DayReturn

Lovely stuff. I spy some Tri-ang too - aside from the box car that we know about ^^, would that Lanky van be a Rovex Insulfish? No shame if it is!

Like this one? (not my work btw.)

Some Jidenco/Falcon kits were/are good, some are dire. The DF, 700-class Kirtley 0-6-0 is clearly in the latter, though not in all aspects, but the 156-class and 800-class 2-4-0s are well up to the mark. Jidenco's reputation carries in its baggage a lot of consequent stories whose authenticity I cannot vouch for. On the plus side, I believe that Tony Sheffield (I think of S4 North London Group) stated that the tooling/etch-drafting of these 2-4-0s was carried out by Mike Peascod, whereas I have read that other drafting was done by an employee of Jidenco's core, non-model-making, business with no subject matter knowledge. I assume that the latter case explains how adjacent parts often make no allowance for joint widths and overlaps for example, or as in our Kirtley 0-6-0, the curves in the running plate. They are also early kits, so are very likely among the examples that Iain Rice blew klaxons at in his numerous writings, and pre-date the recognition of expertise and cunning design features in say, Malcolm Mitchell's work or Alistair Wright's carriages. And even the simple wagon kits were intended for low-spec results - fold-up, rigid axle guards, 2-dimensional fold up brake gear in the same plane as the axle-guards. Perfectly acceptable for most 1960s and 1970s 00 gauge models, even moderately serious ones. I wonder if there is any collective benefit in trying to review the design histories of the wealth of brass and similar kits so as to record what features and foibles the original versions had, and then what successive inheritors of the toolings have done. Some kit series have passed through several hands, and some later owners have made improvements, e.g. Wills and GEM chassis, others have made retrograde changes e.g. poorer quality castings when moulds have not been renewed. Forums on here and elsewhere bemoan the unreliability of suppliers that have taken on old ranges, but it's a difficult position - the market is small and specific and demanding, each medium used in a kit requires specialist industrial tools or purchases of sufficient volume from specialist component suppliers, e.g. brass castings, and then stocks to be maintained and marketed. The people willing to take on old ranges do so for the benefit of the rest of us, to prevent the work being lost, and all too often bite off far more than they can chew, or their circumstances change, and just the loss or damage of a single element can make the whole process fail. As we embrace newer technologies that gives us more options, for sure, but it also makes kit creation even more problematic if we want to use the best medium for the piece - laser cutting, 3D printing and resin casting all have a place, but only alongside metal etching, turning, milling, metal casting and injection moulding. I'm sure there's a strong case for the pooling of different expertise and capability.

Thank you for these excellent pictures, it looks like you did a fine job on both kits - the K's one doesn't look at all chunky and they both look very much the part. I have an Omega Models 1327-class 4-4-0 that I bought more than 40 years ago and come back to from time to time - I've re-made the chassis at least half a dozen times - in fact I might have learnt more skills from trying to work that kit than any other and it's still less than half-made. Perhaps there's value in such poorly designed kits after all! On this 700-class Jidenco/Falcon kit, my version, still on its fret, the frames dimensions seem to check out, inside and out. I think Lez above made the same point as you, about the frames not lining up, so perhaps the fret I have has been revised since Jidenco's time. I'm trying to visualise what you mean about the footplate/outside frames unit not allowing the axles to be square, I did notice the running plate seems shorter than I think it should be. It's not quite as bad as I first thought, I stated above that the running plate is to plan view dimensions, whereas on re-checking, there is some allowance for the curve - I'll give it a try a bit at a time in my bending machine. More importantly, I've already resolved to create a jig especially for these pieces, as they will be crucial to any chance of visual success - the running plate, outside frames and running plate bracket/valance. My pack came without a boiler etch, so I'll roll a new one anyway. Chimney, dome and safety valves will probably be turned from scratch, I don't believe I have enough option spares to furnish any of these, plus that doesn't then constrain my choice according to the chimney styling. Gibson wheels yes, not a lot of choice in P4 - I do have a project which involves cutting my own, but that's a different story and I will be well pleased if that project comes out ok. Cranks - probably Gibson, but I was toying with using the etched and layered fly cranks in the kit plus hollow axles to mount them on, but realistically it will be easier to use the ready made Gibson cranks. I will probably go for a tender-mounted motor and cardan shaft, to allow the loco to be heavily weighted - if it isn't heading up a train of 50 wagons (if only!) then it isn't earning its keep. (On that subject I ruminated on the question of the Midland's "small engine policy" and pondered that these engines and other small 0-6-0s were still in revenue earning service hauling coal to London and assorted iron foundries and steel mills when their book value would have depreciated to zero long before, whereas other pre-group railways' 20th century "big engines", especially glamorous express engines, conceivably probably barely covered the costs of designing, building, running and servicing them before being scrapped as non-standard and inefficient.) Anyway, thanks again for the photos, thanks for a very entertaining layout blog, and please don't trip over any more kitchen chairs!

