PatB

And it wasn't that crash hot when it was new .

Link doesn't appear to work.

And a good representation of cars of the era too . I make that two Minis, a brace of BMC 11/1300s (one a Morris), An oldish Hillman Minx/Singer Gazelle, a Super Minx/Vogue of similar era, a 105E Ford Anglia, a Mk1 Cortina late enough to have the 'Aeroflow' vents in the C pillars, a Mk2 Consul which is, I think, pre low-line making it an early example, a Vauxhall Victor FC101 and some flash git has got themselves what must be a near new HB Viva. Not a Morris Minor in sight, although that might be one lurking at the far left, beyond the Anglia and what might be another 1100.

Great film. It's remarkable seeing how much Tyneside had changed in the 17 years between that footage and my arrival there. Particularly worrying given that that seemingly impossibly long time is as nothing compared to how long ago my arrival in 1985 now is .

I'm thinking in terms of other scales and gauges too. I seem to remember reading somewhere quite recently (although possibly in a very old magazine) that the minimum radius on Buckingham (EM of course) was in the region of 2'.

OK. tight, yes, but still doable if my memory of 1960s and 70s EM practice, as described in Railway Modeller, isn't too foggy. Besides, as the 31.5 mm brigade will attest, there's a fair bit of slop in 0 gauge standards too. I'm not advocating sub-4' radii as being ideal, or even particularly desirable, but, back in the not so far off days when people built model railways in other than straight lines, there were plenty of examples of equivalent curves on serious model railways.

Regardless of what I said earlier, it's hard to see why you would pay 325 GBP for this when you can get a (almost certainly superior in every respect) Hornby one for quite a lot less. Unless you're specifically collecting K's kits I suppose, which is a perfectly valid pastime.

I think we're in furious agreement here. I was pulling numbers out of the air for demonstration purposes rather than properly researched figures for a serious budget. As is clear, even my seriously lowball cost estimate puts a small, simple industrial, built to a decent standard by someone other than the owner, well on the way to 400GBP. As a result the item in question, if it really is as nice as described, probably does represent reasonable value for money in objective terms because, unless the buyer has the skills and resources to build one as good themselves, they're not going to get one for less elswhere although the laws of locomotive acquisition dictate that, having paid 370GBP for this one, Bachmann will now announce a r-t-r offering for a quarter of that sum . As for preferring to build the kit oneself, you're clearly a very accomplished builder. I'm a mediocre novice but sufficiently capable that, as long as I pick my prototypes and kit manufacturers carefully I can turn out what I want to a standard that I don't feel is too embarrassing. Someone who is neither or has other calls on their leisure time may feel differently. Time, money and skill are all, to an extent, interchangeable. The sum total of all three needed in order to obtain a particular item tends to remain constant but the mix of the three can be varied according to the strengths of the individual. And leisure time at a zero hourly rate? I know that's the case, but as I get older and I become more aware that it's a finite resource I become more inclined to consider whether I'd be better served by substituting some of the duller bits with money. Not that that's going to be feasible until I find paying employment again.

Prior to the current phobia for putting curves in 0 gauge track, a smidge under 3'6" would have been considered a reasonable minimum radius for the space starved modeller with short wheelbase stock. After all, it's the equivalent of, what? Nearly 2' in 00, which was once considered acceptable, if not generous, for the inside tracks of a serious (as opposed to train set) roundy roundy. I'd buy an oval of it if only to set it up on the floor temporarily in order to run in (small) locos and stock.

Drat those No.1 radius curves .

I agree. If you knock off a nominal fifty quid fr materials/kit you're left with 320 GBP. Assuming an hourly rate of 10 quid an hour (which is a pretty meagre sum to pay for the skills required to make a model loco look good and run well) you get a grand total of 32 hours building time. That's really not a lot of time to bulid a loco of moderate complexity, paint, line and apply lettering and fettle to good running standard. Nobody is going to get rich building one-off locos in any scale. The best anyone can hope for is to get their hobby to at least partially pay for itself.

Didn't the last of the Dean Goods go in 1956? Theoretically late crest but doubtful if any got one in practice.

