeller (Jol) and Philip Millard for investigating. It turns out to be a very interesting vehicle indeed, as Philip's comments are as follows: "This is a very rare sighting. The coach is the 50ft 0in x 8ft 6in Invalid Saloon of D.55, BR(M) No. 812, previously LMS 10681 and LNWR 5320. It was converted in 1920 under W/O 644 from Guard and Personel (Medical Officers and Nurses) Car originally built in December 1915 for Home Ambulance Train 19. A photo of it in ambulance condition appears in "LNWR Great War Ambulance Trains" page 31. It was withdrawn in July 1952 and this is the only picture showing it that I have ever seen. It must be on its final journey - but to where but if it is on a down train at Rugby? Note the apparantly battered upper footboard. Regarding the later comments, the coach must surely be in LMS maroon livery, not LNWR or BR crimson/cream. But I admit that there is no date recorded in the official list for when it received its first LMS number 10681" So does the lack of a date in official records for the application of the first LMS number mean that it never happened, or was it missed from the lists. If it never got renumbered, did it ever get repainted? If it never got photographed, did it see regular use or was it tucked away being used for some other purpose for 30 years? So many questions! I have no way of proving it but I love to think of the idea of the vehicle being used in the back of a works somewhere as a stores or a staff mess van, never getting any attention and then being photographed on its one and only journey to the scrap yard. Anyway, thanks to DaveF for bringing us the only known photo of the vehicle and to Jol and Philip for ther research into the vehicle. Tony

I don't know if the idea is a total non starter due to space considerations but is there any mileage in looking at some of Frank Dyer's "kick back" fiddle yard ideas? That would enable one of the fiddle yards to be built properly and the other (which could be on the same level, is just a pair of tracks (so only using about 4" of baseboard width) with the actual sidings going back, perhaps parallel to and behind the main layout. I have designed quite a few exhibition layouts and I find the work involved with cassettes for long trains is an absolute nightmare, to the extent that I won't have them again unless I am totally out of other ideas! Even with a four carriage train plus a loco, which will fit on a single 4' cassette, a cassette type fiddle yard need so much more attention than a fan of sidings. It is so much easier to be able to have all the trains set up and run them in and bak out again before they require much attention. Just a thought to throw into the pot! Tony

Thanks for looking. More superb shots appearing daily! Never mind a book, that lot would make a smashing series! I won't have access to any LNWR carriage books until Wednesday when I visit a friend but I am also puzzled as to the type of vehicle. It is a bit unusual in that it looks to have 4 pairs of double doors and it looks like some kind of full brake. There are folk on here who know a lot more about LNWR carriages than I do, who could probably look at it and instantly identify it as such and such a diagram. If it is a full brake, red and cream becomes less likely as a livery. In that period, I would have thought that any surviving LNWR full brakes, would have been all over red, either LMS or early BR. What happened to the royal train vehicles during and immediately after the war? Weren't they still in LNWR livery and is there a chance that some of the less exotic vehicles got used in normal service? I love a good mystery and I firmly believe that your dad photographed one there! Cheers, Tony

When I try to watch the video I get a "This video is private" message so I can't actually see whet is happening. There can only really be two causes to a slight tight spot. Rod length or quartering. To check rod length, I set the wheels in a dead forward or backward position (or both - worth trying in case crank throw differs from wheel to wheel) and very gently prod the rod with fine tweezers. If there is any tightness of the rod on the crankpin at all, it is rod length that is at least part of the problem. It is at this stage that "proper" engineering takes a back seat to pragmatism! If you take the crankpin retainer off the one that feels tight, you can usually see that the crankpin bush is not central in the hole in the rod, but is tight against one side of the hole. If that is the case, I simply make the hole bigger! If the rod lengths are all correct and each section of rod has a small amount of play dead fore and aft, the problem is very likely in the quatering. My method of checking this is to hold one wheel dead fore or aft again and to turn (gently by hand) the next one to the limit of its travel. The second wheel sould go equal amounts above and below dead level. If it doesn't, the quatering is tweaked until it does go equal amounts either side of the first wheel position. Nowadays I assemble the wheels in the frames and then make the rods to fit by clamping a front and a back together with the wheels dead front/back, then lifting them away, soldering them together and addind an extra thickness for the boss at each end. So far that has given me 100% success rate. In 99% of cases with a slight tight spot, a very slightly bigger hole in the coupling rods seems to get rid. As I said, pragmatism over engineering but it seems to work! Good luck, Tony

Normally I would agree with you 100% but there is a distinct dark strip along the top edge of the side and dark looking verticle beading. There is also a distinct change in colour at the exact place where it changed on the LNWR livery and an impression (admittedly from a poor quality reproduction) that there are curved corners to the dark panelling. The tumblehome on LNWR carriages was very slight and if you compare it to the later LMS carriage behind it, the upper side is at a quite different angle to the light. It is also filthy and as such, light reflection is minimal. It also explains why the "white" is so dark. I felt a bit silly even suggesting it (especially after somebody was misled by a photo prompting a similar question on L & Y livery recently) but as somebody who has painted many a LNWR carriage in 4mm scale, the first thing I thought when I saw it was "Flipping Heck!" that is still in LNWR livery. I really can't convince myself that it is all over red/maroon/lake or that it is in BR Red/Cream so that leaves LNWR. I would expect to be proved wrong as I really can't believe that a carriage would be in that livery in the 50s but I really think that the camera has caught something rather unusual! Tony

Interesting leading carriage on 7180. It sounds almost too daft to be true but I would lay odds that the leading carriage is in LNWR livery. Any thoughts? Tony

Looking good! The "brim" of the retaining bush looks to be ever so slightly proud of the front of the rods. You could gain a few extra thou by thinning the outside face of the front bush of the coupling rod until the outside face of the reversed retaining bush is flush with the outside face of the main part of the rod. I have done it in 4mm and it really doesn't show and looking at more K2 photos it is probably more realistic to have it totally flush. Best wishes, Tony

I know that prototype clearances are often tiny but it would be interesting to investigate why the model has problems there when the real one didn't. Either the crankpins stick out too far or the slide bars are too close together. You would need a good plan view, such as a GA to check the slidebar dimensions but checking the crankpins can be a bit more visual! Looking at photos of the real thing (most of which don't show the leading crankpin very clearly) it appears that the leading crankpin on the locos may have been recessed into the coupling rod as it doesn't look as if it protrudes beyond the outer face of the rod. It is possible to do something similar on the model by countersinking the outside face of the rod and reversing the coupling rod retainer so that the "top hat" part goes into the rod rather than sticking further outwards. It might buy you a few "thous" here and there. Best wishes with sorting it out! Tony