Oh my goodness I really didn’t intend to press you to respond soon or at all if it put you to any trouble! And I’m terribly sorry to hear of your injuries. Twenty years is well within my timescales.

Ah, now I’m with you. The first thing I checked was to see how the curved running plate was to be represented, e.g by bending along a grid of half etch lines on the underside, as with the Kirtley 2-4-0 kits, but no, the running plate has been etched in strict plan view with no allowance for the curves, so would finish up about 5mm too short! In my trade (IT), we have some technical terms for this sort of situation, so it’s not unfamiliar. So I have already accepted the need to carve out a scratch running plate. It also spawns the thought of using the Jidenco scrap to start a straight framed 240 class version. (On far slenderer grounds have many other never-to-be-finished projects commenced so don’t watch this space.) Meanwhile I’ll wait patiently for MrKirtley800 (Mr Kirtley jnr?) and the outshopped Jidenco original. And seeing the delightful 2mmFS engines just leaves me awestruck. (I’m sure we had some fist size Cadbury pounds one Easter, that looked just the same as the one in the pic. I looked hard for the join or signs of melting chocolate.)

Thanks for this info Lez. Slightly intrigued, I have just measured up all the wheelbase-related dimensions on both the superstructure and outside frames, and the separate inside frames and coupling rods frets. They all seem to correspond to 8' plus 8'6" by my vernier. These as I said, are current issue etches from Falcon aka Hatuk73 aka Samantha. I have a Keyser model, agreed it's a good model for something entirely in whitemetal and has the advantage of distorting the Earth's gravitational field in its vicinity. I also have several frets of the BM inside motion to make up - I've started one and not hit any snags yet but can't make up my mind which project to fettle it into - critical before I take it any further. (I also have an unmade 4F kit that was its source, and shelved that while I wonder how to add weight when the bulk is formed of the resin boiler - suggestions welcome.) Perhaps there may be mileage in a hybrid Jidenco/Keyser model - lessons to learn from DJH perhaps. Thanks again Mehmood

One of the best threads on RMWeb and endlessly delightful photographs! Thank you for sharing all your progress with us. Please may I ask about your black Kirtley 0-6-0? You said it is produced from the good bits of a Jidenco kit and judicious additions from scratch, I think. I would like to see some pictures of it that might aid me with a project I haven't yet started. I was waiting on John Redrup to release a London Road Models version, he had some workings on display 2-3 years ago but last time I asked him about it he said he was having difficulties (probably sorting out the tooling versions) - I forgot to ask him its provenance, e.g. George Norton. Meanwhile I bought a pack of Falcon etches for the 700 class engine on eBay from "hatuk73". I'm not sure of the background here but the seller seems to have a stockpile of leftover Falcon Brassworks kits' etched sheets (only). I fully expected to be disappointed with what I got, and my expectations were largely fulfilled! I have finished and unfinished Jidenco 800 class and 156 class 2-4-0s and am very comfortable with them after judicious fettling. I understand from Tony Sheffield that the tooling artwork for these was done by Mike Peascod of significant reputation, so I had hoped that the 0-6-0 goods would have similar quality. I don't believe they do have the same pedigree though. So to cut to the chase, what did you manage to do with the Jidenco pieces and how did your black Kirtley Goods work out? There are no instructions with the Hatuk73 offerings, but most people would agree that there were none to speak of with the originals either! I can identify most of the etched parts, and I know enough about Jidenco's reputation not to try matching apparently adjacent pieces up to match joints! The running plate appears the right length in plan view, which means it is clearly wrong after allowing for the running plate curves following the frame strengthening arcs, so that is clearly one fundamental piece for the scrapbox. The fret comes without a boiler or firebox (! - designed for downhill running only?) and the smokebox wrapper half-etch leaves you with three-inch diameter rivet heads (though the same on the outer frames look more like passable bolt-heads). And obviously I need to conjure up a full set of non-flat bits from scratch or leftover options from other kits or shopping around parts suppliers. So, an interesting challenge, hence my curiosity about your machine. All the best Mehmood

