t-b-g

I get the Vallorbe ones from H S Walsh. At the time, there was a bit of discount for bulk buying and a friend and I each bought a bulk pack, which we split, so we had half a bulk pack of two different sizes. As they are so superior to the previous ones I used, I find that they don't "snatch" as often and they actually last much longer. Nowadays, I often discard blades that have gone blunt and stopped cutting well before I break them. The Vallorbe blades were about £3 for a pack of 10. Hardly extravagant, although Walsh don't have the Vallorbe blades in the sizes I ordered any longer.

Good morning Tony. It was the most challenging kit I have ever encountered. Hand drawn, with LH and RH parts drawn independently and not quite identical, along with many parts that simply could not be used as they were provided. Challenging but rewarding too. Ken Hill started it but ground to a halt. Malcolm Crawley finished the construction many years later but couldn't make it work. I made it go and then Malcolm painted and lined it. A true labour of love and a nice team effort by a good bunch of friends. I had the opportunity to demonstrate the use of a piercing saw at Missenden this weekend. My success at this technique is very much down to buying decent blades. Anybody who struggles using the blades bought from model railway suppliers should try some good ones to see the difference. The ones I use are from Vallorbe. More often than not I can now cut a straight line that needs little or no cleaning up.

It doesn't seem like two minutes since we were discussing Jidenco Claughton kts. I think I mentioned the that you had photographed the one we have on Narrow Road. You sent the photos on a disk, so presumably you have them somewhere digitally. I have a small file digital version, which was sent for me to write the captions, which I am posting. I hope it is OK for me to post one of your own photos. It took three of us around 18 years to get it finished but it spent most of those in a box where it lived in disgrace for a long time. I have never resorted to prayer when using a piercing saw. Just careful marking out and a little bit of skill, learned through practice.

You may well be right but I haven't seen any evidence of the new TT120 being anything other than a train set gauge. I am sure there must be plenty of people working away on "proper" model railways using it but I just haven't seen any yet. I have seen plenty of superb 3mm models and layouts.

That makes sense and is pretty much how I saw things too. the advent of the Hornby TT:120 stimulated interest in the 3mm side. I keep having a look at the 3mm Society lists and daydreaming! I inherited 3 shot down George Norton/London Road kits a while ago so I wouldn't be starting from nothing. I have seen some lovely modelling in 3mm scale and the reason I like it is that it is very much a modelling scale. You have the historic Triang TT or the very much self reliant build it yourself projects and not much by way of mass produced, good quality RTR that has swamped the 4mm world and is doing something similar in 7mm now.

Except that they are two quite different scales. 3mm uses 1:100 as a scale and the new Hornby variety is 1:120. I don't see how they would mix on a TT project. I am totally on board with you though, regarding the appeal of the scale. I have always had a soft spot for the 3mm version and I even have one r two kits stashed away, just in case I get the urge to have a dabble. Many kit manufacturers have been happy to have their kits resized and sold through the 3mm Society. As a builder rather than a RTR enthusiast, I would be happier building 3mm kits (or scratchbuilding) and would avoid the Hornby RTR products. If I ever did do anything, I think I would be looking at the 14.2mm track gauge. 12mm gauge at 3mm to the foot is even further out than OO Gauge. A one part, 3D printed body has little appeal for me. Most of the fun I get is from making things. I like to do a bit more than paint it, add some coal and some transfers. I would be a little concerned about the weight of the finished model too. A cast or even an etched kit gives an opportunity to add weight in nooks and crannies. The smaller the scale, the more important weight becomes to aid power pick up. Perhaps there is room in the 3D printed 3F tank to add some but the actual body itself won't contribute much.

Thanks for that. I hadn't twigged it was the same loco. My knowledge of diesels of that period is very sketchy and I hadn't looked up the renumbering scheme. I had looked at the buffers on the side on shot of 11111 but couldn't quite tell which of the two oval types they were. The second shot confirms which they should be. I am still a bit undecided about the buffers in the kit. They are quite nice castings but obviously the shape of the heads needs altering depending on the loco. I have wondered about drilling them out and making new turned heads to allow me to spring them, or perhaps replacing them if some suitable sprung alternatives are available. So I put them on just to see how I feel about them and I quite like them, so I am now tempted to keep them and just alter the shape of the heads to suit the prototype. Watch this space! Thanks, Tony

It is interesting that you found pretty much the same as I did. The more I looked, the more variations I found. Locos which should have a conical exhaust sometimes have a stovepipe, locos that were built without skirts got them later (like 11111). A few had LNER style buffer beam lining, with a black and white edge. Perhaps they did have post war LNER style numbers too. I do think that the wheels suggested by Connoisseur and supplied by Slaters are not quite right for the early locos. they are the right diameter but they have an even number of spokes, whereas the early locos had wheels with an odd number. So the balance weights are a full 180 degree arc when they shouldn't be. I can live with that as some locos have wheels with an even number of spokes and a full 180 degree balance weight but I think these were the later batches with larger wheels. The diesel is very much a little "quicky" side project for me and although I like to get things right if I can, I am not going to lose any sleep over minor discrepancies. I only bought the kit at Guildex at the beginning of September and I just wanted to see how quickly I can build a 7mm loco if I put my mind to it!

