billbedford

Yep, a typical government 'Jam Tomorrow' ploy....

Does this mean there will be a resurgence of S scale, where there is just about no trade support at all?

If it was a real photo it must have been a really fat seagull that sat on the middle signal doll.

That was an interesting conversation today between yourself and brian t regarding the Hornby gresley buffet. I am not so knowledgeable on coaching stock as i should be, although i hope to improve over time. Mainly i stick to mk1's as with these you know what you are getting. You mentioned modifying the sides of the coach in order to create a more accurate buffet. Have you a photograph of a modified coach so that i know what the finished result should look like. This blog will show you all you need to build a a converted Gresley buffet http://highlandmiscellany.com/tag/buffet/ PS. I forgot to add, that I know a man that cans supply brass overlays for the rebuilt cars....

AM6/306 had what have been described as 'Thompson' bogies, but were probably a MetCamm standard bogie. AM7/307 also had normally framed bogie which I suspect as the same as Eastleigh were fitting to contemporary SR stock.

The original Great Central Railway magazine from about 1910 onwards contains a number of letters complaining about the state of particularly goods engines. These seem to come mainly from ex-locomen as they tend to include a sentiment similar to "it was never like this in my day".

Yes, but if you take you models outside the colours will look a lot brighter. This is because, even on an overcast day, there is much more light reflected off the model than there would be under artificial light.

Probably D.155 Corridor Third.

I have a ( or maybe part of) a bogie diagram book and have extracted these details which I've put into a PDF LNER Bogies.pdf

Don't think so -- the drawing is dated August 1930.

I've just re-read the Van chapters in Harris, and you are right, Fox bogies were replaced by heavy duty 8' bogies and the permitted load was increased from 8 to 10 tons. Which leaves me wondering just which vehicles used the 8' standard. bogies.

As far as i know the 8' heavies were only used on quad arts. They had an even shorter bolster support beam, and there was really no need to use a bogie the could carry 18.5 tons on light vehicle such as a BG,

Not quite right. Up until about 1930 BGs had 8' Fox bogies. Vans built later had light, single bolster 8' bogies. To recognise these bogies these bogies you need to look at the bolster supports. This is a 8' single bolster on a BG: and this is a standard 8'6" double bolster:

River in Hampshire?

If Gaugemaster won't tell you I would cancel the order......

Lets just ignore painting common 'plastics' like styrene and think about wheels for a moment. Early plastic wheel centres were moulded from nylon, which is not affected by any of the common solvents used in cellulose paints. However it has an 'interesting' property in than it is hygroscopic i.e. it will absorb moisture from the air and expand. Usually the air is not humid enough to affect the friction hold on the axle, but one of the major constituents of cellulose winners is ethanol which is highly hygroscopic, and forms a pathway for the nylon to absorb more water. The effect of a slightly expanded centre and rubbing the paint off the tyres is very likely to move the wheels on the axles, just as Larry described. Baking the wheels, with or without the loco, at 40 - 70ºC will expel the absorbed water and shrink the wheels to their original size. Wheel makers have, over time, changed the material of their centres first to glass filled nylon and later to ABS which does not absorb moisture. So if anyone has any 'classic' plastic centred wheels from the 70s or 80s lurking in their maturing cabinet then, I suggest they should quietly change them for more modern examples.

Wagon common user agreements date from 1917 for the GCR, GNR and GER. Most other major railways had joined in by 1922.

How do Hornby or Bachmann do these things? The answer is that all the components are made as sub-assemblies and bolted or clipped together once each part is finished and painted. Even the motors are bolted in separately so that the frames can be test run before fixing them in. And you will note that none of these locos are fully sprung. Now I realise as well as anyone else the people can only build the kits that they can buy, but I do get tired of an attitude that says that the design of loco kits was perfected some 30 years ago and there is no need to change it. And I would suggest that frames like this one are probably easier to build that most other 0-6-0s I've seen, and while they are fully sprung they have no need of particularly dextrous fingers, perfect eyesight or even a jig.

I'm tempted to ask 'Why?' but realise that the answer is more likely to along the lines of 'Because we can' rather than 'Because it's a good idea'. I'm well aware that there are many kits who's frames have all the sophistication of a slab of brass with holes in them. Surely there are better ways of making frames? It's not rocket science, after all just about all RTR locos have frames with drop in wheel sets.

I think I'm with Terry Pratchett on this -- Always be wary of any item that weighs less than its operating manual. But then, I would tend towards the opinion that providing copious instructions is an admission that the kit has been designed to be over complicated. But hey, I do understand that there are people that enjoy building 1000 piece bass three dimensional jigsaw puzzles.

This is where most people's troubles lie. Taking plastic wheels on and off axles will almost certainly lead to them not running true.

I think you are picking on the wrong people there.........

I just love the way that people sure that everyone knows they use Romford wheels by leaving the slots in the nuts in plain view. Didn't someone once make a quip about things below the footplate being essentially invisible?

Sometimes whats not said is as important as what is said....

Can you remind me which railways used demountable wheels?