I don't think it's an outlet at all, but for shunting using a cable rope or chain in confined spaces. Assuming the steel rope ends with a loop or eye splice, or the chain ends with a large link, both of which are commonplace, the cable can be looped onto that bar and kept in place by the flange over which the loop cannot slip. The other end is attached to the wagon's horse-shunting hook attached to its solebar, directly, or via a capstan. Using that bar instead of the drawbar hook means the cable is less likely to foul the track or motion or other wagons, such that for example wagons can be shunted on the same track with other wagons in between. Normally you would use one or two horses for that sort of work, but perhaps either these wagons are extra heavy or shunted in multiple, or the absence of clear space or suitable ground underfoot, or the environment is unsuitable for horses.

We can only imagine. Perhaps there is a loading gauge for train crew, but my mind's eye has the northbound guard and his southbound counterpart peering through their lookouts as the trains approach each other somewhere about 10 miles north of Birmingham, followed by a splintering crash and draughts of fresh air filling their respective vehicles. My concern was for their heads rather than their waistlines.

Oh that is excellent! Thank you very, very much for that link, the drawing reveals so much that hitherto I'd strained to glean from the few photos of the B to B train. Just a bit too late since I've already reached the painting stage of my attempt at a Lot 389 full brake in its original shape. It's based on a Slaters D532 full brake and I carved the lookout ogees from scraps of plastic and a styrene sheet box for the body of the lookout. I also re-profiled the clerestory to the original 13'3" plus small lamptops after noticing that a GA diagram of a 48' coach reproduced in Midland Record had been amended and showed both profiles. The red ink on your linked diagram says it all! What I couldn't determine but now can, was the arrangements of lights in the clerestory, beyond the paneling on the Slaters moulding. Still, no one will ever notice, will they! The rest of the train is taking shape in Silhouette diagrams not yet cut, plus the full third approximated from a cut-and-shut of two Ratio lavatory 3rds (also with altered clerestory profile). The Single to pull it along is still untouched in London Road Models' box.

The extra width would constrain route availability, although some were self-adjusting: The Midland introduced a new design for its city to city express services in 1897-1898, notably the Bradford-Bristol service, with a very ornate ducket design. Within a year the vehicles found a particular location where the loading gauge was to a local standard, and the presumably now ventilated van was hastily returned to its more streamlined shape with no ducket. Later versions (later as in immediately) had a much simpler, slender lookout. No record I am aware of, of adjustments to the guard's profile however.

I rarely post, but time on my hands tonight. You're an accomplished modeller so you probably aren't trying to fit 2mm axle wheels onto a 1/8 inch axle! And you've probably checked to make sure the moulding hasn't left a blind hole. You have probably got a set of mini drills like the box that goes from 0.3mm to 2mm in 0.05mm increments, if not, then that is a must-have. Try successive drills to get the current bore diameter - check the drill diameter on a gauge - vernier etc. If it seems plausibly close, open it out to the correct diameter, very gently, very square, because you only get it right once! - with a cutting broach, NOT a drill. (e.g. ) Mark the broach at the depth you reached when it just started to accept the axle, and open the other wheels out to the same depth. Use your George Watts device to mount the wheels on the axle again - you may need a smear of Loctite to cover overenthusiastic reaming. But if you need to go to all that trouble, it's probably better to give Colin and Pat a call, I'm sure they will replace the dodgy wheels. (0161 678 1607 for ref, sales@alangibsonworkshop.com)

