Tony Wright

Some latest models have just arrived for photography from Bachmann. Full reviews will be appearing in the February edition of BRM. They look very good at first glance. Any comments, please?

I tend to have the goalpost level with the buffer faces, with its full width just between the buffers. This gives a smooth transition on propelling, resulting in no buffer lock, even if the buffers touch. The distance apart between vehicles in towing is dictated by the length of the 'hook' from the headstock. That depends on the radius of your curves.

David, Having gone through all my collection of photographs and books, I can 'confirm' (as far as my records go) that no Thompson A2/3 ever ran with the later BR crest and the higher front numberplate. I've found a picture of 60514 where it's the other way round - lowered front numberplate but original BR totem, which is slightly unusual, but this arrangement can also be found on A2/2s (60501 and 60506) and A2/1s (60508) and several of the Peppercorn Pacifics, but never the other way round - high numberplate/late crest. I think that arrangement is reserved for the A3s. Just in case folk aren't sure why the numberplates were lowered, it was because the top lamp bracket was lowered and it was then the easiest place to put the plate. The bracket was lowered because of complaints from crews struggling to lift train headboards (note how many carry headboards on the middle bracket above the beam) and because, in the higher position, a headboard caused eddies behind it (or so it was claimed) drawing smoke down. Presumably because, at the time, the A3s didn't have deflectors of any kind, it wasn't a problem for them (perhaps their crews didn't complain, either). There are numerous instances of numberplates and crossrails being transposed at the same time (on A3s as well), so do check pictures. With the coming of overhead electrification (and its inherent dangers), the top brackets were lowered on some locos even further, effectively splitting the crossrail. It was at that time that some of the A3s had their plates lowered as well, but the practice was inconsistent. Finally, and I hope all this twaddle helps, on many Thompson/Peppercorn Pacifics, the lowering of the lamp bracket and the numberplate coincided with the change of plate to incorporate the correct, Gill Sans, style of '6' and '9'. As far as the A2/3s were concerned 60511/12/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/24 had the incorrect style when their plates were higher up, but all of them got the right style as their plates were lowered. How, or why, 60500/22/23 got theirs right first time or why 60513 (originally incorrect) latterly got a correct plate but it was fixed high up to start with, is lost in the mists of time. A minefield? Yes, and similarly so for the other Pacifics as far as numberplate fonts are concerned. For instance, only 60119 of the post-Gresley Pacifics never had its incorrect front numberplate style altered, and 60507 started off with the wrong style but, like 60513, got the right style while the plate was still fixed higher up. Yet, all the A2/2s got theirs right first time. It takes years of study to become this sad! However, I hope this helps. Ian Wilson of Pacific Models provides front numberplates in both correct and incorrect styles.

Rob, The copper-clad strip support is usually made of Paxolin, which is non-conductive of heat (to an extent), so soldering won't cause it to become detached from the base of the coach, especially if you've used epoxy. Where you might have a problem is in previously-soldered joints coming undone, or, if you delay too long with the iron, the copper strip becoming de-laminated. One trick is to use pre-cut sleeper copper-clad strip, which has a gap in the middle (so you only have solder-heat one side at a time). I use continuous strip (it's much cheaper), cut to length and glued in place. It might be an idea to tin it all first, then solder the goalpost in position. Then, using plenty of phosphoric acid flux, solder the 30 AMP fusewire in place - in and out with the iron, mighty quickly, again with lots of flux. I use 145 degree solder with the iron (50 Watt) cranked up to 300 degrees. Because the fusewire is pre-tinned it solders instantly. I don't pre-tin the copper-clad, but if you're less experienced, it might be an idea. You'll see from picture C that the fusewire is left over-long before being bent and cut to length. I was saving the following pictures for the magazine, but there are a lot more than these............. I hope this helps.

