t-b-g

The hobby is certainly changing rapidly but then again, it often has in the past. The huge variety of RTR now available does make building kits a personal choice rather than the necessity that it used to be. I wonder just how many people are like you and would rather build a DJH A1 than use a RTR model? I would guess the number is small. I see very few new kits coming onto the market. Those that do appear tend to be based on 3D printing, or resin casting, which I am not keen on as I can't solder them together. I don't even class a one part 3D printed body as a "kit". I don't think I would enjoy "assembling" it like I do an etched or cast metal kit. There are very few kits out there that are of types that I would like to add to my collection but I have bought a few new kits to add to the pile, so I hope I am doing my bit to keep the kit manufacturing side of things going. Most recently, I have added Connoisseur Models kits for an 04 (the diesel variety) and a B12, both in 7mm scale. Not my usual GCR area and period but I like both types for various reasons. As I said, my philosophy is to buy it when I see it, as otherwise I may not get one at all.

I am not sure that I agree with you Tony. Buying a kit when it comes out, with a view to hoarding it for maybe years, is giving the kit manufacturer an earlier sale compared to waiting until you are ready to go ahead. So creating a stash of kits actually does more for the kit producers than waiting. If everybody waiting and bought a kit only when they were ready to actually build it, the 90% of kits that never get built may not ever have been purchased and that would really impact on viability and sales. So having a cupboard full of unbuilt kits is good for the kit producers, even if the kit is still available. It would still just be one sale but the seller hasn't had to wait to get their money.

I think the reason I have such a stash of unbuilt kits is because I have always been aware that such products come and go and if there is the slightest possibility that I may want one at some stage, I would rather have it already than go looking for a long extinct kit. Worst case scenario is that it is still in the stash when I fall off my perch and somebody else has to build it. I have enough to keep me busy for as long as I can foresee. As long as certain essentials, like rail, wheels, motors etc. are still to be found, I can make everything else if necessary. A friend of mine bought an O Gauge kit in the DJH sale and was told that once the kit was sold out, no more would be produced. So whether that applies to certain kits or the whole range isn't known, at least by me. Several kits have disappeared from the website as they have sold out.

The Bachmann J11 is, in my view, one of the best RTR locos ever produced. I could find very little wrong with it and although I am very much a maker rather than a buyer, I couldn't resist getting hold of a "Collector's Club" version in GCR livery. Several years later it is still in its box but it may get a new set of frames in EM gauge at some point. The body and livery is as good as any model I have seen. The only faults I would pick with it would be that under the boiler you can see a solid block rather than down into the frames/inside motion and the usual RTR great big hexagonal crankpin retainers, plus wheels rather coarser than I am used to working with. If mine does get new frames, that will sort those problems out. The placement of the coupling rod knuckle is, as you say, quite correct for all the examples I am familiar with.

That is sad news but I can understand the reasons behind the decision. I have had the pleasure of exhibiting layouts at Warley show several times and it was always a great feeling to be part of such a significant exhibition. Thanks to the organisers for all their efforts and hard work over all these years. Tony Gee

Anybody pondering the idea of adding a few loco kits to their "stash" may be interested to see that DJH have a sale on, with 25% off their usual prices. Not a bad time to stock up!

Pontefract show has become a great opener to the new year. I hope to be there on the Saturday. It is always a good show and the line up of layouts this year certainly looks to be worth coming to see.

I remember watching you build it around him as he sat at his bench working and being asked to help the odd time or two when you were struggling to either reach or hold things in difficult places.

Hello Pete, When I first started going, the basic groundwork along the front area was in place and painted brown (like the are around the West Carr Road bridge in the video) and the controls were already on the inside. I had thought it was around 2002/3 but perhaps it was a bit later if the 2003 date on the video is correct.

When John McCrea did his teddy bear fur demo at shows, somebody once made a joke about skinning teddy bears in front of a youngster, who was quite upset. So he made a sign that said something like "No bears were harmed in making this display" that went on the stand from then onwards.

It is astonishing to me that it is over 20 years since Roy invited over. It is no wonder that remembering exactly who did what and when is a bit hit and miss. Getting involved with Retford was one of the best things that has happened to me in model railway terms and as a group, we always remember that for all his rather strange ways, our little gang is eternally grateful to Roy. Without him and his layout, we may never have formed the long lasting friendships that we now enjoy.

The first experiments in teddy bear fur did indeed follow on from a trip to see Leamington Spa. The first area of "Wolf" fabric came from there. John McCrea then contacted the supplier and obtained a substantial roll. John and I played around with a few techniques, including the heating treatment, which is designed to make the individual strands of fur curl and be less dead straight. One demo, at Glasgow show, resulted in a small fire in John's toolbox but that is another story! We experimented with various colouring techniques and adopted a dry brushing method, using mostly acrylic "Sap Green" but allowing much of the yellow of the fabric to show through. We preferred that to the soaking it in green dye or paint that others have done but that is personal choice and both methods work. John got hold of some dog clippers, along with some upgraded blades, as the ones that came with the clippers became blunt very quickly. He measured out, cut to size and trimmed the fabric and I did the detailing, using cheapo hairspray and a range of different scenic materials to add variety and texture. I can't recall who did the basic colouring. I certainly did some as I can remember coming home with very green fingers but we may have shared that task. The drainage ditches fences, hedges, bushes and old allotment huts were done by me. It was really the start of the "Retford Mob". Roy was making little progress and I had started going over and spending some time with him. He was disheartened and felt that the layout would not progress any further as John Phillips and Geoff Kent had little interest in getting involved. I had said that although I could never replace those two, I would be willing to have a go at some scenic work. I had only just started when John McCrea arrived on the scene and we worked together on the area around the crossing. Gradually, one or two other started coming along and contributing in one way or another and it soon became a regular working session. Out of all of us, I would happily credit John McCrea with having by far the biggest input and he has really achieved a huge amount of progress in the scenic work and in the buildings.

