Clem

Hi Steve, I'm just getting started on the signalling on my layout and have only very recently come across this thread which I have found absolutely essential reading. You provide such a brilliant methodical approach and as such I feel so much more confident tackling my signalling. I have made a start with a MSE upper quadrant ex-GN concrete post - there were two in the place I am basing my layout on, so it was a good simple example to start with. I am using a similar method of building a test rig, get it working with a servo and controller and then when all is good, installing it on the layout - although I have to finish the scenery first and am doing the signalling in parallel. One question (probably with an obvious answer) which I couldn't see answered explicitly in your notes, is exactly how you unplug from the test rig. You've drilled the servo horn to 1.6mm (1/16") to take the bottom part of the operating wire - the 1/16" tube bent at a right angle. I presume that must be clearance fit but loose enough to allow the horn to swing through the angle without gripping the 1/16" tube. So when unplugging,do you rely on enough sideways play on the operating wire to release it from the horn? I'm getting close to that point at the moment with this first signal about to be painted and then assembled. As a final point Steve, I must also add that I have had so much pleasure just looking at your signalling creations in this thread... An absolute joy!!

I've not contributed to the thread for some time now (mainly through embarrassment of lack of meaningful things to say and also my own slow modelling progress) but I do regularly give it a read as it is always full of interesting advice, viewpoints not to mention the good, and often great, modelling. Tony, your work and photos of Little Bytham are always a joy to view and it feels like a little bit of the late 1950s didn't really die when I take them in. Also great contributions from others. Anyway, I have just noticed 2 or 3 pages back, that SEF are re-releasing the Nucast J6 kit. That certainly is very good news. A locomotive class I particularly like and also from South Eastern Finecast whom I like very much. Funnily enough, I've just finished (construction-wise) a Nucast J6 and I'm just waiting on warmer weather to execute the paint job. Here it is (below).... I've never been totally happy with the later shorter chimneys supplied with the kit. I find them a little too plant-pot-ish. The sides of the short J6 chimneys were almost parallel so I've tried to remedy it with a fettled version of one of Graeme King's castings. The J6 engines might all look the same but there are a number of differences and things you have to take into account for different locomotives. As well as the obvious 521/536 differences and tender differences, there are such detail differences as wash out plugs, the length of the ejector pipes on the right side of the boiler, and of course the wiggly wire runs which also varied. The engine pictured is destined to be 64269, a long term resident of Colwick and funnily enough, it was the subject of one of my first attempts at kit building (a WSM kit) 40 odd years ago. Now and for the next few months, I'm going to be trying to complete the layout. I've been trying to do it for a couple of years but I keep getting sidetracked by engine and wagon building. It's just distraction tactics!! I don't feel anything like as comfortable doing scenery as locomotives and I'm slow enough with those! ....but it's something I need to buckle down to....

Happy birthday, Tony. Many happy returns! Not visiting RMwweb much these days, I'm very happy to have caught you on your birthday to pass on greetings. My house extension is almost complete and I'll soon be back to normality and proper modelling. Hope you ad Mo are both well. Clem

I stand corrected, Tony. I did know that - I must be getting (must have got?) old! But what I was getting at was the look of the 7'3 + 9'0" verses the look of the more evenly spaced K3 wheelbase. Many of the ex GN classes had the 7'3 + 9'0" - J1, J2, J5, J6, K2, J50 and the distance between centre and rear axle gives each of these locos 'that' slightly elongated look. I realise that we all look for different things in model locomotives. For instance, if a model has chimney that is not correct, it's something that always seems to jump out to me. Hence I always work on getting that detail right as a priority (as well as everything else right, hopefully). But I realise that different people have different reference points from which they decide whether a model captures the essence of the prototype. Changing the subject, if you're at the exhibition over the weekend, I'll certainly be dropping by to see Grantham in particular and of course other layouts and stands. Perhaps have a bit of a catch up. Not much modelling has taken place chez Clem recently I'm afraid, as the back of the house is a building site!

"4. As far as I can tell the wheelbase is exactly the same, though the valve gear is different. There might also be differences in frame cut-outs, but I'll investigate. " Surely,the K2 wheel base for the drivers is 7'3" + 9'0" and the K3 is 7'3" + 8'9" I know it's only 1mm but 7'3" + 9'0" does have a certain look. Are the two chassis both out out in different directions so thaey match up with the K2 rods?

Merry Christmas Pete! Picking mine up straight after Christmas. I'll be on the phone to Colin very shortly afterwards...

