adrianbs

Hi All, After my usual struggle trying to remember how to do it here's the image, I hope. Not easy to take as I had to use flash and it is in my showcase. The uneven wheels are due to copious amount of Evostick holding on the track.

Hi all Trawling through the web for more pictures I found " jackssnaps.tripod " which gives a page of pictures on building an a.b.s. models kit for anyone interested. In the early part of the post it was suggested that steam loco tenders might not have been used at the front of a train because they were 6 wheeled. Hardly the case bearing in mind how often locos ran tender first. The "steam brake only idea" does not really hold water, the brake tenders had to be fitted with air brakes anyway as the chassis were either cut and shut from old coach frames or possibly new build I suspect that it was just a matter of better riding unless anyone knows different. I will try to upload a pic of my once I have found the lead for the camera !!! Regards adrianbs

Hi All I have been in touch with Dave Larkin and neither he nor PaulB have ever seen the two DBTs with possible BR Mk1 ( or Mk 2 as noted on one internet site ) so we still await confirmation. The only pictures I have found with the Heavy Duty Gresley Bogie are PaulBs 964046 and one in the late Geoff Gambles "Cheona" series No 5 on brake and cattle vans which is 964040. The closeness of the numbers is interesting but may be purely coincidental. Since there were about 120 built and the number photographed at the moment seems to be only about a third of the total one could specualate that on the balance of probabilities there might well be about 6 or 7 on these bogies. On the other hand it might be these are the only 2 and just happen to have been photographed. Other sites on the internet have not added to the photographic total much. Pleased to have a bit more support now, some people's logic certainly seems strange on the " He's a competitor so he would try to rubbish it" theme. It was very tempting to let H/M go ahead and if the model was inaccurate to then have a go. If this model is poor, other magazines will no doubt pick it up and it would be very much in their interest to "have a go" as it would tend to rub off badly on H/M to their advantage. They would not have anything to lose in the way of advertising revenue, as they would with their major advertiser's products. Apart from the strange logic, I do not always rubbish competitors products and those who might like to read my posts on Dapol O gauge wagons will find that to be the case. One could just as well speculate that certain posts in support of a manufacturers products are being biased the other way for various reasons. People know who I am, but not all members of forums might be "declaring an interest" as they say in politics. That's one for all of you to ponder !! Do hope somebody has a photograph of a Diagram 557 just to complete the picture Regards adrianbs

Hi Martin From your details of the body I hold my hand up as the source but the bogies are not. They are rather rudimentary and not W/M. I don't know if you went to a lot of trouble to fill in all the panel lines on the body as they seem to have disappeared but you probably did not have my instructions which specifically state to ensure the body panel joins remain visible.!!! Regards adrianbs a.b.s. models

Hi AndyY Certainly do, but their name is on the Mag and I have no doubt the publicity Dept might have liked a bit of kudos for aiding the production, rather than a load of brickbats for a model from H/M which many modellers still assume is, in some way, connected to Hornby Railways.. I certainly would make the same sort of comment about Bachmann or a "Bachmann magazine" product if it were deserved. I'm no respecter of names unless they deserve it.!! Bachmann have made some pretty silly mistakes as well, some of which I have discovered, to my cost, having bought the models in good faith. Even I, God forbid, have dropped the odd b------k using published data which turned out to be wrong, although in most cases nobody seems to have spotted it. I doubt there is any manufacturer who has not done so. especially 40 years ago when published info was very thin on the ground. I have had much help from private individuals, often freely given, as they were not in competition on the manufacturing.side and were desperate for the end result, preferably free. !!. Regards all adrianbs