I wish it well and next time I'm visiting my family back home I'll call in. Just as an historical aside, as a Cestrian (a native of Chester), when I lived in the historic city (a long time ago) we had five establishments selling model railway equipment. These were The Model Shop (Tri-ang franchise), Barnby's (Hornby-Dublo franchise), both in Frodsham Street; The Arts and Crafts Studio (everything, including Trix) in the arcade off Bridge Street; the tucked-away establishment in White Friars (I think it was part of a dentist's practice but it was a genuine model shop where you could buy all the bits and pieces, and hand-built models), and the wonderful emporium of Mr Trickett in Garden Lane, where I bought my first kits - Airfix/Kitmaster, then K's, Wills and so on plus motors, gears, wheels, etc. The great old guy also used to sell Graham Farish OO Gauge. Were there any more? How times change..................

John, I'm delighted that you've used my idea and the results of your work look superb in side profile. Your carriages together do look most realistic and I also like the idea of adding a representation of the dynamo belt. I suppose I was after trying to create an impression as the carriages roll by, as yours have done most admirably. I too find the flexible gangways aid in propelling stock (mine come from Modellers Mecca) and, like you, I also put a goalpost wire between the buffers of non-gangwayed stock for propulsion purposes. I know this is anathema to the purists but it does result in perfect propelling over quite tight radii. If painted matt black, with a representation of the pipework (and a dummy screw link hanging down if you wish), for layout coaches it works perfectly; particularly so for exhibition layouts where operation is paramount and it doesn't take hours and hours to couple rakes up.

John, Please, tread away....................

Robin, I'm always slightly puzzled when people apologise for 'hijacking' a thread. In my case there really is no need, for, if I can help anyone with 'my' ideas, it's my privilege. I claim nothing original, and most of my modelling life I've spent plagiarising other folk's ideas, adapting them and altering them to suit. This is true for my style of carriage coupling. Even though, as far as I know, it's unique, the principle comes from a couple of sources. The first was a rigid, lost-wax assembly where the screw coupling and dual pipes were made as one piece. The idea was that it was fixed underneath one carriage on a pivot and the adjacent carriage 'coupled' up by having a hole in its floor to take a peg at the other end of the assembly. The position of the hole from the headstock was dependent on the curves of the layout on which the carriage was to run. Who manufactured it, I don't know. Iain Rice made up similar thing with a 'paddle' of some sort to engage behind the headstock of the next carriage. A screw coupling is fine for less-enlightened real railways' methods of coupling carriages but gangwayed LNER carriages, Pullmans and gangwayed BR Mk.1s all used buckeye couplings. So, to represent these one could use Kadees (is that how you spell it?), but these don't have a representation of the vacuum brake/steam heating pipes - just a curved bit on each knuckle hanging down for uncoupling purposes. Though expensive, they seem to work well but in the middle of the bufferbeam of a BR steam/diesel/electric loco/steam loco's tender, they just look awful (apart from on a corridor tender behind an A4). However, the system does allow semi-automatic coupling/uncoupling, but for other than those vehicles already mentioned, Kadees are incorrect for steam age British practice. On a layout where carriage stock does not need to be split (Stoke Summit; Charwelton) buckeyes are not necessary, apart from as 'dummy' hanging-down items on the rear vehicle of a train. In principle, I dislike all forms of proprietary couplings, especially tension-locks. Why? For one, even the most discreet look ghastly and two, on carriages (in the main), they're attached to the bogies. In my experience this is not good practice for two reasons. One; does any real carriage pull another via its bogies? Two; if a train 'snatches' in any way there's a tendency for the bogie-mounted couplings to lift the bogie, thus causing derailments. I know some more recent RTR carriages pull each other by an extending system using a collar around the bogie pivot. Bachmann gives you a sort of twin pipe coupling to fix in the NEM pockets in substitution of tension-locks but you have to have a whole train upside down to couple it all up. Hornby's are better in this respect (the sort supplied with their LMR carriages) but they don't always couple up properly, especially on a curve. I've also had both systems come apart in use, so don't use them. So, I make my own. I've described it before (probably on this thread) but I've included a couple of further pictures in explanation. Its 100% reliable, costs pence to make, works by pulling off (or just behind) the headstocks and looks 'reasonably' realistic as trains sweep by. All you need is some PCB copper strip, 30 AMP fusewire and some .45mm nickel silver or brass wire, superglue and soldering equipment. The 'hook' needs to be set dependent on your layout's curves and each carriage merely piggy-backs on to the one in front. Obviously, no separation of vehicles can take place (other than by hand) but for fixed rakes, for my use, it's perfect. As for coupling to the loco, I use a discreet goalpost underneath the loco tender's bufferbeam, bent up to buffer height but include a scale shackle as well for coupling to other types of stock. In the February 2014 issue of BRM I describe fully (once more, but there are always new readers) how I make these couplings in a piece explaining how I 'improve' Hornby's latest Mk.1s. Sorry for the protracted length of this reply, but I hope it all makes sense, and, please, hijack away!

