Tony Wright

Excellent stuff - many thanks Simon. You could have pulled the boards off to make it even more convincing............

Back to modelling. Whenever I think I'm getting somewhere with my own creations, something passes in front of my camera which proves to me all I'm doing is really mucking about. Stuff like the following - Nick Dunhill's superb work in O Gauge. Descriptions of these will be appearing in BRM before long, with several more pictures.

I can assure you that I haven't recently discovered the performance of Bulleid's incredible creations. Though I never rode behind them in BR days, I have vivid memories of their belting through Basingstoke, Micheldever and Winchester. Memories of CALSTOCK raising the echoes deep into the night at Salisbury as she tried to get her feet heading west on a heavy train. Memories of PORT LINE (obviously rebuilt by 1964) blasting up the incline out of Poole, and HOLLAND AFRIKA LINE (similarly rebuilt) purring through the New Forest. They were mainly responsible for my leaving art school in 1966. One Monday morning I was asked by the head where my preparations for a painting were. I told him they weren't finished, but I'd been very busy photographing supreme examples of mechanical art at Winchester, Southampton and Bournemouth (travelling by car in between). He then doubted where my priorities lay, and I agreed, so we parted company, though I subsequently became an art teacher, anyway. And, those marvellous Bulleid memories make me smile, too!

I hope this shows how close Bachmann's and Hornby's rendition of carmine and cream is. Also shown for comparison is an old Mainline Composite. The picture was taken using 'daylight' lights, with a burst of fill-in flash to soften the shadows.

As promised, shots of the lubricator drive I made for a Bachmann A4 many years ago. It featured in BRM in the mid-'90s, shortly after the Bachmann A4 (or its latest manifestation) came out. The drive was made from bits of valve gear etches and attached to the mazak chassis with expoxy. The eccentric crank was soldered to the Bachmann crankpin. The parallelogram motion, made from wire and strip, is a dummy, fixed to the underside of the footplate. I also scratch-built the Cartazzi back end (using suitable axlebox castings) and added various scratch-built details - footplate supports and grate lever. I thought the Bachmann tender was dreadful (still do). As well as altering the back end Graham, did you alter the front end too? By that I mean alter the angle of the turn-in of the sides at the front and the position of the vertical handrails. I substituted a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender to suit 60002, soldering the strip to the sole plate which once took the stainless steel strip. I also changed the horrid bogie. Ian Rathbone turned it into something worth keeping. Bachmann latest non-split chassis is a vast improvement over this split-chassis one. Though this one still runs well, another one I had just collapsed as the plastic muffs disintegrated. It was given away to Graeme King (no doubt bits of it now constitute another incredibly ingenious conversion) and I built a SE Finecast replacement. Another thing missing from the Bachmann model was the reversing lever. I made this from scrap fret, soldered to the new rear frames and glued to the plastic motion support bracket. I also fitted a speedo, not needed for 1948. I hope these pictures help.

Good morning David, Post-away - I'm always pleased to see such delightful pictures. Unfortunately, your SILVER FOX does not have the lubricator linkage present. At some point in its life someone must have taken the body off and given up trying to put the linkage back on. The plastic 'parallelogram' motion representation (attached to the body) is still there, but the return crank on the rear driver and the eccentric rod and link have disappeared.

I'm not sure about the carmine/cream colours being wrong in Model Rail's review because I haven't seen its pictures. In my opinion the pair of Portholes I've had to photograph look just right and match quite closely Hornby's equivalent. Thinking them to be still front-line stock on the LMR in the mid-'50s, I thought they'd be of little use on the MR/M&GNR bit of my Little Bytham layout, but I was astonished to find two examples of them in pictures on the M&GNR dating from just that period, or even earlier - in a through train from the Norfolk coast to Leicester at Bourne and in a three-coach Kings Lynn-Nottingham set at Sutton Bridge; a Composite and Brake Third respectively. How could prestige coaches have ended up thus? It's a pity that the destination board brackets are not present. I'll take some comparative pictures tomorrow.