Paul, being a modeller of a layout based on the GN Derbyshire extension, I would be very, very interested in a J5 kit(in fact.. kits). Is this for LRM? Any idea of release date? They were the first engines I ever remember seeing and discerning as a class and as such they have a unique spot in my railway affections. I was planning on scratch-building them in the next couple of years for use with LRM GN 3170 gal tenders. Sorry for hijacking the thread to ask this question. Loving the progress on Grantham and Graeme's J6. Best Wishes Clem

Just a quick post to confirm your last statement, Tony... And to say how much I enjoyed my visit to Little Bytham today. I've seen a part built Klondyke and part built J69 running on LB today - both running as sweetly as anything I've seen - both destined for Grantham... What a treat they're in for! Also one of Tony's O4/3s (Little Engines) was run. I don't know whether it's due to the weight, but whitemetal (and well ballasted etched) kits do seem to somehow reflect the mass they represent better that most RTR locos... or is it just my imagination? Clem

Thanks. Yes, it's going to be 63873. I've been working from a picture taken at West Hallam in early September 1955 where she's clean, black, fresh out of works having just been converted from an O4/3. The kink in the sanding linkage above the long rear splasher was on the photo! Hi Tony. Yes, I'll come over with it when it's structurally finished. (Still working on the far side connecting rod/piston/slide bars :-) .... Don't ask about the sequence of building - you'd be wringing your hands with disgust. But there have been reasons.... ) - Hopefully, I can get back on to the coach conversions later this week with any luck and pop over sometime after that if it's ok with you.

Hi all, I have been reading the chassis debate with interest. It is relevant to me at the moment. For the last couple of months, I have been struggling somewhat with the first rigid chassis build I've attempted in a long time (thanks for the Markits wheels, Tony - I'd have been doomed without them!). To be fair the loco in question is a Little Engines O4/8 with insufficient clearances for OO never mind EM, the gauge I'm building it in. The problems encountered have probably been much more to do with making a chassis work which was clearly not designed with EM in mind. However, with the debate in mind, the conclusions I've come to so far are: 1. It's all about confidence. Having spoken to people about this in the past, most find a method of construction they feel comfortable with and it's the confidence of following a proven routine that determines their preferences. 2. No method is right or wrong. The proof of the pudding etc. If it runs well then it's the right method. Certainly, in my experience both rigid and sprung/compenated have their advantages both in running and building. 3. Choice of wheels for me would be the biggest factor in choice of chassis construction. I would worry much more about constructing a rigid chassis with Gibson or Ultrascale wheels than with Markits. Push-on wheels that require quartering generally don't take kindly to disassembling and reassembling but this is completely avoided using sprung compenated chassis construction as the wheel sets can simply be dropped out without having to take the wheels apart. So I would probably look at doing sprung or compensated for a chassis with these wheels, whereas for a rigid chassis Markits can be taken off and put back on as often as you want. (Believe me, that's happened a few times with the O4/8!). Of course, the need for removing wheels in a chassis build tends to be avoided when following one's usual, well-worn method. 4. My chassis construction skills are not the best!! Having said all the above, building this rigid chassis has been a good, if sometimes difficult experience. I've certainly felt outside of my comfort zone. I'm sure I will build further rigid chassis in the future, but in the main, I suspect I will continue to be a non-rigid chassis builder. For me, it's the knowledge that I can simply get two strips of brass and after bolting together, without being super accurate, I can cut slots for the drivers without worrying that the axleholes are all in line and, when jigged up and spaced, use the coupling rod jigs to solder in the hornblock guides pretty well guaranteeing the accuracy required for good running, knowing that, with the use of a small screwdriver,a little fine tuning will can be made to adjust to the correct ride height if required. Post script: I have found that I have a slight rock on the rigid chassis (a la Bachmann J11!). Not sure how it happended - checked for squareness early on. This makes it stall on some pointwork (particularly single slip). Possibly built in at the stage where the top hat bearings are soldered in. This is where a lack of experience in rigid chassis building has found me out. If it had been a sprung chassis I could have tweaked it in. As it is, because it runs ok, I'll cure it by adding extra pickups in the tender. Here's a picture of my current nemesis! (btw I must say I do like Graeme King's O1 chimneys) Clem

Quote " All were withdrawn from revenue service by 1963.`` - I think you'll find it's May 1965 if you include the Doncaster Works engines. OK - should learn to read better - "revenue" - Sorry.

