Michael Edge

I would agree with that, the Gibson cranks were very fragile but otherwise the MOK kit went together well - I built two of them in 00 gauge many years ago.

According to Don Townsley recently they were still there in 1948 when he and his friend had a ride on 69999 from Wentworth junction up to West Silkstone, he said they used them.

Yes, just got the email to demonstrators.

As far as I know it was only ever tried on a train once, eastbound over Woodhead with a lengthy goods it had to stop at Crowden short of steam. If the LNER had left the design to Beyer Peacock they might have had a decent loco but just like the LMS they interfered too much - in the case of the U1 with two unnecessary cylinders. Silkstone tunnels must have been pretty appalling whatever you were on, double load trains normally had four 2-8-0s on them and would be running at not much more than walking pace. The Garratt was equipped with what were described as respirators (not sure what exactly they were - possibly mine rescue gear) after an earlier incident with an asphyxiated crew.

It certainly wasn't popular at Mexboro, there are reports of crews (probably the firemen) deliberately sabotaging it. The guards on the Worsbrough didn't like it either, as suggested above it was very difficult to judge the distance when buffering up - some guards used to lie on the floor when they saw the U1 approaching. Running the other way round, which wasn't tried in Yorkshire, would have caused serious problems keeping the water over the firebox crown on these very steep gradients.

It's on hold at the moment, mainly because I can't figure out how to dismantle the Heljan loco far enough. It was going to be discussed at Scalefour North, failing that at Bristol - and then the world came to a halt.

You can use the drawing I posted to see which is correct, cab/footplate/angle are more or less flush and 8ft 6in wide. I know what you mean about the origami, I've seen a few kits like that, great in theory but impossible to fold.

I've built both of those, they are just as good. The Gladstone is P4 gauge but the others are all 00. Checking through my records again I've actually built 5 of the D1s (and three E1s) - all for the same customer but he assures me that the next D tank will be the last (he said that last time though).

The cab roof should be right as it comes, it's only just above the spectacles. Albion do quite a few Brighton locos, they are all good - only 4mm scale though.

That was lucky, mine was a complete mess and had to be completely replaced. It looked like a good idea when I saw it (and some Gibson tender kits are a bit similar) but it falls down on the physics of heating and expanding brass.

I've just looked again, that dimension was a bit out. I started preparing this drawing to etch P4 frames for the rtr class 14. 00 gauge wheels will easily go round scale width frames but there should be a very noticeable gap between the back of the wheel and the frame plate.

Class 14 frames are very narrow, in 4mm scale 12.5mm overall width. The axleboxes are on the outside of the frames, same as many Hunslet locos (the gearboxes were from Hunslet).

Whatever you do don't be tempted to solder the layers together using the large etched holes - the outer skin will distort round each hole and they will be very visible on the outside. I made this mistake once - many years ago....

The Belpaire fireboxes came with the L&Y boilers fitted by the LMS.

I used to call in there frequently while cycling between university in Sheffield and home in Prescot - it was always a very friendly shed.

And about time too.....

I've built three of these so far and still another one waiting, it's a very good kit, accurate as far as I can tell. Some of the fittings are not as supplied with the kit, my customer supplies better ones from various sources. They are all slightly different, this one with a Marsh boiler. This is the latest one, painted by Ian Rathbone. I think all these Albion kits are excellent but not very well known - I hope this provides more inspiration, keep up the good work with yours.

The 15mm ones are fine although they do run a bit warm, I'm not so sure about the 10mm ones though. I've had some success with them but some failures as well.

Not out of fashion round here, wait for Herculaneum Dock again - some trains might go round and round but most of the layout has to be worked.

Before that the 00 section of the club used H&N couplings, also magnetically operated they had a pivoted loop which moved downwards and a fixed hook. Similar disadvantage to the SJR in finding room for the counterweight, but the biggest factor was that they were single ended. I don't have any photos of these but they were (along with Sprat & Winkle) part of Steve's experimental progression. I changed my stock from H/D/Peco to these when I joined in 1972.

They aren't all the same John, it depends very much on which one you have (tried) to build.

I've dug out my two 6 wheel fish vans to photograph the SJR Mk10 couplings, these two vans always run together so they have kept these at one end (DGs on the other ends). From underneath the construction is apparent, most of it is made from soft iron wire bent round a jig of pins in a wood block. The hooks are mounted in a short length of brass tube soldered to a plate, the inner extension of the hooks have a small lead counterweight to return the hooks upwards. The design is essentially the Triang (tension lock) coupling turned upside down, the extra bit turned back on the top of the hook serves two purposes, it restricts the downward movement and acts as a buffer when propelling. From above with the couplers engaged, one of the disadvantages shows up here - with the best will in the world the hooks could never be identical and usually only one really engaged with the loop. Any error or damage to the shape of the hook tended to produce a lifting effect on the wagons as well. Uncoupling was done by stopping on a permanent magnet, both hooks are attracted downwards, if you keep on propelling they re-engage. Most locos just needed the loop fitted without the hook, easy to solder inside or through the buffer beam. We used these couplings for a good few years in the Leeds club, eventually changing to DGs for the delayed uncoupling facility. They had a number of disadvantages, one detailed above but the main one was the same as the present standard UK coupler in that the pull is off centre (in our case the push was off centre as well), the DGs are all on the centre line of the vehicles.

Boiler and firebox now finished. The firebox top located in the etched groove on the cab front, join between it and the boiler filled with Plastic Padding (or whatever they call it now) as I usually do for belpaire boxes. Side handrails added with a large flange on to the tank front, quite a bit of solder round the handrail pillars after I managed to get the holes in the wrong place and had to move them a bit. The sides of the smokebox saddle are formed from n/s sheet, the top join to the smokebox is Plastic padding again. No cladding bands on the boiler since they will be lined but after much discussion it seems that two of them are actually straps bolted on to the top of the tanks so they will go on. Next job will be out in the garage machining the boiler fittings, I'm glad it's getting a bit warmer again this week.

Smokebox door (and a moulded one as well) posted to you yesterday, thanks for the loan of it.

I have always though there should be a market for the Jidenco/Falcon brass etches, we (Judith Edge) sell a lot of "etches only" quite profitably and Worsley Works does the same but: It depends very much on how the etches are arranged for production - nearly all ours are one sheet per loco type but these might be mixed up to use space "efficiently". Re-working them as kits is not a viable option, effectively it would be starting again with little reference to what already exists. They are as I have pointed out before extremely variable in quality, accuracy and "buildability" - some are very good, others not so. Bearing in mind my first caveat, the best option might be to offer them on a sold as seen basis, flat pack in a board envelope would be cheap enough. I wouldn't worry about instructions, they weren't much use in the first place, but a drawing and some parts identification could be provided for very little cost.