LNER4479

They're scratchbuilt, Mick. Brass wire bent to shape then I've used some handrail knobs to represent the cocks themselves from where the pipes emerge. I also used some thin fuse wire to represent the clamp that holds them together. The pipes are set slightly wider than they should be to allow the bogie to swing from side to side Bit fiddly but worth the effort (IMHO)

Well that's very kind of you, Larry - thank you Like many on here, I find the festive season a productive time for modelling so, in between the mince pies and figgy puddin' I've been plodding on with some loco projects. Work has progressed with the D4 to D3 conversion. Here, the most obvious visual difference is being tackled, being the extended smokebox. Rummaging around in the scrap box yielded a suitable whitemetal extension piece (goodness only knows where it originally came from!) It was of slightly too large diameter, so just needed a small piece cut out and the remainder squeezing into a slightly smaller shape. That done, it was attached such that the joint was bottom dead centre (and hence effectively out of sight. A rummage round in the chimneys and domes box was less successful in finding direct replacement parts so I set about modifying larger whitemetal items. As I don't possess a lathe, I set up this makeshift arrangement using my hand-drill mounted in a vice. The results of those efforts, shown temporarily propped on top of the boiler / smokebox. Beginning to look the part now. The 'smokebox doors' box contained a suitable looking item, from which I just had to cut off its bottom flange (must've been intended for a loco without a smokebox extension). With chimney and dome now permanent attached, fixing the smokebox door seals it all in place. Some further detail and she's ready for the paintshop. Details consist of guard irons, smokebox door handles, handrail and top lamp bracket. Even though I never saw one of these things (I can't imagine many of today's RMWebbers would have, come to that!), it seems to look 'right' comparing with the pictures I have to hand. Meanwhile, some of the big stuff has also received some attention Existing members of the Grantham stud 4479 and 2558 are joined by a newcomer... Work has involved fitting guard irons to two of them (4479 had them already) and all had have useable lamp irons fitted. The A4 has now had full-length drain pipes fitted, which are attached to the guard irons. For me, this is quite an important part of the pre-war front end look (the full guard irons were removed and the drain pipes cut back in BR days). With that, I can reveal the identity of the new member of the fleet... Ladies & Gentlemen - I give you long term* King's Cross resident 4467 'Wild Swan' (*allocated there from new till 5/39 then back in 1941, 1944 and 1950-1963)

Fantastic! I particularly like the depth of the pictures looking across towards the mainlines - the backscene effect is very effective. Something I'm grappling with at the moment. All the best for 2016.

Many thanks Tony for the additional picture. Yes, working on the railway - but it's now getting to be lots of little things rather than any one single major project as in previous years. That includes some loco projects - one of which is a surprise package - which I'll leave you in suspense about just for the time being!

Thanks Al, All the best to you and yours over the festive season. I'm enjoying seeing the work progressing on the Bakewell signals. All the best for 2016 Ooh - ta! That'll come in useful when I'm sat working on the layout...

Another here who believes a RTR RF is a missed opportunity. And in terms of train lengths, many LNER expresses in the pre-war period were formed around 6 or even 5 coach 'core' formation. So, if you ignore the additional through portions and single vehicles, a perfectly formed train need be no more than: BTK-TK-TK-TO-RF-BFK Accepting that a BFK is a somewhat rarer animal, a variation on that could be: BTK-TK-TO-RF-FK-BG (thinking about what other RTR vehicles might be available) Going smaller still, some 5 vehicle core formations: BTK-TO-RF-CK-BTK (most LNER routes except GN West Riding services) BTK-TK-RTP*-RF-BFK (GN West Riding services) (*TO a close substitute) Where many have to compromise on 6 or 5 coach formations for their layouts, such formations are perfectly suitable - and certainly no reason to exclude a proper restaurant vehicle such as the RF from an RTR range. I regard the buffet vehicle as a popularist choice for RTR. Being some of the later built Gresley vehicles and finding themselves increasingly useful as the trend towards beffet cars increased post-war, many lasted into the 1970's BR blue era (as is well-known) and were subsequently snapped up by the preserved railways (nothing wrong in that of course) hence appearing to be quite a common vehicle. By contrast, I believe just 3 Gresley RFs survive in preservation - and none of them are in anything like restored, running condition. Shame.

That's Mrs4479, that is! She'll be right cross with you...

Avatar change alert!! It's all that Great Northern's fault! Compliments of the season!

I'm feeling a little left out with all these classy avatars flying about so ... after three and a half years, I'm changing mine! Do you think I'll be able to keep it up...? (Fnarr, fnarr!)

'Consultant', eh? Remind me to take your watch off you and tell you the time

So does one build a layout so that it can be photographed from a realistic viewpoint to create a 'just like the real thing' image ... or does one build a layout to enjoy seeing trains run? (Probably invites the inevitable answer: 'Both!')

Well, Mr King, your wit was working fast enough there...