To be honest if there was another standard close to P4 where the wheel depth and gauge were the same but where the wheel flanges were equivalent to EM tolerances, that would have suited me perfectly. Unfortunately, the last thing the hobby needs right now is yet another set of standards for 4mm. The small suppliers would be up in arms! This argument has already run and I'm absolutely not writing this to re-open it but in truth it would have been my chosen solution if I ruled the world. Having said that, I must emphasise that I love modelling in EM and views looking along the track look really good when the trackwork has been ballasted and weathered well. As far as P4 goes, propelling stock seems to be the big test. If you have a layout were most trains are pulled and shunting doesn't involve propelling more than about 10-15 wagons, it's not that difficult to get pretty good reliability as long as you build good true pointwork. It just didn't suit my personal requirements for my layout.

Hi Farren. That's a $64,000 dollar question! The short answer is time and operational needs. I'm building a large-ish layout and EM allows me to easily convert rolling stock without springing each vehicle. Also, on my last P4 layout, even after weighting all the wagons, I found I couldn't reliably back a train of 20+ wagons over points and single slip into sidings without derailments. This probably says a lot about the standard of my workmanship but I felt that for the layout I'm building at the moment, EM was the best compromise. And that has been born out so far in its operational reliability. I still spring or compensate my locos where possible for better current collection, though. I could expand on this but it would only turn into a long meaningless ramble. The bottom line is that every modeller has a set of requirements and limitations - even if they don't know it - that determines the standards they use. I love the look of P4 and for a small layout I would definitely consider it again. But for my present layout, it's EM. Best Wishes Clem

Cheers Tony, Yes the up-side waiting room is scratch built and can in fact be seen in the background of the third present day photo. The signal box is the Prototype Models kit of Stamford GN box and can be seen in the first and fourth present-day photos. The bridges were also Prototype models products too based on Great Central London Extension bridges. The waiting room will be used on the new layout but the signal box is a bit long in the tooth now and being a card kit it has warped a little (compare it with the 1981 photos when it just been built). I placed it on the new layout as a placeholder for where the new signal box will go to give me the feel of how it will look. I've recently be in touch with the person who was Prototype Models - Ian Wilson - and he is now Pacific Models producing BR Steam engine front number plates and coach destination boards amongst other things. Prototype Models card kits were another oasis of realism in the 1980s. My main station buildings in the 1981 layout was Prototype's model of Heckington Station on the Barkston-Sleaford line. Again I intend to scratch build the main station buildings of the new layout. Best Wishes Clem

"And here's one I did earlier......" I started getting into serious modelling in 1978 and commenced building a OO layout based as my present one, on the Nottingham-Derby GN line. A couple of years later I wanted to build one of the aforementioned Diagram 210 twin sets but although Ian Kirk kits had been available in years gone by, at this time, they were all sold and gone and were the stuff of legend. LNER-based modellers had nothing but some Grafar coaches in a sandy brown or crimson, based on an LMS 57' non-gangwayed standard coach. No internet, no ebay and no Ian Kirk kits obtainable - what to do? Hornby then brought out some LNER corridor coaches which were too short for the 61' 6" coaches and two long for the GE based 52'6" stock - but I bought several anyway. So, what I decided to do was to convert the bodies of the Grafar coaches into the Gresley Diagram 210 using some of the bogies of the Hornby Gresleys. The coaches were hacked about - shorted from 57' scale to 55'6" and the exterior panelling was fabriacated using fablon self adhesive coverings. Anyway - back to this year - Whilst completing the Ian Kirk based twin set above, out of curiosity I dug out the old Grafar based set and I've tarted it up a bit, giving it the correct Ian Kirk profile roofs and rearranged the toilet windows which when built weren't correct. (I didn't have any detailed photos or drawings when I first made them). So here they are. (below) .They are not as convincing as the Ian Kirk set (or as accurate) but I will be using the set at least until I manage to build a couple more of them to match the Ian Kirk set, hopefully next year. I've included photos showing how the two twin sets sit beside each other as well as three photos from my old 1980s layout, none of which have ever been published before. Sadly the layout never got finished due to me going to University. I'm afraid it died when it was dismanted. But I still have quite a few items of rolling stock - some have been to P4 and back - well back to EM anyway. The final photo shows the Grafar coaches in fablon before painting. The final 3 photos are all circa 1981. Interesting how times change. We don't know we're born these days!! Does it ring any bells out there? Best Wishes Clem

