S.A.C Martin

Very kind of you to say. It's for the best I suspect. Don't be a stranger though, I fully intend to keep cutting and shutting things to get models I want!

Hi Atso, would be delighted to meet up for a drink at some point. I'm currently south of the river but hope to sign papers before the end of the year. The missus and I have been very patient, some might say more than. Hopefully 2013 will be our year.

Thank you kindly Mikkel - your name should really be listed above as well. Bear with me...

Ian, every time I see that model I know I've got a long way to go still with my modelling. Beautiful model.

Selecting the correct material is a key part of kits I feel, certainly the better ones - waiting to be built for my Dad is a D49 which was made by McGowen - everything is w/m, even the rods and valve gear! Thankfully things have changed since then!

I wouldn't wholly disagree with you there James.

I can't help but being perplexed by this statement Simon.

That is your perogative Tom.

I have not seen anywhere on this forum where that attitude has been shown. If you are referring to Mr Wright's interesting observations posted by Andy Y in Tim's thread, then I honestly can not see where a 'them and us' attitude is shown. If anything Tony is very complimentary about the resin casting, and although he is clearly more comfortable building kits (he has most likely built more Thompson Pacifics than Doncaster and Darlington ever did) he does very much praise the work Tim has done, and the parts Graeme has produced.

He does praise Graeme's work, yes, but there is also some criticism of, for example, the resin cab in particular which I felt at the time (and still feel actually) was unfair when you consider the amount of work needed (and demonstrated ably elsewhere on this forum) to make a DJH cab correct dimensionally. The resin cab may indeed be a thicker material, but it is to all intents and purposes entirely accurate for an A2/3.

The accuracy of the part seems to have been completely overlooked in favour of praising kit built A2/3s as being vastly superior. How have we come to a state of affairs where a more accurate and ready to fit component is decried for the material it is made in?

I think the only negative point made by Tony is comments that the resin builds 'are superior' than the kit builds, which I agree with Tony that they aren't, but when done properly are definitely as good when sourcing particular etched parts.

Quelle surprise!

I do feel that mentioning the comments 'them and us', if anything could create a situation that as far as I had seen, does not exist!

An idea which was not one that I put forward; it is one that I definitely highlighted in my blog, however, and warned against:

Let's not try and turn it into a "them and us" scenario of kitbash versus kitbuilt. It's more a question of economics and the personal comforts of modelling. Neither right or wrong; different, and it suits some of us better than others.

The context of my blog seemingly - and continuously - overlooked in favour of trying to hammer home some point you believe I was making?

I think you're trying to read offense into a blog post where none is intended James.

Without wishing to muddy the waters further, my point is - and always has been - that Graeme's parts have allowed Thompson Pacific models to be made for significantly less money than buying and building, or having built for you, a kit built one.

And I believe the gist of my blog post was that exactly; I can't afford to get a kit built or do one myself (as much as I'd like to) so this allows me to build them myself.

It is a shame that you've both latched onto that single throwaway line when it appears we're all on the same page regarding modelling and its economics.

But this was in response to the idea that the kit built models were always superior because of the final result. Total expenditure was not factored into the original debate, and thats the crux of my point made this evening.

I did not bring up skills because the original comparisons made were kits made by professional modellers and any locomotives made using Graeme's parts.

I've no doubt someone with the skills and time could build both proficiently but we're not debating that. My point was, and remains, a question of budget.

I am also resigned to the fact that my blog entry has had a 1* rating; which frankly doesn't seem fair or warranted. But I suspect that was the intention behind that rating.

However, it just seems shame to bring in whole cheque-book-modeller thing into it.

I'm with James on that one!

You seem to be having a go for mere mention of "cheque book modeller" as opposed the actual context of my post:

Some of us do have the spare cash to order X kitbuilt model made by Y kitbuilder, and that's absolutely fine and I would never wish to decry anyone being a "cheque book modeller" (because quite frankly, if I had the cash, I'd be one of these cheque book modellers too). However, not all of us do have the money to spend on a full DJH or PDK kit, and on wheels, gearbox and motor, and then pay someone to build said kit professionally.

 

That's where Graeme's components fill a massive gap in the market for those modellers who do want to portray a section of the East Coast mainline; and let's face it, without one or two examples of these classes running about, it's not a wholly accurate representative of the period 1944-1964 of the ex-LNER main lines.

 

Rightly or wrongly, there's now entirely different two ways of building models of these Thompson Pacific classes, and the results on both sides speak for themselves.

 

Let's not try and turn it into a "them and us" scenario of kitbash versus kitbuilt. It's more a question of economics and the personal comforts of modelling. Neither right or wrong; different, and it suits some of us better than others.

The DJH and Proscale kits are significantly more expensive if you factor in who builds it, at what price, and with what wheels, gearbox and motor combination, and it's a fact that if you can afford to have one built and finished professionally, then undoubtedly you'll get a better Thompson Pacific.