Near 90 I'd say, just in the gloamin', silhouetted against the western sky. And all from the comfort of one of the back bedrooms.

Just out of further interest (I hope) and in correspondence with a friend, it would appear that three A4s latterly had their firebox cladding bands lined - 60019, 60024 and 60034. All three received latter day repairs (from late '64 onwards) at Darlington, so perhaps the lined firebox bands were done there. However, 60009 was shopped at Darlington at the same time and had a plain band, and the A4s latterly shopped in Scotland at Cowlairs or Inverurie also had plain firebox bands. In every case, electric warning flashes were present. Towards the end, 60019's parabolic lining was also different, plunging into the footplate rather than running along its top. Is any of this important?

Sorry Mick - missed this before. Yes, the lubricator drive on the GA A4 works (in a model sense), though it does look a bit bent. The loco's also (just about) in reverse gear; compare this with the ones I've built. So, unless you're blind to such things and have a really healthy bank balance, I'd buy Hornby A4s, and push the end of the slidebars down a bit.

Sorry to be a further pedant, but 60024's corridor tender should have the flange at the base of the soleplate (which previously carried the stainless steel strip) for the period depicted (actually, always). This resulted in an apparently greater depth to the tender sides (though it was really below the soleplate), meaning you couldn't see the ends of the triangular supports. See LNER Pacifics in Colour by Derek Penney, pages 22 and 23. Under a powerful glass it's just possible to tell that the firebox is lined (but I have the eyes of a pensioner!), but both pictures show the loco with less than a year to live. Either way, the electric warning flashes are present and (on the offside at least), the worksplates have been removed. By 1966, the nearside one had gone as well. It looks to me that the Finney A4 represents, with the firebox cladding band lined, 1965/'66, but without the warning flashes and with the worksplates - a bit anomalous, but still a beautiful piece of building. Having written this, I'm more and more aware of how geekish I've become. Perhaps it's all those hours of study under the Irwell whip, poring over hundreds of pictures of LNER Pacifics, trying to decide date and location. Frequently, some of the evidence is contradictory (particularly scribbled comments on the backs of prints) but you just have to do what you can. And, please, post as many A4 pictures as you like. My thanks to all those who've responded.

It's good; very, very good, and in an entirely different league to anything I've ever nailed together. However, do check the livery details. Along with 60019, 60024 was unusual in having its firebox cladding band lined (the result of an 'unofficial' patch-painting very late in its life). Thus, to have this feature, it should be fitted with electric warning flashes, and, probably, a non-streamlined corridor tender. Though it's impossible to tell from the model, by then it was no longer shedded at Haymarket. Also, please note the cabside detail. Either the numbers are too low or the worksplate is too high up for there's nowhere near enough space between the two. It's probably as a result of the top horizontal lining band being a bit too low. Though the model is way beyond my capabilities, I don't think the painting is in Mr Rathbone's class. Now, I await the photographic evidence to prove my observations wrong. Many thanks for the interest.

Thanks Eric - I wasn't sure, hence 'as far as I know', or didn't know in this case. Part of the problem arises from conflicting evidence in books/journals, plus incomplete data published. Still, it all adds to the modelling research. Were AWS ramps and its equipment not installed in Scotland until much later?