This isn't from any position of knowledge but it occurs to me that if you only have a single reversing lever in the cab, then whichever way the loco is running, you want one set of valve gear in forward mode and the other in reverse. So you would want one set working the opposite way to the other. Making one set "opposite hand" would be one way of doing that.

That is quite right but there were a number of very competent heavy freight locos that managed perfectly well with 2 outside cylinders, including the excellent GWR 28xx and Stanier 8F, BR 9F and many more. So 3 or 4 cylinders were not strictly needed to get the power output needed to haul the trains. So my view is that a decision to fit more cylinders, especially on a heavy freight loco, was done for other reasons, such as more even application of that power to the rails. The LNER main line was an interesting one for heavy coal trains and working them between the frequent and fast passenger trains gave the operating department lots of headaches. Getting a heavy coal train moving a bit easier and quicker was a factor that not many routes had to deal with in the same way.

I should have had them as my first example being a GCR man! The ones fitted with boosters must have been amongst a very small number of locos with 5 cylinders. I can think of the C9 NER Atlantic rebuilds and the P1s and not much else.

One of the reasons why Gresley liked the 3 cylinder designs rather than 2 is because the power was applied more evenly to the driving wheels. They got a "push" and a "pull" from the cylinders spaced evenly three times per revolution. I recall being told that when it came to starting a heavy train, it was the best way to apply power evenly and smoothly and that the O2s were better at starting heavy freight trains than the O1s and O4s. I have read of a modeller who set his cranks at 120 degrees with no adverse effects. As long as you have one rod that can pull or push the wheels around when the other is "dead centre" then you shouldn't have a problem. I also record reading that 4 cylinder designs varied in that some had each cylinder set at 90 degrees and some had two pairs of cylinders acting together. As far as I know, all the outside cranks were set at 90 degrees, to reduce the additional hammer blow of two lots of coupling rods going round together.

After battling with some inside Joy motion for a 7mm LNWR Prince of Wales, Vincent Worthington came to the firm conclusion that it should be called "No Joy" valve gear.

I posted this elsewhere, on one of the "proper" Christmas threads but in case anybody missed it, I shall put it here too, to wish all the Wright writes regulars all the best for Christmas and the new year. Guess who found the "arty farty" software on his tablet........

After a couple of false starts, trying to use some etched components that really needed too much adaption to be suitable, we have the first of the cylinders for the Class U. The main block is machined and filed from a lump of brass and the cylinder/valve fronts and backs are turnings. Just got to make another one for the other side then on with the valve gear.

Best wishes to all RMWebbers for Christams and the New Year.

I wonder if it demonstrates that there can be degrees of uniqueness. A one off loco is certainly unique but if in a class of locos like the A4s, there is only one "Mallard", isn't "Mallard" still unique but not quite as unique as the U1 as there are other very similar examples around. Another matter to consider. If there were lots of members of a class, with only one preserved, then that loco has gone from being not unique to being unique, without any change to the loco at all. So is something like "Flying Scotsman" unique now all the others have gone I enjoy watching the "grammar police" do their work but sometimes I wonder if fighting to keep an ever changing language as they think it should stay is a thankless and fruitless task. It is not as if we can ever go back to the days when we had "railway stations" rather than "train stations", so getting worked up about it just raises our collective blood pressures and alters nothing. I used to enjoy winding Malcolm up on that one. I would tell him that he was happy to catch a bus at a bus station, so he couldn't be unhappy to catch a train at a train station. Light blue touchpaper and stand back!

Aren't all locos unique? Even ones in the same class all have different numbers, rendering them unique. It was how we know which one we are looking at.

A most interesting document and thanks for posting it. I wonder if any of the ideas that had been gathered through the public consultation were ever implemented, or if nationalisation put an end to such plans?

I would be surprised if that is the same man. It would be odd for a General Manager to be designing carriages. It is more likely that the Newton who designed the carriages was a senior draftsman rather than a General Manager. Malcolm Crawley always referred to the carriages as "Newton" but he didn't like giving Thompson any credit for anything. Most things on the rails were actually designed by relatively unknown people in drawing offices but they ended up bearing the name of the CME.

Hello Tony, I have only ever built one "Little Engines" GCR tender, as most of their kits were too modern for my period. I would think that the tender in the J11 kit was based on the same castings and moulds as those in the other kits. I don't recall there being any problem, other than the castings being a bit chunky in places. The frames and steps could be assembled in the correct places and I had room for EM wheels. I think the one you have there has just been put together incorrectly. The diagrams and instructions provided were not great and it would be an easy mistake to make for anybody not too familiar with the real tenders. If you don't fancy taking it apart to fix it, have you considered substituting a different tender? If you are looking for accuracy, that tender won't ever satisfy that criteria looking as it does. Or maybe I am being too picky, as I tend to be sometimes. Regards Tony