Hi Ian, It's really good to have some correspondence from you, the original creator of these iconic kits. I must say 'hats off to you' for producing these kits. They gave real hope to LNER modellers at a time when not much else was available! Although, the kits as you say, are a bit dated now 40 years on, I very much agree with you that they can still produce very realistic models. Most important is the basic shape of the sides and although the depth of the panelling and beading is a little overscale, they do capture the essence of Gresley coaches. When I started serious modelling in 1980, your first batch of Gresley coaches in 4mm had come and gone and for a little while, before another batch of coaches were produced in the early-mid 80s, they were like hens teeth. As a result, my first attempt at a Diagram 210 was taking 2 Grafar coaches and cutting and adapting them. The result was almost acceptable and in fact I'm just tarting them up at the moment and I will publish a picture of them on here soon as a bit of a comparison/talking point. But as you will see, they do not quite capture that feel that your kits can produce. Next year when I attempt a third set, I think I'll try your trick of milling from the back with slow speed cutter. The major thing to watch out for, I suppose, is heat melting the plastic and clogging the cutter. I've also got a couple of your gangwayed coaches to finish next spring. They are up and running but unpainted and undetailed. - They'll get the glazing treatment too! The trick is to have something on the radio to take your mind off the tedium! Finally - I have to tell you that over the years I have built up such a stock of your kits that there is probably little chance I'll build more than half of them - and even then I'd need to live to be 100! Really good to have your kind feedback, Ian, Thank you. Cheers Clem Cheers David - I'll give it a go next time. Clem

No problems Tony. Look forward to seeing progress. I'll check out the aerial photos. Do you have drawings for the buildings? regards Clem Hi Phil, Happy to put a bit of meat on the bones here. Of course it would be much easier just to cement a strip of persex on the inside of coach side but to my eye, the windows look way too far back in the in the frames. However, the window mouldings of Ian Kirk coaches are actually quite helpful as they slightly reduce in both height and width from the outside to the inside. So it's possible to drop the perspex window in from the front so that it wedges in. If it's been cut to the optimum size then it drops in nice and true and straight. I use 0.25mm perspex. What makes the task much easier is a set of digital calipers. It's possible to accurately measure the windows. I then use the points of the calipers to lightly mark a the width of the window, before cutting a strip. I re-measure it to make sure it's been cut accurately and then, if acceptable, I mark the strip using the height measurement and cut out the separate windows one by one. Although the measurements of the windows vary slightly from window to window, I've found for example that for third class windows for non-gangwayed coaches if the perspex is cut to 4.4mm x 11.6mm it will fit snugly in most window mouldings. Once in place, using a fine paint brush, I carefully drift a drop of butatone from the inside on the bottom sill and watch it go round by capillary action. You have to very careful not to get any on the front or rear surfaces of the perspex otherwise it will irretrievably frost over. If the window twists, you can carefully correct it with a toothpick. I find the first couple of windows takes me absolutely ages to get right but you soon get into a bit of a rhythm. I've been considering trying some of the liquid glazing stuff (I forget what it's called) to hold the windows in place - it could be a better option - but I've not got around to trying it yet. One final point: the door drop-lites do look fine with the perspex glued across the back of the opening as they were in reality set further back. Sorry for being a bit wordy, but I hope this helps. Looking forward to seeing pictures of your all third set when it's finished. Best Wishes Clem

Ta for that - it's true, I'm a bit of a geek! (Mind you, not geek enough for some..... my youngest daughter chided me for not using real glass for the twinset! - no pleasing some people!)

I've got many photos of the line, Tony. Basford is more operationally interesting before April 1960, as all three arms on the up junction signal are operational for through traffic. After then all the colwick freight went via Nottingham Victoria and the right most signal, for the back line effectively became a signal for a long siding leading only to Leen Valley Junction and Daybrook. The same applies to the 2 arm junction signal in the bay platform. I have quite a few photos of Basford North that I've collected but as I'm not sure of copyright I can't reproduce them here. Most have been published in books though, (e.g. East Midlands Branch Line Album - Lambert and Alf Henshaw's great set of 4 volumes on the GNR in the East Midlands published by the RCTS). However, there's no problem with the two I've attached which I took in 1978 of the goods shed. Not the greatest pictures but they may help in the building of it. I knew someone would beat it! Can't really say well done though, can I? :-)