Thanks Graham, Your post about the '48 exchanges was most informative (but a 'Royal Scot' did actually participate). I read many years ago a piece written by one of the SR drivers after his 'WC' had worked over the Highland main line. Apparently, he had been told by his superiors not to give a fig about economy figures but just show what a Bulleid light Pacific could do. It would seem that the acceleration up Drummochter (sorry, I haven't time to check the spelling) was so rapid that the indigenous 4-4-0 pilot was winded, and they were waiting for ages at the next station for an up train to pass. Great stuff, and how could those Spam Cans go! As for the lubricator linkage on the A4s, Hornby actually fits them to its models, though it's an absolute fag to get the body off because of it - the top end is (or was, if it's been changed) attached to the body and the crank attached to the chassis. On all the A4 models I've made (Pro-Scale, SE Finecast, modified Bachmann, etc), I've scratch-built the linkage from bits of valve gear frets and brass pins. I'll take a picture of what I attached to a modified Bachmann A4 chassis if this is any help.

I think the footplate valance and footplate itself look to be nickel silver/brass. That uniform valance and thin footplate edge are the give-aways. Also, I don't think the footplate widens slightly behind the drivers (which it should, and doesn't on mine), a characteristic of the Jamieson footplate, but I'll look more closely. The A3 chimney is a perfect replacement.

I don't know who amongst us has infinite knowledge of A4s but SEAGULL won't be getting very far whatever the origin of the Dynamometer Car. Not only has the lubricator linkage disappeared, but also the return crank which drives it and is (or should be) attached to the offside rear crank-pin. One wonders what will occur first - either the motion will seize up or the rear offside rod will come off! I know to the delight of many, the A4s were the least reliable of all the 8P engines exchanged (though they were by some margin the most economical, and did they really fail more than the Bulleid Pacifics?), but I don't think MALLARD, SEAGULL or LORD FARINGDON 'failed' because their lubricator drives fell off. Apologies Graham, of course, for my attempt at humour, but considering the recent Gresley/Thompson debate elsewhere, isn't it significant that the ER operating authorities in 1948 chose A4s to represent the ex-LNER rather than the most modern of their big locos? The WR had nothing newer than a loco built in 1927/'28 to represent them in the 8P category (supporters might say it was modern enough even 20 years later but I think they know they'd been overtaken), the LMR had a loco less than ten years old and the SR had locos of the same vintage, or newer.The three A4s were ten years old but why weren't the newer, 'improved', Thompson Pacifics sent as representatives? Four classes were the equivalent of what became 8P and although three of them 'only' had 6' 2" drivers, so did the 'MNs'. If HERRINGBONE had been chosen, it would only have been just over a year old - the newest of the participants. None in authority would have possibly considered the A1/1, even though it was only three years old. In a way, it's a pity that the Peppercorn A1s weren't there to represent the ER (not quite finished, but there would have been no reliability issues) or the Ivatt 'Duchesses'. 6256 was in existence and, I think, 46257 was still under construction.

Mick, The footplate and front steps are definitely Jamieson, though I don't know about the rest. The tender is the low-front 4200 GS type which Jamieson used to provide (even in their B1 kit - they never produced the high-front sort), but I don't know what was provided by Bristol Models. It looks to have a Jamieson chimney, which is too tall and not wide enough. Pro-Scale's V2 only had the low-front tender and Nu-Cast's only the high-front. My apologies if these two images have appeared before but new commentators seem to appear from time to time. They show the Jamieson V2 I built in 1979 (35 years ago!). It was my second attempt at one - the original being built in 1976. The first one appeared in the mags but I was never really happy with it, and gave it away to a friend. I was happier with this one and I think it's stood the test of time, at least as a layout loco. It has a Nu-Cast flared tender (in a swop with a Nu-Cast O2/3) and a Nu-cast V2 chimney. My latest-build Jamieson V2 has a turned brass V2 chimney from I know not where, since I can't remember, but the Jamieson one isn't right. And yet another V2, this one from Graeme King, Comet and Markits. It'll have a spare Bachmann tender. I'll be writing it up for BRM, and I'll try and overcome my antipathy to resin and be objective.