Not wishing to go too far off topic, but might I add a few more comments, please? Regarding model photography, I once set up a shot with the late, great David Jenkinson on a wonderful (it shall remain nameless) multi-track main line. And, I got the shot dead right, It was in the 'proper' photographic days of medium format transparency (6 x 9 cms), multi-exposures through the leaf shutter, painting with light and all the other good stuff. Composition was perfect, exposure unbeatable, and reciprocity failure and parallax aberrations were all accounted for. So, I gazed at my triumph in utter smugness on collecting the results from the lab. Only, I'd set the whole train up on the wrong road! Others had watched as I took the picture as well. The 'perfect' shot was useless. On another occasion, I got everything in exact focus down the whole length of a 30' layout, including a packet of digestive biscuits perched on the top of a bridge! This was way before any Photoshop black arts as well. Yes, wheels off tracks, signals showing impossible aspects and anything vertical anything but! Finally, with reference to captions to pictures, might I bring this this slightly back to topic? I've lost count of the 'ignorance' shown by some caption writers when commenting on some ECML steam scenes. Pacifics on the Scotch Goods (one with Bill Hoole peeping from the cab) referred to as being 'incongruous' or beneath the loco's dignity. Similarly so for the Grantham Pacifics on the fully-fitted ironstone trains from High Dyke to Doncaster. Also, 'what a waste of a gleaming Pacific' on a humble stopper (work it out), or, similarly, a top link A4 pootling down Stoke Bank on a four-coach Grantham-Peterborough stopper. 'Super power' wasted, I think the caption-writer implied - answers on this thread, please. As for my own caption-writing (finally + one), I've just had a piece published in the current BRILL where I've got the date of an accident I witnessed at least five years out. Hypocrisy rules! The memory doesn't though! Here's to the next 200.........

Larry, thanks for your thanks. It's only the Bachmann A4 with my chassis which splits above the cylinders. The Bachmann A4 with its original chassis splits by keeping its cylinder sides, and doesn't have the bases turned-in enough, as I hope the following picture of 60034 before its originally chassis disintegrated shows. Crownline only referred to the tender. The Finney A4 was mentioned - the Rolls Royce of 4mm A4s? However, since I've never seen one running on a layout, I've never been able to photograph one. However, its equal must have been the Pro-Scale product, though it took a lot of building and bad language to complete. Here's one of Haymarket's finest in full cry. Mick Peabody of Wolves MRC started it and I finished it off, with Ian Rathbone completing the painting. The cylinder sides are attached to the body but because they're so springy (thin brass, like the whole loco/tender body), they can be rounded at the bottom and the frames jiggled in. In answer to another query, this loco is fitted with filed-down Smith's headlamps complete with wire-added handles. Worth it? They're the Devil to keep upright, though! In a layout setting, the Hornby A4 (with a few mods) looks quite at home. Most of my A4s are Wills/SE Finecast - they pre-date Hornby and Bachmann by quite some time. Though, as already mentioned, they're a bit lumpy by the best's standards, with a pro' paint job they look the part, especially as 'layout' locos where their haulage capacity is prodigious. And, because the body comes off above the cylinders, their bottoms are rounded. In the shot of 60030, the lamps have been weathered. I have to say, despite their being (a bit) overscale, loco lamps (and tail lamps) are a must for any working model railway. In fairness as well, like lots of things, they stand out more prominently in pictures, especially bright white. Finally, an honorary A4, the W1. I built this from the SE Finecast product and IR painted it. Though the cylinder sides do turn in at the bottom, I have to say (other than the painting), a more accurate job can be made from a Hornby/Graeme King meld. All these pictures show the locos working on Stoke Summit from Wolverhampton MRC, now retired (having done over 70 shows) from the circuit. I hope I've answered the queries and questions.