Hi GrahamM There is not much point for Mike to "Welcome informed and constructive feedback" if he does little about it. My "highly inflammatory" remarks are largely the result of reading a years worth of quiet constructive criticism which has resulted in a complete mess. I have no idea in which direction he now plans to go, whether 555 or 556 or any other B/T but whichever way it is to be, the entire CAD needs reworking. Whichever diagram is chosen the bogies will have to be completely or largely replaced because his LNER bogies won't fit under a corrected length 555 body even without detail improvements. If it is to be a 556 he will have to start from scratch and design LMS bogies and redesign the body profile as well. In some ways a 556 would be preferable ( and easier to design or use available RTR bogies) as there is already a plethora of 555 kits and handmade RTR. models. I know of no 556 kit and those modellers who have no brake tenders will probably be perfectly happy with either and those who already have 555s would probably like a 556. It is unlikely anybody is going to buy more than about 10 so they won't run out of running numbers. Obviously a 557 can't be made from a 556 even if we assume it did have a 555 body with BR Mk 1 bogies but as yet that is an unknown quantity anyway and probably best left to kit manufacturers because there were only 2. As the announcements all list 556 B/Ts it would be less embarassing to stick with that and it involves only doing a little more CAD work than continuing with a 555. I would not be surprised if most of the others on the forum who have commented about the inaccuracies have, by now, given up the struggle as they have seen little sign that their comments are having any effect. I know I came late on the scene and I am sorry about that, but no one approached me at the beginning anyway. I was sorely tempted, following the way I have been treated in the past, to let H/M and Mike Wild carry on without comment and then post my comments after the model had gone into full production when they could do nothing about it. Bearing in mind this is "Hornby" magazine I am quite surprised they were not approached for LMS bogies but maybe they were, and had insufficient stock. Bachmann could also have been asked and might have been in a better position to supply. RTR LNER bogies are more of a problem as the B/Ts do not have steps and I think they may be moulded in.on the other RTR models.. I am not sure if Mike has read any of the last few days posts but if it is now too late then so be it, and H/M will have to live with the consequences. Regards adrianbs

Hi All Agree with the above comments but until I have a commercial contract with money on the table, why should I help a competitor get things right and thereby damage my business. I don't want an accurate B/T, I already have a shelf of kits and a finished model. If Mike Wild is being paid to do this model or expects to get some financial reward for his efforts when it is produced, which I assume is the case, why should he expect free help to get it right. If he can't design an accurate model then he should not be doing the job. The exact same thing has happened with a lot of current Dapol models, many are inaccurate and one very recent model is a totally freelance design which purports to be a nuimber of completely different prototypes. If you are talking about "Toys" rather than "Scale models" some of these products would be acceptable but I am under the impression that these are supposed to be scale models. Other members on this forum have been querying the CADs for a year and no notice has been taken on most of the points. If the latest CADs are nothing like what is to be produced why bother to post them at all. Better to either put the corrected CADS up or nothing . Equally why go to the expense of E/Ps when general agreement about the accuracy of the model has still not been achieved. Pressing the green button is expensive and pressing it twice or three times can ruin the the finances. Quite why there is any confusion in Mikes mind about whether this is a Dia 555 or 556 seems incomprehensible but even that has not been resolved. The BR Diagram sheets referred to earlier makes quite clear the basic dimensional differences and the various photos show some of the other details. Looking at some of the other model manufacturers LNER bogies would throw some light on errors there. not to mention the fact that GAs of the various bogies are available. A quick trip to, say, the Severn Valley with a tape and a camera would give you all the info on LNER bogies of the types in question and the LMS bogies as well if the Dia 556 were the intended target. Thats the way I do my research when the full size still exists. It's not just Dapol and H/M of course, the same sorts of ludicrous mistakes are made by other RTR companies. Hornby are now on their 3rd generation LNER coaches and I'm not even sure they have corrected all the errors yet. To 7013 I would say-- Of course I condemmed the model on the strenth of the CADs I could hardly do otherwise, thats the only information about this model available to date and I can only assume that the last lot of CADs are those being used. If they are not then Mike has made himself the whipping boy without good reason. The financial success of this project is in dire jeopardy and for me personally that is great news, for most of the rest of you it is a disaster Regards Adrian. PS Next time perhaps I will keep my mouth shut and watch with glee as the model gets slated by all and sundry !!!