David, It took 14 bogies with ease yesterday...

My thanks to you too, sir. Little did I know what influence I might have for the future careers of readers. There is a little-known side story to the Pro-Scale V2 saga, Firstly, it was not a 'review' in the strictest sense (that is where a manufacturer provides a new kit and invites a commentator to build it, photograph the stages of that build and then write a critique). I'd actually bought the kit because a customer wanted a V2 and I asked the then Editor of BRM, David brown, if he'd like a story on how I got on with it. Coincidentally, I was building a Nu-Cast V2 for another customer, so would he like a dual piece? Since it was the relatively early days of the magazine, and David was keen to have substantial constructional articles, he said an emphatic 'yes'. Little did I know what ramifications there would be. Usually in my reviewing of a kit, the manufacturer would be given the courtesy of seeing that review before it was published. This would give him/her a right to reply. Not a right to have things changed (though things might be subsequently changed if I were ignorant of some detail or had got things wrong) but to put his/her point of view in response. Since I'd shelled out the full price for this kit (and I found out as I went along that it was pretty awful), I thought (not in a crusading fashion, I hope) that the truth should be told. What any manufacturer (or editor) doesn't want is a 'review' of the builder's skill. By that I mean, to give a kit (particularly a loco which MUST work) the fullest assessment for a magazine it should be built to a professional standard, the stages photographed to a professional standard and the write-up be such that the editor need only alter it to suit a page layout (small amounts deleted or re-arranged - not having to re-write it). As an aside, all of you out there who might consider providing stuff for a magazine, please bear those imperatives in mind. So, off I went in gay abandon building the Pro-Scale V2. If my memory serves (and it serves less well as the years progress, and I don't now have a relevant copy of the mag'), the correct-sized driving wheels didn't fit because the sinuous (and typically-LNER) footplate section over them was too short. The bearing holes in the motion/valve gear fret were enormous and the chassis construction had compensation built in at source (my criticism of the last point is subjective, I admit). The firebox was not symmetrical in plan view - it should have been a 'butterfly' - and when the 'V' cab was put in place, its 'arrow' front was pointing to one side. The boiler/smokebox was too long and it overhung the front footplate section far too much. Unless one were very careful, the footplate sections could end up not parallel to the track or the boiler lean backwards or forwards, or a combination of both. Look at one of the pair Gilbert Barnatt has on Peterborough North. The half-etched sections were too thin, though the full depth boiler bands were too wide, and so on, and so on. In short, as supplied, described and prescribed, it was impossible to build into a visually accurate, working model. That it could be built there is no doubt, but only if major modifications were carried out. Coincidentally, Steve Barnfield was building one and he just happened to be in Wolverhampton at the time, so brought it along to be photographed. He'd completely scratch-built a replacement smokebox, boiler and firebox and altered the footplate (even though his had P4 flanges). His language was 'interesting' when I enquired how he'd got on with it! Despite 'conspiracy theories' at the time, our building of the kits was, as I say, entirely coincidental. Anyway, to get to the point (apologies for the extended post), during one of my then regular visits to Bourne I was asked by the late Michael Warner if what I'd written in criticism of the Pro-Scale V2 were true, as he'd said to David publish it in total. Apparently, you cannot be seen seen as committing libel if what you publish is true. I assured him it was and the rest is history. I did not actually subsequently receive a solicitor's letter, though I was threatened (not by the manufacturer, by the way) that I would. As it was, the whole range was taken off the market, though it was subsequently taken on by someone else (Wessex Pro-Scale? - if that's wrong, I apologise). At the time the new proprietor asked me about the V2 and what was needed to put it right. He didn't bother, though it might now have been revised. Finally, I still stick with my plurals being correct. There is only one Rothesay (though there have been dozens of Dukes, since it's one of the titles of the only/elder/eldest son of the Monarch) and only one district of Badenoch. Just in the same way that there is only one Montrose, yet hundreds (thousands?) of Duchesses of Montrose were made by Hornby-Dublo in the '50s. Duchess of Montroses just sounds daft! I rest my case................

