Chris Higgs

Why? An 8F boiler is pretty much identical to a Black 5 except being shorter. And as what you have as a casting for the 8F is a Black 5 boiler sliced up, I'm not totally clear how the ring would not fit it. Both smokeboxes are 5'4 3/4" in diameter. Chris

The turned smokebox ring Nigel Hunt does for the Black 5 should also suit an 8F (see http://2mm.org.uk/small_suppliers/nigelhunt/). Combined with the lost wax casting of the smokebox door, and the etched wrapper, I think that is enough to complete the smokebox? I got halfway through doing the artwork for a 3D print of the 8F boiler, but never got it finished. Chris Chris

The later batch of 2251s came with Collett 3000 gallon tenders which were built new for them, But there were only 50 of those so most 2251s had Churchward 3000 gallon tenders of which there is no RTR model, but you can buy a 3D print on Shapeways. They also ran with a number of smaller tenders, and a couple with Churchward 'intermediate' tenders (see below). The tender modelled by Peco is an accurate model of a Collett 3500 gallon tender of which 25 were built, but these never ran with 2251s. This tender is easy to mistake for a Churchward 'intermediate' if you can only see the front half of it. Hence the myth that at least one 2251 ran with them. However the rivets give it away. The Collett 3500s ran with various locos, Halls, Saints etc, but they all ended their service lives coupled to Granges. One of the preserved Manors runs with this type of tender. But as a Collett 3500 is really just a Collett 3000 with an extra 6 inches in height, you can cut 0.5mm of the base of the Peco tender sides and end up with something very close (excepting rivet positions). Chris

A straight bufferbeam wouldn't go amiss either. Only in Dapol-world are GWR bufferbeams bowed. Chris

I think cyano will be fine. However, if you are worried, test with a small drop of the glue on the invisible underside of the roof to check things do not get dissolved away. Chris

It will get a custom etched chassis as the brakegear on these wagons is quite specialised. It is OpenSCAD but I typically draw side, end and sometimes top elevations in TurboCAD, export as DXF and let the intersection magic of OpenSCAD turn them into a 3D object. This post demonstrates the general concept of this approach: Chris

0.3mm is what I use, and what I was told when I started out etching. If you do the maths, this is about right (0.35mm is minimum needed for 0.25mm material if you don't expect the metal to stretch, but I presume it does a bit). Chris

Sad, to say, I gave up trying to etch hopper wagons when I realised how much quicker it was to draw them in 3D and then have them printed. Not only was the design a whole lot easier, but they don't need any building (well, the body at least). Most of those mind-bending thoughts on shapes of hopper parts are nothing more than the intersection of two simple rectangles projected in the X and Y planes. Chris

I think anyone who logs on via the 2mm account would become a co-host and able to moderate. So perhaps we just need a few more people who have those details. Chris

The supplier no doubt. I have a German source who are much cheaper. https://ghw-modellbau.de/

???. This happens with both the explicit meeting number and using the link.

I have some of all the three you mention (BFK, GUV, CCT). SK are all gone though. Chris

When I did some pillars for Jim Watt's footbridge they printed fine at Shapeways. Although the decorative parts were affixed to a base for the footbridge itself protecting them from damage in that case. Chris

Sadly my replacement motion parts will make the loco look prettier, but not really very much narrower. The requirement to negotiate tight curves is only one of the issues here. Even if N gauge locos only had to run on straight track, their motion would still need to be wider than the real thing,. Because the combination of (track gauge + 2 * driving wheel thickness) is greater than the prototype, and this applies equally to N and 2mm Finescale. The 4mm boys have it easier, as OO track gauge is 2.33mm less than the prototype, meaning their cylinders can still be set at scale width. There is a trick used in several 2mm finescale steam loco kits (including my own) which I think that N gauge RTR manufacturers could do as well. Basically make the crosshead and slidebars sit subtly further out in the cylinder than the prototype does. No one will ever notice this, and it allows the cylinders to be narrower than they otherwise would need to be. Sadly our passengers will need to continue jumping big gaps to board their coaches, just so the steam locos can get past the platforms! Chris

Let's wait and see if the LMS open kits reappear, as well as the GWR Open C. So far they have not. Chris

Probably, but I have long felt that the Bachmann Warships are too tall, even for 1:148 scale. And CCTs/GUVs are lower than normal coaching stock as well. Chris

The surface on the ultra-fine detail plastic is furry where-ever there was resin printed (and since removed by heat) to support the detail above it. So you can see the open wagon is more furry under the diagonal strapping on the sides for example. Shapeways have a tool which will show you for a given orientation where the resin will be. If you don't specify an orientation they will print it however they want, which can be disasterous. Some of this furriness you can sand away, some not. You can reduce the effect by changing the orientation, or breaking your wagon into a kit so that all the external detail surfaces are printed facing up. The latter is probably the only way to avoid it , and even then you won;t get a nice finish inside the wagon. Fortunately for me, for coach roofs the effect is absent altogether provided you print them right way up. Chris

The ranges that consist of multiple parts are the ones that are difficult to keep going. For the Mk1 coaches, assuming they would continue to sell (which they don't), they would still disappear when the batch of resin roofs runs out. That has already happended for the Mk1 suburbans. Chris

Steve, Do you find it easy to clean off the printed side painting that the earlier Farish Mk1s come with? Or did you manage to get hold of some unpainted versions? Chris

All the bogies will be continuing and I expect to do the BR4 again in due course. Not that it was the ideal candidate for etching. Commonwealth bogies are not in a plan, their cast construction really would not etch well and I use the TPM plastic ones. The Association chose to discontinue the GUV and CCT due to lack of sales (because of the Bachmann ones I expect) but I still have etches and roofs for both. Chris

Mine too. And Barnstaple. And a Duchess. And a Castle. And 3-rail track. Chris

My eyesight isn't what it was, but I would say the first coach is a Bulleid shortie (58'), the second a standard Bulleid CK, and the third an early Bulleid but the 63' version. Or perhaps a Maunsell. I'm sure this train will have been widely photographed elsewhere. Chris

Yes, a couple of possibilities there. I'll just double check it is Inter-City I require (rather than InterCity). Chris

Thanks. The ones I have are 26mm pinpoints (well 25.95). I'll pop some into a wagon and see if they run smooth. Chris

I'm looking to model a BR HST as they were when they first stared running on WR, when the coaches were labelled Inter-City (without the 125) I have a large number of Dapol Mk3s I picked up cheap as they were mis-printed with the lettering too low. I'm going to give them first a polish up as I find the paintwork duller than I remember, and then reletter. So the question is - where can I get transfers for these? What I want to model is found in a picture towards the bottom of this link: https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?id=262 Given the date and place, I might well have been found actually lurking on the platform. Chris