Hi all Is there anyone out there ??? If so, do you have a photo, or reference to a photo, of a Dia 557 showing BR bogies. I feel the urge ------ to pack some of my redundant Triang/ Hornby BR Mk 1 bogies with my kit and offer a cut price version to those desperate for something different. The first one to prove its existence gets a freeby. No photoshopping allowed. Regards adrianbs

Hi Jack, Sorry if I got the wrong impression of what you posted, I have no idea what that particular emoticon means and it did read as though you agreed I should not make such strong criticism of H/M. I've been in business now for a long time and it has been clear for most of that time that the mild rebukes made to RTR manufacturers by magazine revues etc, because of commercial pressures, have had very little effect. I have dealt with many projects from my customers and I have found it almost impossible to persuade them that their patterns etc need major redesign unless I put my opinion very forcefully. Often this resulted in me rebuilding them for free ( The old " If you think you can do better " ploy ) but the final model was received with far better reviews and subsequent sales to the benefit of all concerned apart. of course, from the opposition. Just as well you don't need a B/T though !!! A case in point in these posts were the ones which ponted out the bogie profile and brakeshoes MIGHT BE SUSPECT. Another mentioned the lack of rear springs and the position of the others looked as if they MIGHT be incorrect. No change has been made at all to improve the bogies which are, as shown to date, APPALLINGLY INACCURATE !!, ( This is real unrestrained criticism ! ) Indeed,, depending on the final body produced, may well be entirely the wrong type of bogie altogether. The use of modern CAD technology is of no value whatsoever unless correct dimensions and details are put into the files and then used correctly as a result of some detailed knowledge of the prototype involved. Human brains are still way ahead of computers and I would pit my aged grey cells against a computer on a project like this unless the full size prototype CAD files were available, Even then many adjustments have to be made when scaling down and the human brain is still the best tool available for that because computers do not have design skills as yet, at least not the ones on simple CAD programs. No doubt early next week we will hear from Mike Wild and maybe the news will be a lot better than at present. Regards adrianbs

Hi All Don't know why some of you are getting so angry at me, I'm not the one who appears, at the present time, to be going to con you into buying a seriously inaccurate model. Far better for you and all those modellers who, unlike you , are waiting for the really accurate model they have been promised, to raise your voices in protest at Hornby Magazine. I shall be delighted from a commercial point of view if the model is C---P !, I have no doubt it will give my sales something of a boost when the more discerning decide to buy a kit instead. I'm not spending my valuable time posting on this forum for my benefit but for your's. I already have a very nice accurate B/T and I could have as many more as I like to the same standard. even though the kit it is about 40 years old. I'm sure 7013 will be quite happy with his model which will be half Dia 555 and half 556 with poorly detailed bogies unless major changes are going to be made. I'm not quite so sure all the other hundreds of modellers waiting for this will feel the same way. I am sure Jack will be more likely to be kicking himself for not supporting me if the model turns out as shown at the moment. So far, Ian, gentle persuasion aimed at Hornby Magazine seems to have had little or no effect over the past year, maybe a slightly LESS RESTRAINED attitude might just get some results. I am sure you are all well aware what sort of reception the LMS "Stove R" received when it finally appeared, this model will be far less accurate unless the changes recommended are made. Hopefully it will not keep falling off the track this time but even that is not yet guaranteed. bye for now adrianbs

Hi 250Bob Have you actuially read any of the rest of this thread or only the last 3 or 4 posts ?? The last posts only confirm what others have been saying since Nov 2012 and gives slightly more detail than elewhere. Quite clearly Mike Wild has not checked or altered hardly anything over the last 12 months in spite of more than one or two queries as to which Diagram he was working to. The bogie detail seems to have deteriorated in the later posts even though the profile and brakeshoes have been mentioned as being suspect. If you are accusing some of us of not offering assistance until it was too late I am afraid that won't wash. I have no idea who Mike consulted before starting work, nobody has held their hand up and I certainly was not asked and indeed only found out about the project this week by accident.. I assume there has been some contact with Dapol's own designers but have no idea if they had any input into the project. If they did I am surprised some of the more obvious mistakes were not noticed by them either Naturally, as a major competitor I would hardly have been likely to want to build my own gallows but suitable inducements might have persuaded me otherwise. Maybe Hornby Magazine wants all its design work done for nothing, I am sure you know what paying peanuts gets.. As far as I can see, having read ALL the posts, those who have offered advice seem to have been largely ignored. The latest Cad/cams are still fatally flawed but don't worry, the model will get rave reviews in at least one magazine. Yours cynically adrianbs PS I would offer a ruler to help the design but I am not sure such a crude way of checking things is used these days.!!