Thanks, I thought of the Finney V2, and I photographed a couple of examples of his supreme kits a few years ago. But, in my opinion, they are not 'layout locos' for my needs. Any of the 20 or more V2s I've built from whatever source would be eclipsed immediately and (assuming I could build one, which I never have) if one were on LB it would stand out for the wrong reasons. In the years of my photographing hundreds of layouts (probably over a thousand and more), I never took a picture of a Finney loco on a 4mm layout. It could be that I missed the best layouts, but that is a fact. A couple in 7mm, yes - on Bucks Hill for instance, but not the smaller scale. My own modelling has always been 'middle of the road', not at the top end, so my omission of the Finney V2 had that parameter in mind. Interestingly, the Finney V2 via the link you sent appears to have no central cladding band on the firebox.

Why the damn computer chose to make a child's jigsaw puzzle of this shot in the last post, I have no idea.

The Jamieson V2 is now all but complete. Many thanks to those correspondents who've commented on it. As already mentioned, the Jamieson tender is a bit too basic (though it can be detailed), and I substituted a DMR low-front GS LNER tender. This makes up into an excellent representation of the type. I don't know whether DMR still provide separate tenders, but, if not, the PDK equivalent is just as good. The complete chassis with valve gear added. The gear is a mixture of Comet, Nu-Cast and Jamieson pieces. Apart from Comet, the other spare frets and castings are no longer available. I just mixed and matched, dipping into my collection of dozens of spare bits and pieces to choose the most suitable items. Many of these were purchased years ago. I suggest when items like those just listed appear for sale, grab them quickly. Complete Jamieson kits themselves as well - they do appear from time to time. Because I wanted the loco to be in full forward gear, the weigh shaft is set too low. The Nu-Cast radius rod comes in one piece - representing mid-gear. I should have split it both sides and introduced the 'V' angle in the die-block. However, when painted and in service it won't be too noticeable. Note the section taken out of the rear of the valance (dental burr in mini-drill) to take the motion support bracket. The only job left to do is to make two cladding bands on the firebox; the one adjacent to the cab front and the one in the middle. Other bands don't need fitting - the lining bands will represent these when it's painted. I use self-adhesive insulation tape to make the non-painted bands, cut in strips of the right width. Much better and much easier than soldering shim in my opinion. Several Darlington-shopped V2s had the firebox central band lined in BR green, so, for those, only the band at the cab front needs replicating. The Nu-Cast cylinders have front two-to-one guides suitable only for the first locos built, so I'll probably replace those, but it is only a layout loco after all. It'll become 60820 of New England (late of Top shed), and it's pictured on page 32 of Keith Pirt's first ER and NER colour volume. The low-front tender is apparent and the different style of guides. It's also incredibly filthy, which I'll be completing. When one considers that the base kit for this model is probably getting on for 50 years old, with 'modern' additions it turns out quite well. Yes, an independent smokebox door dart would be nice, but that's a detail. Graeme King is using his considerable ingenuity in producing a resin-bodied V2 of the correct proportions - I've got one to do. The Nu-cast kit was OK (I've built several) but a bit lumpy and the original cast metal chassis was awful. I think there was a Bristol Models V2 - anyone built one? The Pro-Scale V2 is best left to those who really know how to modify a kit, and the Crownline/PDK V2 still has a resin boiler (sorry Graeme, I just don't really like the stuff). Despite now having a decent chassis the Bachmann V2 body is still seriously compromised. Boiler too fat, hopeless dome, no rearwards slope to the top of the firebox, etc. The tender is good, though. It's my opinion, then, that this Jamieson old-fashioned example of the 'craft' of loco construction in sheet metal can more than stand its own with the much later alternatives. Finally, by using a camera which 'takes no prisoners', all my constructional scuff marks, blobby soldering and scruffy finishing are cruelly highlighted. Who was it who said 'a coat of paint hides a multitude of tins'? Most appropriate here! A brief article on its building might appear in BRM.