It's the gum from the underside of the "ESCAP RG4 Made in England" label that is the root of the problem, I found. I have an RG4 1219 that has been sitting on a shelf for a very long time. When I took it down to check it over, it was extremely stiff. Power to the motor only made the bevel gear flicker momentarily and the motor start to get worryingly warm. I tried some very careful lubrication with quality clock oil and tried leaving it for a few hours. I tried turning it over via the exposed middle idler and my thumnail, but although I could make it move, it still remained excessively stiff. I removed the motor from the gear train and checked the motor. That turned over nicely with no load, so the motor was still intact. With the gearbox alone, I ran the idler cog along some stripwood to turn it over a few score times didn't add much. I wondered if doing so more briskly might generate enough friction heat to soften possible (theoretical) lubricant that had caked, but it made no difference. I mounted the gearbox on the final drive gear on a length of 1/8" drill rod / silver steel axle rod and clamped the rod in a vice and spun the gear box around the rod, but it remained extremely stiff. Finally I took a deep breath and mounted the drill rod with the gearbox on it in the chuck of a Minicraft drill. On powering on, the assembly spun around so much that the centripetal force pulled the sides of the drill case slightly apart, so stopped very quickly! (Good thing that I used drill rod and not e.g. brass rod because anything softer would have bent with the possibility of bending within the gearbox and needing to be cut free.) I tried again, this time holding the drill firmly and with the gearbox pushed against the worktop to stop it rotating with the rod. The mini drill turned a few very reluctant revolutions and then sped up so that after a very few seconds it was turning easily. Took the gearbox off , tried it by hand - no damage and turning nicely as it should. I remounted the motor and ran it perfectly. Checking over, one of the pinion axle holes buried under the label, had become visible, i.e. it had worn a small hole through the gummed label at the point when the mini-drill had freed it up. So if you don't have a length of 1/8" silver steel rod handy, peel off the label that is stuck on the side of the gearbox case and maybe use some carefully applied solvent to remove the label's gum residue - if that works you will know straightaway as the gears will turn over easily when you've done. No need to dismantle the gearbox and only need to remove the motor if you are going to spin the final drive axle very fast.

I bought Omega Models' kit for a Midland Johnson 1327 class 4-4-0 in 1979 with all my savings from Warwick Model Shop a few days after graduating. I'm writing this now because I'm finally making significant progress with it more than 40 years later after several false starts. It was their only loco kit and the only other things I've seen are as above a wagon chassis and I think some other item came up on eBay in recent years, possibly etched parts to do with trackwork. I'm glad in hindsight that I didn't make much progress with it at the time else it would have finished up an unrecoverable mess. (And I've never noticed any other completed instances of the kit either.) It was a very early foray into the etched brass kit concept and has lots of faults, chief among them being to etch frames in the same very thin gauge brass as the bodywork, likewise the coupling rods, whereas some aspects are quite idiosyncratic, notably the cab sides and splashers with beading etched in relief on one panel and a second full thickness panel to sweat it to, the latter with tabs to position into the running plate. One common mistake he *didn't* make was to half-etch boiler bands on the boiler cladding and thus render the boiler ultra thin. He merely left some pilot holes for a nice turned brass chimney and dome and safety valver case. The chassis was intended to use a Keyser motor (that sets its period firmly pre-dating sophisticated small motors) and the kit was supplied with Kean-Maygib moulded plastic sprung hornblocks for all 7 axles. That's where the assembly faults begin - there isn't clearance in the flimsy bogie for the bogie hornblocks and bogie to swivel under the mainframe cutouts. The whole assemblage would be featherweight and the frames would bend under the required amount of weight. Now I can remedy these and other faults with the aid of home cut frames with rocking beam suspension on the drivers and a central sprung bogie pivot as the third leg with cut down sprung hornblocks on the bogie in place of the intended 'conventional' push-along two-holed arm. The new bogie has a large chunk of brass to ensure that it can counter unwanted forces through inertia in its own right, as well as push the chassis into curves. The boiler and firebox now carries a chunk of brass round bar stock glued inside the etched wrap to give if serious weight and the rear floating axle is driven from the tender, also weighted to counter the motor torque and with tender and driver pickups. The tender drive uses a simple screwdriver and slot style clutch, mainly to keep motor fore and aft thrust on the motor bearings instead of on the cardan shaft joint. The 7 foot wheels mean that the actual gearbox is now underslung and well under the cab floor, using a Gibson gearbox because I needed to use it on something eventually. If all stays together well and to plan, I may spoil it with a set of Brassmasters inside motion that I am itching to break out and tinker with preferably before my aging eyesight no longer gives me the chance. I know nothing more about the maker, Omega Models of 67A The Tricorn, Portsmouth and long gone to re-re-redevelopment - the Luftwaffe, 1960s Brutalists and 1980s planners all had a go at Portsmouth, not sure who won but the citizens certainly didn't.