Hi Dave, I have done some more scaling up and the last Cad/cam is quite definitely a Dia. 556 Body length !! Alas, although that might please some who could substitute LMS bogies, they are going to be stuffed too. The body will almost certainly have the distinct tumblehome of the Dia 555 which is absent on the B/Ts with LMS bogies. So unless the model can still be changed, the tooling was supposed to be under way on or before the 14th Nov according to Mike on that date in his post, it looks like Hornby Magazine will have a model with a seriously duff body and a useless underframe !! Now where did I see comments like that before ?? I suppose the Toy Train brigade will still buy it and it will become a collectors item in due course as well. I wonder if Dapol are still involved and know about the problems. After my other comments about their products it will probably be water off a ducks back, but I am not sure I have the courage to tell them.!! Any volunteers ?? Sorry to upset all of those who were going to buy one or more but better to know the grisly truth now, rather than after you have spent your hard earned money Regards adrianbs

And a final PPS, Looking very closely at the drawings which alas do not show a side elevation I have a distinct feeling that the model is going to have a Diagram 556 body length but with the Gresley bogies found on the 3' shorter Diagram 555, hence all the incorrect running numbers listed for production. Anybody for 9' LMS bogies?? Regards all adrianbs.

Hi all, A final PS to the above, if the last Cad./cams are those being used for the bogies it looks like I am going to have great sales for mine as people chuck the H/M ones in the bin. The drawings appear even more inaccurate than the earlier series. So many innaccuracies lead me to believe they were designed without reference to any of the available drawings, photos, or full size bogies. I am already rubbing my hands with glee, preorders will have to be placed as I can see my stock disappearing like the tickets for the Monty Python revival shows. Regards adrianbs.

Hi All, Sorry about that Clive but read on to find out my real motives. Just had a trawl through some of Paul Bs photos and confirmed what I was pretty sure about ( After 40 years the old grey cells are not as good as Poirot's). When I released the Mk 2 kit in all metal I decided to do a second, different version. Not wanting to have to make LMS bogies I decided to use the other LNER bogie kit I had done by then, the heavy-duty double bolster 8' 6" version. As I thought, there were indeed full size B/Ts with this bogie and a few of Paul's pics show them. The sides are about 40% deeper than the standard ( Can't be bothered to get out my G.A.s ! ) Not sure if they are all from one of the batches mentioned earlier or just random as they came up for use. Perhaps somebody could check this as we don't want H/M to fit the wrong bogies DO WE !! Actually it would in fact have been a better choice for H/M to have chosen the heavy bogie as there is no RTR one available and I think the Hornby Gresley Buffet and also some Full brakes used this bogie. There may have been some ulterior by motive by H/M or Dapol for making a new bogie rather than using an existing one, I wonder what it might have been ?? Could they have planned to do some coaches with it?, but all are now covered by Bachmann or Hornby or are they?? At that time in about 1971 I was working very very closely with George & Allan the pioneers of modern etched brass kits and after the Siphons and Monsters etc. had been done I was hoping to get them to produce a Quad-art set. I'm sorry Clive that the only thing I used the bogies on was the B/T but that was NOT what I had actually produced them for. Alas within a few months of my going full time, G & A shut down with financial problems. Having helped them out with their other products, my plans came to nothing as I was not able to do artwork for etching. With regard to the use of Loco tenders, apart from the 6 wheel problem the good riding qualities of Gresley bogies when properly maintained was probably decisive. The B/Ts were made using cut and shut redundant coach chassis so cost very little to produce and the long low body gave a low centre of gravity when filled with Ready-mix concrete. This idea was probably carried over from the concrete platforms of the late LNER/ Std. BR brakevans etc. The only other disadvantage of Gresley bogies was turned to advantage in this case as they were somewhat heavier than single bolster bogies such as the LMS and other companies mainly used. I used the heavy bogies on my TRACK CLEANING Version of the B/T as the centre spring had to be omitted for the cleaner pad holders. The deeper sideframes conveniently hide most of the missing springs. Do hope H/M don't read this, might give them ideas. If anyone wants a whole fleet of my B/Ts I can always swap the bogie sides for heavy ones to make a change. I just wonder if some of those who have posted have actually got the wrong bogies under their models already. Until the full fleet number list is available one can only go by PaulBs photos. I am not sure how many he has caught. Time for bed now so will do a read through and post tomorrow adrianbs

