fletchj1

Query on the Silver Fox 'B' Class body:- There doesn't seem to be the slot shaped turbocharger exhaust outlet halfway along the body. It was not uncommon on the prototype to see flames and sparks coming out of it.

I can see the point in the need to have spacing between the buffers to allow for going round curves although with such short wagons the angle between each wagon on any curve is very much smaller than for longer vehicles. The Bachmann narrower coupler is a big improvement on the huge wide obtrusive original Hornby type, sticking away out. I imagine the latter was originally to allow wagons to go around very sharp train set curves without buffer locking occurring. It is now very outdated and should be discontinued, - at least for the modelling vs toy train market!. My UK & Irish rolling stock has had the couplers replaced with Kadee ones although there still has to be some buffer spacing for curves. As Kadee's patents have run out you can get plastic knock-offs (McHenry, Ezee Mate etc.) and I believe that Dapol has also come out with their own version. Are those ballast wagons still available?.

Question:- Why are the wagons coupled so far apart?. They could be a lot closer together and still be able to go round tight curves.

First Lima 33. I have to admire the skills in converting those power bogies (Tri-Ang etc.) to power your rail cars. A lot of tedious work. I have made various gearboxes etc. for my own rail cars and they are very time consuming to say the least of it. Looking at your excellent Rail car 'B' makes me think it is time for me to 'spruce up' my own version!. Concerning those numbered curves:- I could venture that most of those, apart from the very largest radii, are primarily part of the 'train set' world as most regular modellers would be using flex track instead. What is the biggest radius for numbered curves anyway?.

Lima 33, First I have express my admiration for all the excellent rail car models you have made. They actually look like the real things!. Apart from the detail I particularly like the quality and accuracy of the painting. Great pity almost none of the prototypes survived and I blame this partly on the 'steam and nothing but steam' mentality of a certain well known group of preservationists. I could say I missed out on the Tri-Ang mega-rail & flange as I really didn't get into any sort of modelling until well after more realistic standards came in. As you say they have a toy train heritage. I actually started out with a Hornby gauge 'O' wind up tinplate effort which certainly had flanges like dinner plates. It was of course a toy train and to be accepted as that. I didn't rise to the more up market Hornby Dublo which was the only alternative at the time. Nowadays the elite are into much greater precision with the likes of 'P4' which demands great precision in track work. That is away beyond my level and I am quite content to blunder on with RP 25 wheels which run fine on ordinary 'OO/HO' track (code 100 as it is now known). Of course many of the more advanced modellers go for finer (code 83 etc.) track which is more realistic but I am not going to rip up mine and re- lay it all at this stage. Another question:- Why do so many model railway operators over there run their trains so fast?. Is it a hangover from earlier days when motors and speed controls were 'all or nothing'. Regards.

Ivor, Thank you for that. The Australian versions were the end of the evolutionary line for the Walkers railcar designs. Although the later Australian ones were a bit more powerful they were still under powered and slow by modern standards. The twin underfloor engine cars, pioneered by LMS No.1 were much more capable as they were better powered and capable of higher speeds. The lack of an engine compartment also gave more usable space for passengers. I stay away from unrealistic 'trainset' comically tight curves. Concerning the Tri-Ang Super 4 track:- I assume that is necessary to accommodate their huge flanges. Why did they make the flanges so big?. A friend over here has a lot of Tri-Ang rolling stock which does not run properly on ordinary code 100 track.

I wonder who gets the greater personal satisfaction:- The owner admiring the thing or the person who designed and made it?. A minor suggestion, - maybe a bit late now. I see the exposed brass drive worm. I suggest a cover over it. I have had oil/grease being flung off from the worm by centrifugal force making a mess of the insides of windows. I have a question:- What are the actual radii of the 'first radius', 'second radius', 'third radius' etc.?. I am not familiar with those designations. My own version of SL&NCR 'B' can go round curves of slightly less than 24" radius, the limitation being the skirts around the rear bogie. Jeremy.

Lima 33. It is certainly worthy of praise for its realism!. I don't see the reason for a comment above (model bus builder in England to Kirley) that having articulation would cause instability!. My own 'B' which is articulated runs perfectly well and steadily. The front of the passenger compartment sits on outriggers on the sides of the power bogie and the rear non powered bogie can rock side to side on uneven track.