I bought a block of Mike Trice's 4mm scale buffer housings off Shapeways and find them quite acceptable, likewise the buffer housings in Bill Bedford's (Mousa Models) resin wagon kits. Yes they are brittle and need to be handled with care, and there are more robust alternatives e.g. MJT in whitemetal with embedded steel buffers, but once in place, no more care than any other finescale model. Both Bill's and Mike's 3D printed units are intended to be used with turned steel buffer heads and integral coil springs (that should be springs actually). Mike's work first time, Bill's I found I needed a bit of clearing out with a 0.5mm drill through to the rear and a 0.9mm to 1mm drill for the shank - by hand in a pin chuck. I used Wizard Models buffer heads and springs - you need about 12 prings for each wagon as they follow similar trajectories to particles in the CERN accelerator. Bill also provides 3D printed couplings in these kits, but they are less satisfactory, mainly because couplings get handled a lot, but also because they are difficult to secure in the solebar without gumming up. Their pulling strength seems ok, but they are very prone to falling apart under lateral pressure on the links - no doubt due to weak bonding of the filament between layers. Given the scale thinness of the links, this is probably not the best material for couplings.

Can anyone help me with a picture of the Signal Box Diagram for St Albans Abbey station? I've seen a low-res image of one on Sithlord's blog site, but I need the detail. My immediate need is to work out the locking and hence the point rodding for the run-round. I know there was a single lever ground frame, I have a couple of prints of photos of it that among a number that Joe Worrall gave me, taken by Alan Sibley in the 1960s. I also know there was a gong and I believe this was mounted at the platform end, and there was a basic point lever controlling the switch between the regular run-round loop and the goods reception road. I would assume that the ground frame was locked and unlocked from the signla box, with an intermediate lock midway from the box to the frame. Published photos seem to show a single rod outside the run-round loop, but the station far end comprises three switches and two trap points. Both the traps would have to sync with the platform road switch.

Thanks again Horsetan. Actually Colin came back early this morning with a PDF of Alan Gibson's instruction sheet, asking only that I consider a charity donation in return for my offer of real money. So I gave a small donation to Shooting Star CHASE which for those who don't know, is a superb organisation that provides respite and hospice care for children with life-limiting conditions.

I've just acquired from Ellis Clark Trains via eBay, an Alan Gibson 4mm kit for (nominally) an LMS compound. The kit comes with a set of P4 wheels and some interesting extras including a lost wax 'real' centre crank and connecting rod, though I suspect that wasn't part of the original product. What it doesn't have is a set of instructions. Is there anyone about who might have a set that they could reproduce for me? I'll ask Colin at Alan Gibson Workshop too, of course. Incidentally the box contains all the more obvious alternative parts for a superheated Deeley/Fowler compound, so a nominally Midland one is probably the same kit.

Thanks very much for the info, especially 87029. For better or worse, Coppercap, "Model Loco Ltd" is registered as dissolved, so you won't be able to buy another from them anyway. It seems that DJH in some fashion absorbed the 'Model Loco' branding (although it is hardly original, and DJH's current website is titled "DJH Model Loco" on a website that sells ... model locos). So, were the Model Loco Ltd kits already part of the DJH range or did ML commission DJH to produce them? I assume the former.