To get the cab roof absolutely level, I filed a tiny bit off the top of the spectacle plate and scraped a bit off the front rebate on the underside of the cab roof. I then tack-soldered the front of the roof to the spectacle plate, midships between the spectacles, with the roof not quite touching the top of the cabsides. By not quite touching, I mean the smallest sliver of light being present between the two. This gave be adjustment at the eaves level, up or down. When happy, the rear top ends of the cabsides were soldered to the inside of the roof (the solder easily bridging any tiny gap), and then all the seams were filled in from the rear (all soldering being done from the rear). One then finds a prototype picture where the cab roof is anything but level. There are hundreds of them!

If you use a BR K3 as the donor, and you're careful, the hardest part of the lining is already done for you - namely the reverse curves on the footplate valance. I even retained the original boiler bands (which are also a fag to fit). Because the cab is detachable, it can be lined out as a separate item, and the tender lining only requires four corners each side and two longer straight strips (if you use Modelmaster's lining). I hope this helps.

Simon, I'm afraid I've got my pedantic head on here. Though your quite right that there were three A2/1s of the same name, two A2/2s of the same name and two A1/1s on LB at the weekend, the correct plurals should be Dukes of Rothesay and Wolves of Badenoch. Greats Northern would be incorrect, though - or would it? Love the little book by the way, and many thanks for your kind comments in the back end papers. Keep up the excellent and creative conversions, and, please, bring them along again, new and established ones.

David, The K3 is in the August issue. The extended piece on the coach conversions will be with the Editor next Thursday. I believe it's his intention to plan it in for the early autumn, but it might be in more than one issue.

It has been brought to my attention that my comments in an earlier post regarding the installation of a DCC decoder in a kit-built locomotive have brought distress to a certain individual because, on social media, somebody has put two and two together and named Tim Easter as the man responsible. Though I have not seen the actual comments (I don't do Facebook or Twitter - don't know how to), if what I've been told is true, to take my personal comments and cause harm in this manner is scurrilous and unfair in my opinion, especially as I named no one. I stand by what I said about the decoder being fixed directly to the top of the motor as not being a good idea because that's what I've been told by more than one person, and also by Hornby's own representative when I did a DVD in Margate. The thick insulation tape attaching it to the motor had clearly over-heated and resulted in a sticky black goo covering everything. As for the heavy wiring, I've since learned that that was not entirely the installer's doing. The too high melting point of the solder is my opinion on the matter based on years of experience wiring up can motors. If one has to dwell too long with the iron, the plastic brush-housing has a tendency to melt, pushing the brushes out of alignment. The loco had been fitted with tender pick-ups but these were not well adjusted. Who was responsible for those is a moot point, but it resulted in the loco smoking yesterday. They now cease to exist, and the cooker wiring. In fairness, the loco Tim was commissioned to install the chip in has not been in his hands for over three years. In that time, anything might have been done to it, by who knows whom? I admit, because of my antipathy to DCC, wherever I see an example of bad practice (and I still believe the method of installation was bad practice), I comment accordingly. But, they are my personal comments and opinions and it is not right (at least in my view) for someone to use them as 'vindictive' ammunition to cause distress to someone else. One might argue that, because of my years in model railway journalism, I should be more guarded in my views. That may be so, though I wish some of of my critics down the years (many of whom are probably right) had exercised a level of restraint. One day, I'll publish some of the letters (one from a solicitor!) I've received. But the above is tangential to the situation, and to redress the balance, perhaps some comments on Tim Easter's other work might be apposite. It has been my pleasure to photograph his work for Gilbert Barnatt on Peterborough North, particularly his Thompson Pacific conversions and his weathering of locos and stock. All of these are of the highest standard and they work perfectly, and he has installed all the decoders. So, despite my 'criticisms' of the methodology, so far nothing has failed. Returning to the commissioned locos, though I personally prefer to build things for myself, I would have no hesitation in running any of them on my own layout. They look as good as anything of mine (read into that what you may) and perform (almost) as well. I say 'almost' because no plastic-bodied loco will have the pulling power of a metal equivalent. I suppose as one gets older, a thicker skin develops, especially after years in the 'game'. Many are the critics (and I'm definitely one), and one learns to take the flak with a 'shrug of the shoulders'. But, it is one thing to be critical and then have some third party blow it out of all proportion in what seems to me as deliberate mischief-making. Perhaps those responsible might like to pass on some of the positive comments contained in this post, especially if they mull over the distress they appear to have caused.