Kieran (Kirley?) Among other items your track ballasting looks excellent!. Jeremy.

I certainly like that engine (Baltic tank) and the smooth operation. I am a bit puzzled by the stack (chimney). It seems to have two rims around the top. Unusual. Jeremy.

Again - magnificent job!. May it run well for you and the recipient. As far as I know the boxes were originally fitted but were removed early and the railcars were without them for most of their operating lives. I don't think GNR railcar 'A' ever had such boxes around the radiator.

I don't know for sure but the enclosures could very well have been there to protect from overhanging branches. Obviously they were deemed in due course to be unnecessary. I don't think the GNR did any maintenance on SL&NCR's rail cars, although I may be wrong. Railcar 'B' was the only one of that type on the SL&NCR. The older GNR railcars (C1, C2, D, E, F, G) (Walker's designs) were generally far too slow and under powered to be used on the Enterprise.

Excellent piece of work!. Looks the part. On my own version I left off the enclosure around the roof radiator. I think it was removed as it obstructed the cooling airflow which relied on the movement as there was no fan. It also would have hindered maintenance access. There were similar enclosures at one time on the contemporary GNR railcars.

My SSM (brass stch kit) works fine!.

Would I be right in saying those screw link couplers on the 6 wheelers are SMITHS - by W&T?. They look like the ones I put on my railcars. Jeremy.

Kieran, (Kirley?). Yes, that is it. Looks really like it. I can see the difficulty with painting the window frames. I am currently working on some Czech railcars (resin body mouldings) and they came with similar glazing inserts with edges I have to paint with aluminium paint. A looks a fiddly job. Just have to be very careful. Jeremy.

Magpie 51, Thanks for that. I had seen different sizes in pictures and did not know the size had been changed. I still intend to round the edges on the windows on my 121 & 141 to make them more realistic. Regards.

Kirley, I was looking at your Youtube post. NIR 80 Class 69. They are all very realistic. The one I particularly like is the maroon front/lower body with light grey upper body & darker grey roof and off white 'diamond' on front. The whole effect is very real (for all of them). How do you do the silvery (chrome) front window surrounds?. Yes, I will have to post some of my own efforts but compared to yours they look a bit crude although they do run OK. I am due to do a write up on my 1 & 4 and the tin van for Alan on his NIL. I did some time ago make up a 121 and a 141 GM (MIR). They were the white metal kits and I can't say they look all that realistic. Features that particularly need 'upgrading' are the cab front windows which should have curved corners rather than the sharp ones on the kits. The centre cab window on the 121 should be smaller. It is interesting how such a small seeming detail makes all the difference. It is like on a steam loco where the detail of the chimney can completely change the appearance of the loco. Jeremy.

Kirley, Your NIR 80 class looks great. Did you make those yourself?. Look most professional and Realistic. Jeremy.

The problem with Alan Gibson Workshop is that they don't respond to email queries. Not very business like. A deterrent to placing orders.

George, And if you need further details, photo's, of the E class the DCDR has a couple of them. Jeremy.

Glover, I made the railcar 'A' basically the same way as I did the 1 & 4 railcars in this thread. Plastic (Evergreen) body with a simple under frame made from brass strips. I didn't have any convenient existing coach body to 'cannibalise' I actually made it several years ago and it has been stored away. It is powered by a small Mashima can motor under the floor, driving two axles on one of the bogies. I made the small gearbox and the bogie sides myself in brass as I couldn't find anything suitable commercial. I have attached a picture of what it looks like underneath. Regards, Jeremy.

Glover, I will reply to this on my own 'thread' - "scratch built railcars" to avoid cluttering up Kirley's one. Jeremy.

Kirley, How do I delete postings from a thread?. Jeremy.

Kirley and Nelson, I will put any future postings on my existing 'scratch built railcars' thread to avoid cluttering up this Kirley thread. I had put them on the Kirley thread as it seems to get a lot of visitors whereas there was very little response to my 'scratch built railcars' thread. Jeremy.