My point was that this way of building one allows those with less deep pockets (myself included) to build or have built a Thompson Pacific more economically. Perhaps "cheque book modeller" as a term was ill advised but I was in no way denigrating anyone who does have deep pockets for modelling. In fact I'd love to have the cash to be one myself, and I say as much in the blog entry above.

I think you're right there David. I have photos of 60509 in apple green but with the eight wheeled tender. An easy win it seems if I wanted another A2/1 in apple green as you'd just keep the existing A2 tender. 60507 is very tempting, as no.507 and with LNER on the tender, in all over black to offer something different for my 1948-50 Ganwick Curve scene.

Hi Andy,

I appreciate the clarification and tip on 60119. 60508 remains correct then? I am surprised it was the only one. Did all of the other Thompson Pacifics have them then? I am looking through Power of the A2s and it's surprising how prominent it is on 60508 by their absence, but the rest seem to have them.

I will edit my above post to avoid confusing others in the footstep issue. Thanks for dropping by the blog to pass on the info

The only thing which is stopping me from stripping the A2/2 down altogether is the surface finish. I've never painted anything as smooth in my whole life. I'm wondering if with lining out and then weathering, it'll look somewhat better, but I'm afraid that the apple green (being so dark) simply won't show up, and annoyingly the best pics I have of 60506 in my research show it remarkably clean in apple green livery.

Tender wasn't painted at all - it was a spare tender I bought from eBay for precisely this purpose. Bachmann previously released an apple green B1 with British Railways on the side. Why make things more difficult for myself was my thought! The B1 frames and the V2 tender top have both gone to new happy homes for reasonable sums, and that has given me an RTR tender in the correct form and livery I wanted.

The paint comes from their aerosol, and I'm mystified because I didn't do anything differently. Both used a white, acrylic based undercoat which had been allowed to harden over 24 hours. Both have come out very smooth, both very different colours. Madness! I wonder if I just had a bad aerosol can.

Thanks for your support chaps.

Pete, definitely needs some tweaking. One of the driving wheelsets is definitely "out of true" which gives a bit of a wiggle. The kick to the motion is the very poor Hornby controller I am using!

The wobble however is entirely down to the fact it is currently a 4-6-0 and not a 4-6-2 - I am working out the best way of reinstating the cartazzi wheels, to provide support at the rear and also to help guide the locomotive round corners.

Cbeagleowner - very tempted by an original A2/1 form, but it would be just out of my time frame. 60509 in apple green beckons, or 60510 in wartime black but with the eight wheeled tender and full deflectors, with BR number and branding.

As for the next project...oh, the K5 does sound like a laugh!

So would I! It keeps being put on the backburner. Soon I'll dig it out again and get it sorted.

Thanks you very much chaps. Still a lot to do, but looking much better than originally anticipated.

60508 Duke of Rothsey, in her short lived apple green livery with B1 tender and full BR branding and 60508 with curly 6 on the cabsides. Hopefully will have the handrails sorted today along with the cab steps, and then it's just a matter of cracking open an aerosol of black paint, and tidying up bits of apple green too!

Thank you kindly Matthew. Hopefully over the next few days I can get the model finished, numbered and named. Then I may get a chance to test it on a train at last at HWMRC.

Thanks Mikkel. Fingers crossed all goes according to plan.

The new layout - Ganwick Curve - is still being planned out, but I am very much excited at the prospect of running close to full length trains for the first time. I'm hoping to post some pics of my Yorkshire Pullman rake I am building from odds and ends at some point soon. So many projects, so little time.

Brilliant, thanks Steve, much appreciated. Nope, no stations yet! Other sections of the whole Pathfinder project will have stations. Plenty of time for that yet. I wanted to work solely on the scenics and the running of trains, no distractions.

Hi Atso - nope, no stations for me yet! This layout is forming a section of a much bigger potential home layout. This is but one part.

Ganwick curve was chosen because it can play host to most trains I want to run, at both ends of the bigger layout (KX and Leeds Central).

Quad arts - yes indeed, and I hope to update this blog later in the year with some modelling...stay tuned on that score!

Thanks for the tip on the book, I will go and search it out.

Absolutely, compression is necessary (vital!) and will be done. I am looking into standard board sizes and mulling it all over. At a push, I can do 21 foot long by 2-3ft wide on three separate boards. An idea of the centre baseboard being "optional" - i.e. the outer two will connect together as well as connect to the outer ends of the centre one, appeals.

Hi Matthew, the idea is to heat treat the Hornby shell into the correct curve after cutting the smokebox front strip from a spare bodyshell (which I had already cut into for the cab anyway).

The new chimney I have created using the Isinglass drawings and cutting and shutting some of Graeme King's excellent Resin A4 chimneys.

Hopefully once the camera is running again I can produce some pictures to demonstrate!