The kit I am building is the Connoisseur Models one in 7mm scale. It is a very nice kit indeed and I have hardly had to alter anything to make things fit together, although I chose to upgrade a couple of items, like the brake pull rods. It still needs a few more details adding, like sand boxes, front lamp irons, hooks for the shunter's pole and a few other bits. It does include quite a lot of alternative parts, including some for industrial versions. I attach a couple of snaps, posed on the Colin Marsden book that has a nice photo of 11111, with no skirts. I my have to drill some holes along the edge of the footplate to represent the fixings for the skirts.

Many thanks for all the responses. I do have MRJ No 3. My memory for MRJ articles is usually pretty good but it let me down this time and that one had completely slipped my mind. Having had a read through, it clears up the vacuum pipe query and also confirms that the early black livery used normal steam type numbering. I have a few books that I have borrowed from diesel minded friends and had a good trawl on the internet and I managed to sort out most variations but I just couldn't find a reference to tell me which locos had vacuum pipes and what colour the lettering was. My model will be 11111, just because it was in the right part of the world at the time and there are not many opportunities to give a model a number like that. I have now found a photo confirming it had vacuum pipes. I think I have the footplate, cab handrails, side door panels, sandboxes, and other details about right. I have given it a whistle and no horn, which turns out to be right according to MRJ. Once again, the membership of RMweb is a wonderful help in such matters and I really appreciate those who have taken the time and trouble to help. I have been looking at Railtec transfers and I quite fancy their "faded" crests. Tony

A little out of my normal comfort zone and my personal library and internet searches have failed to help but I am currently building a kit for the Drewry 04 diesel shunter. I have two questions that I hope the assembled RMWebbers will be able to help me with. The loco will be finished in the early BR black livery, with the early crest. Were the numbers cream or white? I have found a colour photo but it is rather too weathered to tell what the base colour is. Looking at models produced either commercially or by other modellers, I have come across some with white and some with cream, so i am a little confused. Secondly, most locos seem to be vacuum fitted but there are some that have no vacuum pipes. Is there list or any information on which locos were fitted and which were not? Is it down to particular batches of locos or is it more random? The kit is for one of the first 15 locos and photos of them in original condition don't seem very common. I don't trust preserved examples, which may well have changed over 70 odd years. Hopefully there will be those more familiar with this class than I am who can help. Many thanks in anticipation. Tony Gee

My experience of RTR models for my own use is virtually nil, as I have said before. When I took on the task of making Burnden Park run, there were many locos which bumped quite badly through the hand made, fairly tight tolerance points on the layout. To be fair to the locos, the points were 16.5mm gauge with 1mm check rail gaps, which required a B2B minimum of over 14.5mm. However, when I started checking and altering them, the B2B measurements were anywhere from 14.1mm to 14.5mm. So the points were not built to a normal OO standard, which made the situation worse but measuring the B2B dimensions was a real eye opener. As has been said, generally OO is a fairly tolerant and forgiving way to build a layout, so perhaps it is not that critical if you have wider check rail gaps. If you do the sums, 16.5mm minus two lots of 1.2mm check rails means anything over 14.1mm B2B should go through, so you may have a wide variety of B2B dimensions and just never had a problem with them.

My eldest daughter always counters "It's not rocket science" with "I studied rocket science at University and it's not that complicated". I like the way that some folk say RTR back to backs come at a good consistent standard and others say they don't. Both can and could very well be correct. It all depends on how the wheels are assembled in the factory and how good the machine, or the person operating it and checking it, are. I have had some RTR locos with good, consistent and accurate B2B dimensions and others with dreadful ones. So they all get checked (I also use a Vernier Gauge, an old fashioned non battery one) and any adjustments made.

I have used both the SE Finecast and the Slaters bricks in 4mm scale. My latest purchases of Slaters have all been very brittle and I have had great problems with the sheet just breaking apart, especially if I have tried to make a curved wall. Whichever I use, I always sand the surface to flatten the bricks and to give a bit of a better texture for paint to stick to. I know two people who hand scribe all their bricks, one in 4mm scale and one in 7mm. It gives superb results, with all the small bricks at corners and windows reproduced correctly but you have to be a certain sort of masochist to try it in large areas. This is my most recent 4mm brickwork, this using English Bond sheet from Slaters. The small bricks at the windows are not correct but I am not losing any sleep over it!