Hi All Just thought I would pass a few comments although unfortunately a bit late because the model does not interest me and I had not seen it mentioned in any of the mags I read etc. As the "perpetrator" of part of the first and the whole of the second model of a diesel brake tender in 4mm and having read right through the posts I am afraid I have been having a really good laugh at the tangle Hornby Mag seem to have got themselves into. Clearly they have not got a copy of a G.A. drawing which I had access to when doing version 2. I would have thought York ought to have it but a lot of "in service" stuff seems to have been with Serco until recently. The very first kit was produced about 1971-2 largely by me but under the "MOPOK" label. When they ceased trading about 1973 I did not want to use the vac form body of the original so I produced a fully whitemetal body to go on the existing W/M bogies I had produced for the first version. In those days there was none of this "New fangled" Cad/cam stuff ( I still have problems just using a keebored ) The bogie was tooled up with the simplest of handtools, photos and a load of measurements taken from a preserved bogie stored outside the old Clapham Tram Depot which was the infant NRM. One of the posts mentions the apparent inaccuracies of the bogies, surely they could have saved all the bother and bought in either Bachmann or Hornby ones complete and saved a small fortune on tooling. I did not have that luxury as in the late 60s there were no really accurate Gresley bogies of any type available, even the original Wills/Kennedy bogies had been discontinued and in any case I could produce them myself cheaper. My bogies weredesigned with brakeshoes of the correct shape on both sides of all wheels and the springs are pretty much in the correct place both between the wheels and behind the frames. Even the Double bolster bogie design is fairly accurate from above in spite of the fact you can't see it !! I did omit all the internal framing and brake rigging, so I have to take that criticsm on the chin. As the above Cad/cams seem to show, there are no brakeshoes, no springs behind the frames and the centre bolster spring set seems to be far too far out. Apart from that there seems to be one further major fault but it might not exist because Cad/cams of this low quality may not be good enough to show it. Gresley bogies sides, ends and most of the internal structure are made using pressed steel sheet not flame cut steel or steel sections. I think these may well have come from Leeds Forge Co the originators of the famous FOX bogies but in this instance the top flange is outward and only the lower flange of the main frame is pressed inward. When steel of this thickness is bent though 90 degrees there has to be quite a large radius, about the same as a wagon corner plate where the outer radius is about 1.5 to 2 INCHES. If this does not get incorporated the steel cracks on the bend line. Very few models of Gresley bogies have this VERY noticeable radius to the bottom of the frame and even fewer the inner radius at the top which is much smaller of course. I can't see any sign of this on the drawing above but I suppose it could be there if the drawings showed a cross section. Guess whose bogies do have this feature. Does seem that unless there is going to be quite a lot of extra design work done, as it stands, the RTR model will not even be as good as a 40 year old kit and certainly not better apart from being RTR. The kit is very straightforward but of course, being a kit, obviously has insurmountable problems for most modellers in spite of the fact that probably over 1000 have already been sold and they are still freely available from me. My kit has been mentioned earlier so I thought the forum might like a bit of background history. Have fun playing trains while you wait for Hornby Mag to sort things out---hopefully !! adrianbs

Hi Paul You are absolutely right there are many gaps, I have over 50 7mm models largeley complete for 7mm scale but not yet available. I attend the big 4 O gauge shows every year and I have display models of most of my range which I rotate, as the stand could never hold them all ( about 150 currently in production ) In spite of this a number of my most recent products have been largely "Vanity publishing" as they have either not even covered production costs or more likely have not yet covered the research, design and tooling costs. There are so many products competing now for limited money that even the easy to build 1 piece resin body wagons have a likely sale of less than 100 units over a 5 year period. This compares with figures more like 50 per year for each of the first 10 years when I started in the 1970s. Bearing in mind that my research, design and tooling is done by me in most cases I do need to get a return on my time as well as the production costs. Since I do days and days of research etc for a new model and would expect about £100 per day for this you can soon see that I need to sell about 100 immediately to show a small profit and well over 50 just to cover my time and poduction costs. I am well aware, that there are some that believe my figures to show my marketing is all wrong but I am still in business even though retired when many have fallen by the wayside. Many smaller ranges are only hobby businesses and some think they have done well if they cover their stand costs at a large show like Telford. Others may break even and perhaps cover hotel and travelling costs thereby making it a "Free" weekend and perhaps cover the cost of a few small purchases for themselves. Although first in the field with many of my products, over the years most of the good sellers have been duplicated, triplicated or more virtually wiping out my sales. This will now happen to the "big boys" who make plastic kits if RTR takes off just as it has to me. The kit market will stagnate just as it did in 4mm once the TOY firms starting making accurate models. I was only in 4mm as were others and we were forced to turn our attention to 7mm to continue to survive. Luckily for me I got in at the start and have got out at the top. Regards all adrianbs