I have a couple of kits from the long-gone Model Loco Ltd of Carlisle and am keen to find out more about the company and its modus operandi and some background to their catalogue and their relationship with DJH. Searching for "Model Loco" on the web or even within RMWeb obviously puts one on a hiding to nothing! So I thought the best way to discover more would be to open a forum topic on the subject. I have eight DJH kits of which 4 are pro-constructed, 2 home-assembled and 2 not yet started, and I know that Model Loco Ltd distributed limited editions of DJH kits. I have a pro-made Clan from them (one of my prize possessions) and just recently bought a 9F kit (unmade) via eBay. As to be expected with DJH kits, the castings are excellent - crisply detailed and free of flash, mould-lines or pitting. I would be interested to know what was the basis for Model Loco's 'exclusive' limited editions - was it simply a guaranteed run that they would retail independently of DJH, or are there any particular detailed variants they commissioned? I don't think the latter is the case - the 9F kit has a BR1/1A/1G/1H tender, single and double chimneys and etched plates for 'Evening Star'.

Hello everyone. I'm Mehmood, I've modelled LMS pre-group constituents in EM sporadically going back over forty years, but recently gauge-widened my mindset by 0.63mm to P4 following the acquisition of the recently late Joe Worrall's boards and trackwork of St Albans Abbey, all 26 feet of it. I was also able to acquire some of his rolling stock before he passed away. Since then I've been variously renovating parts of the boards, researching the gaps to fill, and reviewing my existing EM to move it to P4. The renovation has mostly been repairing rail end damage, not too bad fortunately, adding cosmetic C&L chairs to the bare Brook-Smith track, patching up the scenery and adding finer details like point rodding. I need also to build two overbridges, the signal cabin, 4 2-doll signals, the station building, goods shed and ancilliary buildings around the perimeter, including a facade for the Royal Vetinary Corps based adjacent to the yard. I'm hoping to build up the stock to a reasonably interesting assortment, though I'm only really short on the GNR leg of the line. If I can think of a way of retro-fitting baseboard joints that will be both robust enough and accurate enough without lots of joggling every time, maybe I might be able to exhibit it in a year or two. (It was not intended for exhibition as Joe had built it, so although the track lines up perfectly except for eight rail ends that have been buckled, it is only aligned using M6 bolts through 2x1 softwood timber.) Oddly, given St Alban's' position on the Midland Main Line, I don't have a role for my somewhat larger quantity of Midland stock, which is more main-line oriented anyway, so I also still have vague notions of a Midland through station somewhere, but recently came across Barry Norman's plan for Marple (Midland and MS&L joint) in an older MRJ. An astonishingly busy prototype in its heyday, 96 train movements in one hour, or something of that order, in the 1880s when trains to and from Liverpool were divided or attached from or to their Manchester portions, and all in a compact location with a well defined modellable arena. So at the back of my mind I have the intention of recreating Marple or something similar, in P4 instead of EM. Though to cover that era, I'd need to be making a shed load of 4 and 6 wheel carriages and Johnson engines in shades of green too. Meanwhile back at the workbench, I've got one segment of the GNR approach to St Albans Abbey with rails being retrospectively chaired up with carved up C&L chairs, and the orange-coloured brick GNR pverbridge under construction. Plus about 150 scale feet above that I have a segment of my "study circle" i.e. a double track oval of P4 under construction with properly chaired rail. That is an experiment to see how far I can reduce the radius before my stock falls off the track as it goes in the shop at 18.0 or 18.2mm and comes out at 18.83, give or take the odd bodge. It also provides a home for my main line stock. Currently 3'11" radius is not a problem, and it goes down to 3'9", 3'7" and 3'5" when the inner circuit is completed. I suspect the six-coupled stock may struggle without drastic work to increase sideplay, but so far the problems have arisen more in the trackwork than in the engines - what is a nominal 3'9" sometimes mysteriously transitions to somewhat tighter radius, but my trackbuilding to fine tolerances is improving. I would never have gone down this particular road but for a chat with Tim Venton last year about his fabulous Clutton and the fact that he also has sub-four-foot radius curves and if I remember correctly, even an 8-coupled that will negotiate them. Enough for an intro, now back to work!