Thanks for kind comments Tony. The Nottingham - Derby line has always been my favourite as I grew up at Nuthall and my grandparents lived just West of Kimberley in full view of Awsworth Junction. And yes, I remember Basford North very well. I used to catch the train at Kimberley with my grandmother and siblings and well remember the train, often hauled by a J6, racing down the bank towards Basford. The driver always gave it some and it always seemed that it wouldn't stop in time. 1962 was the year of the L1s - their numbers had been gradually building from 1955 and more significantly from 1960. And then 1963 came and they were all gone! My brother went to Henry Mellish Grammar school and often went up to Basford North station with his schoolmates who caught the 4-17pm to Nottingham Victoria via Daybrook from the bay platform. But that finished in April 1960 when Mapperley tunnel closed. However, you're wrong about one thing - the line has been modelled in OO. Ilkeston Model Railway Soc did a very good rendition of Kimberley (beat me to it!!) so my layout will be a fictional combination of West Hallam and Kimberley in the way it is laid out. I've not got a name for it yet, but I'm working on the principle that the line may have built a little North of Awsworth instead of its actual track formation. Was thinking of calling it Giltbrook.... Anyway, I shall keep a close eye on your progress on the Derby Line thread. 7mm is a lovely scale - it's just finding the space for it! Best Wishes Clem

Well - at last the 55'6" twin set is complete. Here are a few photos although I hope to add a few more later with them in a railway setting. The glazing wasn't so bad - it's one of those tasks where you have the radio on as background and you just keep chiselling away till you've done them all. The lavatory windows were put together with white plasticard behind clear glazing, the the top opening vents made separately in a similar fashion but with 0.4mm styrene rod providing a surround. It's been a project that has been hanging around my neck for years and now it's done, I hope to follow up with a couple more.... but not 'til next year at least !!! Anyway, although it's not perfect, I feel that it captures the essence of one of these sets. Best Wishes Clem

Yes - Loved all of Tony's locos and stock - particularly the Malcolm Crawley test etch J6 for George Norton. Also the G1 and C12 and flat roofed GN passenger stock. Yes, let me now how you get on with that J6 you bought (bargain!) - I've got 3 London road ones to do at some stage. I think they should come out quite a lot better than the Nucast ones being in a finer and more precise material. But I'm going to have to break off doing locos and stock as soon as the twin set is complete and start work on the scenery for the layout this winter! And of course I'll keep tags on your J4 progress. Best Wishes Clem

I'd like to second that. Great to meet you on Saturday, Chris (and nice to see you again,Tony, as well). Chris, your J4 looks an absolute treat. Lovely craftsmanship! Have you started the tender yet? Also, did you manage to get a better printout of the Queensbury article? I think it's a pretty thorough piece from concept to closure. Cheers Clem

A little more progress to report on the twin-set. Detail has been added to the Brake Third end. Similar details still need to be applied to the composite end. After that just painting and glazing remains. Hope to finish soon now. - It's dragged on far too long! I've started using the iphone to photo - very good but it's also very unforgiving! But I think it'll be fine after a little bit of cleaning up and painting! Very good to see and say hello to many familar faces, put faces to names and to meet some new people on Saturday at the EMGS exhibition in Manchester. Also enjoyed the excellent layouts and demonstrations. Best Wishes Clem

The lavatory windows are made up from 2 halves of a first class compartment window. The accompanying (rather unforgiving close-up) picture illustrates this, showing fairly clearly where the cut and shut has taken place. From the left of the picture, the first joint is between the window and the panels and the second joint is half way along the lavatory window. The compostite coach is therefore made up of (in order): - 3 third class compartments (cut at the end of the far appartment window of the third appartment - a short section of first class including 2 panels and half (4.15mm 's worth) a compartment window - 2 full first class compartments and a short part of the adjacent compartment each side (again 4.15mm's worth) - another short section of first class including 2 panels and half (4.15mm 's worth) a compartment window - 2 third class compartments cut at the near end of the first window of the third class compartments At normal viewing distance, once the roof is attached, the eye is pretty well completely fooled and the 'cut and shut's are nigh undiscernible. - Hope this helps. As stated in the first post, the entire set can be made from 3 Ian Kirk kits - a full first, a full third and a brake third. I find you have to pay around with the ends, adding a new buffer beam, to get the correct height of buffer beam and I've fitted MJT LNER roofs. The compartments and seats are, if I remember right, Cooper Craft. The bogies are scalefour society coach compensation units with thinned down Comet Gresley bogies attached cosmetically for the outer two bogies and an MJT heavy duty cosmetic bogie attached to the CCU for the central bogie. The composite coach is attached to 2 bogies and the brake third is attached to on and sits on the joint bogie in a way so that it can tilt either way so its level is defined by the old three point principal defined by its fixed bogie (2 points) and the tilting mount (1 point). Anyway, aside from all this technical stuff, it rides well and gets around curves as tight as 3 foot - not bad for EM. As you can see from the photos, a fair amount of finishing and tidying up will be required once the remaining detail is completed. The above is illustrated with the further accompanying photos. If you need any more information, let me know. Cheers Clem