1991 is, rather disturbingly, 22 years ago so yes, I think your Rover can reasonably be described as 'old' . I'd be very surprised if anyone was still using oil filled coils by then. I've always thought of them as being more of a 1950/60s thing and generally aftermarket at that, Runbaken being the main brand name that I remember. So, in the rainy old UK, my money would be on water . Given the relatively modest cost of replacement coils for most things and the amount of trouble and frustration they can cause, particularly with intermittent faults, I've always favoured replacement if there'sthe slightest doubt over condition.

Neither my scale nor my area of interest but, nonetheless a fantastic development to see a sensibly priced (hopefully) r-t-r Atlantic of any kind. I've long thought it a gaping hole in the range of available locos for either those (relatively few) modelling late Pre-Grouping main lines and those (much more numerous) wanting to represent Grouping and BR steam era second string passenger and express parcels services. Congratulations to Bachmann.

Realistically the 'Mog would have been a far superior vehicle in almst every respect. Although I loved our FC I was far from blind as to its shortcomings. I couldn't be really as I had to live with them every day. For five years of our ownership it was our day to day work truck in our landscaping business. Bristolian RMWebbers may remember it trundling around the wealthier suburbs or grinding up Bridge Valley Road with two tons of gravel in the back. At the time I was young and resilient enough to be OK with crawling around underneath it in the freezing darkness of a winter's evening in order to bodge it into some semblance of roadworthiness for work the next morning. Looking back, it was awfully hard work.

Well, here's a shot of the SIIa Forward Control that Dad and I owned for 10 years from 1986. It had a pretty chequered history prior to our ownership and much of it, including the registration number, was non-original. However, the chassis number revealed it to be a very early pre-production prototype. It certainly explained why it appeared to have been built by two blokes with a hacksaw and a welding plant. Because it probably had . It had many problems, some stemming from the design, some from decades of abuse and neglect and some from our own tendency to work it far harder than was probably fair to a vehicle that, even then, had passed its quarter century. Nonetheless it was a lovely old beast and I deeply regret having had to let it go.

True, although I seem to remember that he was always supposed to be on the cusp of retirement but couldn't quite let go.

I don't know if it's been mentioned but there was an episode of Frost with scenes filmed on what must have been a preserved railway. IIRC the train that appeared was a green 33 (could be entirely wrong on this as I'm relying on a years old memory) with a short train of what looked to be 1950s/60s BR wagons. Certainly something rather anachronistic for the late 1990s.

Sorry, I have to disagree about the GT4S. I broke one up back in 82/83 and it was as Herald based as the 2+2 in the photo although the engine was in MkIII Spitfire tune. It just had rather different nose styling with twin headlamps rather than the singles. As with the car in the photo the chassis, floorpan, scuttle and windscreen surround were all pure Herald and thoroughly rotten, hence the scrappage. The engine went into a Spitfire and the chassis, repaired and extended, went under a plywood bodied special which was never finished but which may yet turn up in the Bristol area to mystify auto historians. I always thought that the 4-pot Bonds were a little awkward looking because they were constrained by the use of Herald panels. The 2-litre appeared to be a complete new shell and so was much better proportioned.

The explosion in online retail has resulted in there being companies who will provide a US accommodation address and a forwarding service. Dunno how good they are or how cost effective it would be for a single item though.

I'd be interested to know how the prototype sealed the sliding union between the overhead diesel pipe and the locomotive .

Thanks for that. I could see the extra dropper in the toad pic but couldn't work out how it lifted the hook. All is now clear .

Interesting. I've often wondered about using 00 tension locks as a cheap, simple autocoupler in 0 where they're less obtrusive. How do you make them lift using the magnets? Is there a steel lever arm extending back under the wagon?

I've always been rather fascinated by how cheap (at least on a ponds/ton basis) pre-loved armoured vehicles are. When I first got interested in classic cars back in the very early 80s there was still quite a bit of WW2 stuff changing hands for ridiculously tiny sums. For some of the more interestingly powered examples the prices were low enough to almost make it viable to buy them for the engines and chuck the rest away (or sell it for the not inconsiderable scrap value).

Well, yes, but if they subsequently go for silly money, that's the market's fault and not the seller's.