Trip to Ormesby last night. Did remember to take some pictures - unfortunately I forgot to take the camera so crummy mob hone pics only A studious Craig is working on the roadway leading away from the cattle dock. Meanwhile, the extra ground cover (setts - not cobbles!) has gone in on the remaining area in front of the granary warehouse (bottom left). Apparently, I gave an incorrect reference to the source of these sheets - so to correct that error, they are downloadable from http://www.modelrailwayscenery.com/ My modest contribution to this feverish activity is the loading dock area (where the output from Ruston & Hornsby / Aveling Barford was loaded onto rail vehicles). Apologies for the poor quality of pic. I'll take some better pics once the boards are all reassembled back at base. Finally - for now - the 'star moment'. Paul B brought in the work he has been doing on the detachable board that backs on to the station approach road. Work in progress at the moment (eg garden details to be added) but the Belvoir Baby Carriages building is just wonderful work - and all based on a zoomed in snatch glimpse(!) of a chance aerial photo from the Britainfromabove website.

You worked out how to create an avatar!!! Very classy...

Yes. Others have answered but, for absolute clarity, the prototype dimension is the summation of 4' 8.5" plus 2 x rail head width (2.75" each) plus 6'. That little lot tots up to 11' 2", hence 44.67mm at 4mm to the foot scale. Obviously, as OO track gauge is narrower, so the 'six foot' model dimension is proportionally larger (that was my point to Gordon about the gap being accentuated when modelling in OO as opposed to P4). I always prefer to start with the prototypical dimensions then scale down from those.

'Fill me with your permanent way! c'mon, you know you want to...' Like that, you mean?

Wow, Iain - that looks fab! One of these days, you must get out what locos you have and arrange them around that end of the depot to give some idea of the overall scene. I'm sure it'll look mighty impressive already. May be also a useful (poignant?) record if you do end up creating Camden Mk2. Go on, just for us ... it is Christmas, you know ...

Love the latest avatar - any chance of seeing it - sorry, her(!) - in all her full glory? Go on - you know you want to...

Hi Gordon, I'm a great advocate of the 6 foot way in OO - chiefly because, with OO being narrow gauge anyway, the space between the tracks can look exaggerated and all too easily end up looking 'continental' (If that makes sense). 'Tis true that there are many examples where track spacings are greater (Mike has posted a pic of the most obvious example - ie Ex-GWR broad gauge lines) but I would go so far as to say that a typical stretch of UK double track mainline would be set out at the 6 foot spacing (ie which equates to 44.67mm centres in 4mm scale). Once the real railway builders had constructed their railway in such a manner, every viaduct, tunnel, cutting, embankment (etc) would constrain it to that dimension thereafter. In answer to your question, on a purely empirical basis, 5 foot radius and above is perfectly OK for a 6 foot spacing; 3 foot radius and below it definitely needs to be wider. Somewhere in between therefore lies the cut-off point. I would have thought that with the aid of Templot you could have set out your trackwork such that the spacing starts to increase below 5 foot radius and you adjust it so that you have a variable track spacing to match the instantaneous radius at any one point (ie to allow for transitions).

Now fancy going all festive on us all of a sudden (bah humbug!) Seriously - many thank to yourself for your not inconsiderable contribution to Grantham this year in the build up the show debut in September Barry caught you in this pose at the show! All the best to you and Mo over the holiday period and looking forward to 2016.

Thanks very much! Although I'll always like messing about with trackwork & signals n stuff, it's nice to give some attention to other aspects at the moment. Ah, yes ... I wonder who was gonna spot that first! A blob of plaster got on one of me fingers and I didn't notice until...

Probably... Been plodding away at the approach road. Last time it looked like this. A few bare patches in need of filling... Usual polystyrene blocks used to fill the corner. Then the start of the retaining wall. It's not really like that at the real Grantham, more of a sloped embankment with a shorter wall at the bottom. But this won't really be on show at a show so is a compromise resulting from compression. Coloured plaster mix to cover things up ready for grassing. Now, let's try for that ground level picture again... That's better!

That doesn't look too bad to me David - I think it can be made to work. One thing that is possible is to adjust the curvature of the points by cutting away some of the webbing beneath (nothing too drastic - it's surprising how much difference just the slightest tweak can make). I can post you some simple instructions for doing this. The other thing to bear in mind is that although perfect flowing curves are the thing to aim for a stretch of mainline, you're dealing with a loco shed here - the odd kink and dip here and there would be perfectly prototypical (provided your stock can still run over it)

Here's a model project in progress (trying desperately to get the thread back on track and knowing how much 'sir' likes us to do show n tell...) I'm replicating in model form what the erstwhile GNR did back in the day, namely rebuild their D4 4-4-0's into D3's. Main work here is to extend the smokebox and add cut down fittings (chimney, dome). I've decided to live with the more-noisy-than-I'd-like motor/gearbox Tony. I unsoldered it all to adjust and think I managed to quieten it down a bit.

AndyID is correct in his drawing UncleBobkt - you've missed off the vital second half of his sentence that you quote: 'distance between the crank pin and the crosshead along a line that intersects both the axis of the axle and the axis of the piston' Another way of saying this would be the horizontal distance. (the length of the conn rod - which is of course fixed - is at an angle as drawn) Here's another way of expressing / explaining it: When the piston is at its mid-point (ie halfway between the front and the rear of the cylinder), the connection with the crank pin is NOT at its absolute top or bottom position (TDC or BDC). Well you did say you hoped to learn... (I'm OK with mechanical things - it's electrickery that bamboozles me)