Hi All, My enquiries about the date the Concrete beams sets were in Poole has yielded a result, somewhat to my surprise I can now reveal that the Flyover in Poole was built 1975/6 so the trains must have been either 1974 or more likely 1975. I am sure this is not of earthshaking importance but is nice to add to my files Regards All adrianbs

Hi all I am sure we are now all hoping for a clarification ot the above Dapol announcement. Naturally AndyY will be most anxious to contact Dapol to resolve the apparent anomalies and Dapol will be equally anxious to reassure prospective purchasers that their press release, as published above, had a number of misleading statements. It would be extremely disappointing indeed if the above listed wagons wil;all be on 10' RCH chassis thereby scaling up some of their least accurate 4mm models Perhaps a much more detailed list of these proposed wagons can be provided as soon as possible to allay the fears of those querying the accuracy of these projects... As the market now stands with Skytrex seemingly out of the RTR rolling stock race, Bachmann brass RTR having ceased production and Richard Webster of Lionheart now part of the Dapol team there is now only Heljan to prevent a monopoly in this field. Whilst many O gauge modellers, as we know, are prepared to buy anything they are offered whether or not accurate as long as it is RTR and will actually run on O gauge track it would be very sad if future brand new products were not made to a standard at least the equal of the "best practice" 4mm models. Since much of the 7mm kit market for the last 30 plus years has been producing models of a higher standard than anything on the RTR 4mm scene until the last few years and is still the equal of anything available it seems very retrograde to go back to the standards of 4mm models in the 1960s. Alas at the moment that is the direction in which Dapol have been heading and a rapid change of direction is urgently needed for the benefit of 7mm modellers if not the kit manufacturers Unfortunately the kit manufacturers will suffer whatever happens as any RTR models will inevitably have to largely duplicate existing kits because almost all the commercially viable RTR wagons have already been produced as kits, in many cases almost ad infinitum. The kit market has already been reduced either to duplication or to producing earlier and earlier designs or highly exotic prototypes with limited sales and very high tooling costs. These models will never be attractive to the RTR manufacturers as they offer no profit.. The cottage industry products are often labours of love by dedicated modellers who, rather than scratchbuild, prefer to go for limited production runs which will just cover their costs but are unlikely to result even in a minimum wage income.. In similar words to Dave Jones I am very glad I am out of it but, unlike him, I am retired. Regards all adrianbs

Hi John I, Go out and buy a couple of those Warwell B kits and a Bachmann Warflat when it arrives !! Adrian

Hi John I How easy is it to get the wheelsets in and out ?? I wonder if the dimensional changes may have allowed more flexibility to the sides so that the wheels could be sprung in. Did you fit bearings ?? Difficult to do with the bogies in one piece. Just a thought, if the front and rear "headstocks" were only attached to the inner structure would that make life easier or just allow the axles to push the sides out.?? I had not realised you had fitted Lowmacwheels to lower the headstocks. Triang/Hornby raised the buffer centrelines for decades with obvious detriment to the models. In many cases that involved raising the whole chassis ( Wagons & coaches and some locos) on some locos they reduced the drop down of the front buffer beam/footplate.This was done because most of the locos already had undersized wheels and would have looked even odder with raised bodies. In most cases this meant that the wagon chassis had axle bearings too low in the axleguards and also on some coaches but coaches often had their bodies raised up relative to the bogies as well which meant the axle bearings were not so far out of position. They always claimed that it was ABSOLUTELY necessary for clearance on the front of locos with bogies, presumably again because of the sharp transitions on their elevated track approach. Doesn't seem to be necessary these days though !! I remember there were quite a number of reviews which complained about this, to no avail !! Of course it did not happen on Hornby Dublo because the couplings were lower down and sometimes cranked to give better clearance. Triang were not prepared to make a cranked tension-lock which might have solved this problem. In those days however the Triang products were so toy-like that the few rivet counters that existed avoided them like the plague. Sadly there are still not as many rivet counters as one would like. Those that are do now have a louder voice, even though there are some who do their best to silence them. !! Regards adrianbs