I recall reading somewhere that an express would serve "principal" stations and that an "ordinary train" could call at "secondary" stations but I am sure people who know the rules and regulations better than I do will know more. I presume Grandborough Junction is classed as a secondary station as many Class 1 passenger trains (in the Buckingham timetable there are no expresses, they are called "semi-fasts") rattle through without stopping. Presumably the same applies to non passenger workings. My common sense tells me that a loaded cattle train would get a higher priority due to the nature of the load, requiring food, water and general looking after. Maybe that isn't the case.

Sadly, the WTT for the GCR Buckingham branch has not survived. Or maybe it never existed! I have established, by reading articles, that the empty wagons are stored overnight in the sidings at Grandborough. They work empty to Buckingham, where it is always market day. They are loaded and then worked back to GJ, where wagons for Grandborough and Leighton Buzzard are detached. The Leighton Buzzard traffic is attached to a passenger service so fitted wagons are used for that portion. The rest goes off to other destinations. The process is reversed later in the day. There are other cattle wagons which form part of the regular goods services. What puzzles me is that both the full and empty trains run as the same class, with the same headlamps and bell codes. Is that how it should be? The cattle for Grandborough could be attached to a local goods but as the cattle train leaves quite a while before the next goods, it seems unlikely that the loaded cattle wagons would be held back.

I have often puzzled about the wording of some of the descriptions. Does express freight, fish, meat, fruit or cattle train mean that they would all have to be express, or is "express freight" one type of train and "cattle" another? Or does it have to be an "express cattle"? I have a reason for asking. There is a cattle train on Buckingham, which is partly fitted (at least one third of the wagons fitted) which runs to Grandborough Junction, adds more wagons and goes to Buckingham. On the way back, it detaches wagons at Grandborough. On the Buckingham timetable it runs as a class 9 under three bells as a "pick up goods" but I really don't know if it should be a different class of train. So is the train class based on the make up and load of the train (presumably a loaded cattle train would be higher priority than a general goods) or is it based on how often it stops to shunt along the line, which impacts line occupancy and overall journey times. Could the train still be an "express cattle" even though it stops to detach wagons at Grandborough, as it is at least one third fitted? I attach Peter Denny's own hand written notes on GCR bell codes and train classes, which list his sources for information.

In my view, the RTR firms are just looking to find something they can add to their locos to make them "better" than previous ones, or those produced by others. Once you have reached a certain level of detail and performance, things like working lights, moving bits, opening smokebox doors and such gimmicks are more about giving their products something they can shout about in their sales pitches rather than meeting any actual needs. There seems to be an attempt to cater for two quite different markets. "Proper" modellers want an accurate, well detailed replica. If there are some fancy gadgets on it, then sales in the "train set" market might get a boost. I would beg to differ about the lamps being fixed and not removable. I bet I could get them off!

The work you are doing on this lovely layout is really paying off. Having seen what you have been getting up to at Missenden, then seeing the photos of the layout at the show, perhaps the biggest compliment I can pay is to say that what you have been doing, which is really quite extensive, just doesn't show at all. It blends in with the original work on the layout seamlessly. Tony Gee

I do a little bit of work in 2mm and fully appreciate the advantages. If you are familiar with Laurie Adams and his Yeovil Town layout, I do a bit to help him out, including this Dean Goods and SR U Class. I enjoy working in 2mm but I would have to start from a standing start on a project with a huge amount of scratchbuilding and I have enough on my plate with my EM and O gauge projects!

Lovely!

I agree. My work has been mostly in EM for over 40 years. If you are building your own models, putting the frames further apart and fitting finer wheels is a nice advantage. If you have to make most things for yourself, doing them to a finer standard is usually of no greater difficulty and can sometimes be easier.

If you like building models, the lack of RTR for your chosen period is an advantage, rather than a problem. I see little point in building models of locos that are covered, often very well indeed, by RTR manufacturers. So choosing a date that isn't well covered by the RTR firms is a good way to go as far as I am concerned.

I was faced with a similar problem when I built some 4 wheelers a while ago. I was told that it might be possible to get some correct pattern buffers from Danny Pinnock (D & S) who can still sometimes supply 4mm bits and kits. I ended up using the generic "early long" buffers from Alan Gibson, as they were to be sprung and the D & S ones are solid castings. They are the right length and general shape. I attach a photo showing what they look like on a carriage.

I did read once that when we chastise the Americans for dropping the "u" from so many words that it is they who have just kept the original spelling and us that added the "u" later. If I can pick up an old book to do some research and it has the possessive it's, isn't that still current? I am posting this waiting for my soldering iron to change temperature to do some low melt soldering, so modelling is happening! Cheers and hopefully see you soon, although you will be very much missed at Missenden. Best wishes Tony