Something rather different............ These arrived for product photography today - Dapol's O Gauge SR brake van and Hornby's latest 'Grange' manifestation. Both will be reviewed fully in BRM. In the next issue of BRM there are six pages on how I improved a Bachmann K3. Apologies if this has been featured before............

Bill, I think you've got your priorities just about dead right, and if DCC can do all the things you want of it then you'd be daft not to exploit it. You're also correct in stating that it's horses for courses - equine, as someone else has pointed out, being entirely apposite for the ECML. So, with that (perhaps argumentative?) idea in mind, might I ask a few questions, please? How many metal kit-built locos (steam or diesel) do you have? If you have several, are all the frames electrically dead? If not, just the slightest touch of a bogie wheel against a frame renders everything inoperable on DCC (as you intimate). With mine (though it shouldn't happen), the loco just twitches. If you have dozens of sheet metal-built locos with small-diameter boilers (not all of the 150+ my-built locos are big, and not all are tender locos), how do you get the chip in and enough ballast so that the locos will pull? If you have over 200 locos (including the diesels), how do you afford all those DCC decoders? If the answers to the above questions are none, no, don't need to or don't have, then DCC is for you. I agree, my trainset, if not unique, does not require locos to be parked (and isolated) all over the place (other than in the fiddle yard where the simplest of on/off switches energise or not the 'dead' section at the front of all the roads). The only uncoupling takes place during the operation of the respective Up and Down pick-ups, and that's either the 'hand of God' with scale shackles, or a paddle for the tension-locks. Neither is visually satisfactory, but then none of the automatic/semi-automatic coupling systems is correct for steam-age British freight stock. Nobody, not even the DCC advocates has managed remote uncoupling of three-links, 'Instanters' or screw couplings. Where I do take issue is with some of the DCC propaganda (in fairness, much in the past). Tosh such as 'you only need two wires'. If anything, your layout wiring has to be even better than with analogue because any fall-off of current results in very poor DCC performance. Every single section of rail on LB has an independent feed to it - good practice whether DC or DCC. The other guff concerns DCC 'smoothing out loco performance'. To me, that's the same as hearing an alarming noise coming from your car engine and turning up the radio so that you can't hear it. Or, looking through the big end of a telescope and wondering why you can't see much. All my loco mechanisms are built so that they run as smoothly as can be - little noise, no jerking, no stuttering, no stalling, no dead-spots, no tight-spots, no derailing, no fouling, able to crawl or run at speed and be able to pull heavy loads. Mechanical solutions for mechanical things, not electronic solutions. For testing these locos, I use an H&M 'Clipper' - of great antiquity and not on half-wave. Once on a DVD, I installed a decoder in a loco powered by an old-fashioned X04 (five pole) motor and 'gushed' at how smoothly it ran. I think I deserved an Oscar for that performance because, performance-wise, there was no difference. The loco was sweet and smooth, anyway. I once had LB DCC-d for a promotional video for a DCC-system. Advertising money was prominent in the deal. That's the true meaning of prostitution! The moment the (delightful) guy had gone, the stuff was removed and (I now admit it) given away. I showed even greater enthusiasm for another DCC system (I was sitting next to a most attractive young lady at the time), but, yet again, I was passed over during the principal film awards the following year. Hypocrisy? Of course. As for DCC sound. Try operating for seven or so hours on two days next to some American 'switching' system where the constant throb-throb, chuff-chuff, ding-ding, clang-clang, rev-rev and what have you was loud enough for ear-defenders and you'll cheerfully stuff the whole DCC system somewhere in the operator's anatomy where there's not much light - as once nearly happened at the Nottingham show a few years ago. Because I live in the past and find Ned Ludd far too reasonable, anything that involves mysterious technologies, computers and the pushing of buttons (rather than a knob - yes, I know that fits!) to control my trains, I find anathema. My locos have a set of pick-ups on one side, a return via the frames, axles and wheels on the other, and one wire from those pick-ups to an insulated brush contact on the motor. The other 'wire' acts as the motor-stay as well as the means of completing the circuit via the other brush contact. To run any of them, I set the appropriate fiddle yard road by electric pencil, switch on that road's 'dead section', turn the knob one way or the other (or push a slider, having set the direction switch) and then, say, a DJH A1 leaves that road, accelerates smoothly as I increase the 'juice' and whisks its 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14-coach express at 90 mph or more (especially 'downhill') through Little Bytham. As has been said, 'horses for courses'. Who needs DCC? As for the scenario of a 'loco failure' and an assisting engine being called out only being possible on DCC, you'd have to 'pretend' that the train loco had failed. Why? Because, if it actually failed, since its really an electric train, it would either have 'died', and thus the motor wouldn't turn (I don't use Portescaps, so when mine 'die' the wheels are locked), or there's a short circuit - in which case nothing would run.