Hi all Postscript to my last post which may have made anyone contemplate giving up, or putting up with what they have done. I have done some quick scaling up and comparison with my side on photo of the bogie and it looks as though the buffer beam could be moved back by the requisite amount , approx 5mm I calculate and it would not need lowering much to meet the angled top of the sideframe. In addition the top flange of the sideframe is not correctly arranged and if the flange were carefully removed only on the side, a new flange could be added on top and also extended inwards along the horizontal top edge to get very close to the original !! NB there should be similar angled top edges on the inner bogie longitudinals as well. By my calculations the springs are only 2' 6" long on the full size and the frames end at both ends 1' 6" from .the axle centre How do I know the measurements, well, on my side on photo you can see a horizontal white line above the springs, that is my "yardstick" (actually 2yds and a bit ) so that I could scale off dimensions on that plane at least. At the outer end though there is an extension to fit the Brakewheel cross shaft whose centreline is about 3" outboard of the headstock. It's beginning to look as if Triang could have made the well full length as they have added about 1' 6" by distorting the bogies for no good reason ??. Regards all Adrian

Hi all, I am afraid EnterprisingW has indeed got a good point about the bogie length. Looks like that Gremlin/boffin has played an even crueller trick on the rivet counter than I had thought. Alas I know of no available spring/axlebox unit to use, not even one similar for, say, a tender. The trick is even crueller than E--W-- might have noticed insofar that should one actually move the axleboxes, the access holes in the sideframes become asymmetrical. It is not too difficult to shorten the inner end which is anyway rather clunky but the outer end would need to be cut right off and moved inwards. This probably means the angled top surface of the frames would be all wrong. It depends whether the buffer height in relation to the axle line is correct or, as was often the case in those early Triang days , raised by about 2mm. You might just get away then by setting back the headstock AND lowering it a bit so the angle does still meet it. There is of course the ultimate option, jump on it and chuck it in the bin !!!! Then produce an accurate set of patterns for a kit or get one of these 3D printer whizzkids to make a master for resin casting or small scale production. Sorry it's all gone a bit pear shaped but that Gremlin/boffin has always been really good at his job and is still busy sub-contracting his skills to other manufacturers. I think, in the classic words of the Irishman when giving directions to the lost traveller "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here" I think the asylum beckons John. Regards Adrian

Hi all Regarding the widths of 7'6" and 8'0" I think this is explained on the LMS dia which shows the dimension over the brake wheels as 8'0" and over the well as 7'6". The LNER diagram only says extreme width but not where. In the days when this model was made and even today, making a more accurate model with correct internal detail in the side I beams and elsewhere would be a nightmare for tooling and even an etched kit would be a mammoth task to build though it might be feasible to produce it. This is one for the latest 3D print technology because most surfaces are on the three axes ( Note NOT gas AXES Jon ) Only a few parts would need to be added as W/M castings to improve the quality. Even the Trestle could be done this way without the obvious steps encountered with the lower resolution printers. Who's volunteering ?? although without a visit to York AND access to the GA it would need a lot of guesswork. I think the latter may now be available at York although I have not checked my index. The nearest anyone has got to a model of a similar sort of wagon is the batch of O gauge LNER Weltrol K 12 wheelers which amazingly were made in the 1960s, I believe, and part whitemetal. They were as good as anything today but I have no idea how many were made. I know of 4 and I have most patterns for the W/M castings. There is a picture in the "Beeson book" but I don't know who made the patterns although I believe Keysers made the castings and may even have done the whole lot. In the '50s and '60s Ken Keyser built quite a few scratch built models for clients, mainly locos but no doubt could have produced these if the client had bottomless pockets, as a few did.!! When I asked Beeson about these wagons he said he had never done them and they don't bear some of his hallmarks anyway. Thats all for now folks adrianbs

Hi Jon Normally the number in the Top RH - 113 is the page number in the/a diagram book, in this case probably the LNER one as the LMS version is page 134A Regards adrianbs