Mick, DUKE OF ROTHESAY is built from a PDK kit, also by John Houlden. Returning to DCC, the more I see of it the less I like. As mentioned, the DCC-installation in the B16/3 was abominable (not an inherent fault in DCC, admittedly), and if this represents the standard of 'professionally-fitted' DCC systems in kit-built locos, then leave me out of it (I should point out that it was not fitted by the builder). Little Bytham would benefit not a jot from DCC. I don't need to park locos all over the place on the scenic side, don't need DCC to 'improve' my running, don't need to waste valuable ballast space in sheet metal-built locos to fit a chip, and save myself pounds and pounds by not needing to fit the horrid things. The worst-running layouts I've seen (in one case, no running at all) have been DCC, and the best analogue. That's not to say all DCC layouts run like rubbish, nor all analogue ones run well.

It was a delight to meet you (again) Simon, and I enjoyed a very good day, too. Thank you for posting your pictures. Little Bytham went retro again yesterday, with a selection of pre-war and immediate post-war locos and trains provided by Tom Foster and Simon Martin. Both of these are talented young modellers, intent on doing things for themselves, making and modifying things with their own hands. They represent a new generation in the hobby - the sort essential to encourage otherwise the long-term future of the hobby will be less exciting. The current main-stream trend (of which I'm part) is to model what one remembers, when the senses were much more impressionable and indelible memories created. Those memories from the '50s/early-'60s, which the RTR boys provide so much material for us to enjoy. The problem is that those who well remember those heady trainspotting days are well into their own sixties, and not the early ones either! Neither Tom nor Simon can possibly remember the period they model (I was pre-school age when the locos Simon models were in that guise), but their diligent research and painstaking attention to detail does them credit, as does their modelling. What I like is their respective 'no fear' approach. If they want a model, they make/modify it, sometimes showing huge ingenuity - an ingenuity I wouldn't even contemplate, nor ever would have. Tom's had models professionally built, but now (with a little help) he has little further need for that. As for his weathering techniques, he's taken them to a standard I've rarely seen before and never bettered. So, what can they teach 'modellers' of 'my' generation? Plenty I'd say. For one thing stop moaning about what the trade does or does not have to offer, how much detail should be provided and how much things cost. If it isn't available or it's too expensive, go without (how politically incorrect is that?) or have a go at making it yourself, like this pair of 'children'. And, it's the making and finishing of things that the likes of these chaps produce that, to me, is the most encouraging. Perhaps, when they see these, Tom and Simon might care to provide some captions. Well done! I'm not sure of the colour on this A4 As usual, extra pictures (already seen) were inexplicably imported into this post (computers!!!!!!!!!!), and I should apologise for the non-removal of my BR K5 seen in the distance in one of the pre-war pictures.