Regarding AWS and the A4s. Apart from the original Sir Ralph (is that the right one?), destroyed in the York air raid, all the A4s eventually received AWS, as already confirmed. Apart from fitting the protection plate behind the front coupling and (on one or two) actually making a representation of the device on the bogie front, with one exception I've never fitted the conduit down the nearside valance (indolence!). Unlike on the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics, the battery box for the equipment was inside the cab, so not really visible. As far as I know (with four exceptions) all the LNER-designed Pacifics eventually got AWS, including 60501 which both the RCTS and Isinglass say it didn't. The four exceptions were the quartet of A3s shedded at Carlisle Canal. There might be others, possibly the three A2/1s at Haymarket - perhaps someone can confirm. Returning to A4 nearside conduits, the Golden Age A4s certainly have them. The problem is they're also fitted to some of those which shouldn't have the device - those in BR blue, post-war Garter blue and the experimental liveries in early BR days. I don't think any conduits and protection plates were fitted on their A4s with valances. As for general AWS, as part of my assistance in helping Heljan with its O2 development, obviously for later-in-life locos AWS is to be fitted. The problem is where? Usually the visible AWS equipment is all on the same side - conduit, battery box and air reservoir. It's also usually on the same side as the drive. But, I've found several examples where the gubbins is on the opposite side to the drive and a few where it's muddled up - conduit and box on one side but reservoir on the other; irrespective of the drive side. When you consider all the effort that goes into trying to make sure our forthcoming RTR models are accurate down to the smallest detail, doesn't it confirm how such really good value they are? Or is that a matter of opinion? Finally, I admit this is a bit off topic, though I hope of some little interest. As for 'mistakes' in pictures and models, I think my 'track' record in this is possibly unequalled down the years - locos sporting all manner of mistakes (my original A1/1 had one bogie wheel with just nine spokes!), points set wrongly, signals showing impossible invitations and so on. So, my good friend, keep on taking those inspirational pictures and poke the likes of me in the metaphorical eye. It's your railway, after all!

Looking at my drawings, the highest point on the running plate should be just where the slidebar support bracket fits underneath it - so Hornby's is more correct it would seem, though it might be just a twitch too high. In respect of the most accurate shape for the running plate that probably goes to Bachmann, even though the Bugatti nose isn't quite right. Interesting..........

In answer to the tests, it had to be pointed out to my friends which carriages were which as the trains rolled by. Those observers familiar with Great Northern's justifiably most-popular Peterborough North layout might note a reference there where I consider some A4 modelling options in OO, posting them here. I hope these are of interest. Coachman considers the slab sides to the Hornby A4 cylinders let the models down a bit, and I agree with him. but, the bodies have to come off, so there's a bit of a compromise. Here's a Hornby A4 repainted by Ian Rathbone. I've close-coupled the tender and added decent bogie wheels. The cylinders remain flat and it's a pity the return crank leans the wrong way on this side. It's also a pity that the piston rod, crosshead and slidebars lean up towards the rear - the opposite of what they should do. On a layout, it looks OK though. Here's another Hornby A4, this time renumbered/renamed by me and weathered by Ian. Improvements and criticisms as for 60008 remain the same, though this one hasn't lost its (very brittle) slidebar supports. It, too, looks all right on a layout. This is a SE Finecast A4, built by me and painted by Ian. It tows a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender. The lubricator drive is scratch-built. The loco proportions are a bit lumpen and it doesn't capture that subtle A4 shape as well as Hornby. That said, it's much more powerful and will pull a much greater load. The cylinder bases are slightly more rounded because the body comes off above the cylinders. The 'ultimate' OO gauge A4? In terms of price, this Golden Age example probably is. However, in my opinion, it's nowhere near ten times better than a re-painted Hornby example (it costs over ten times more) and I think IR's painting of 60008 beats the painting on this. It's also impossible to close-couple the tender because of the plug-in arrangement for DCC operation. Since I have no use for DCC (I wholeheartedly dislike it), and it's by-passed on this model, I find the umbilical arrangement a real fag. And, despite claims that this loco will pull just about anything, it's not as powerful as my SE Finecast A4s and won't run quite as smoothly. Still, the smokebox opens and the middle cylinder drive is fully represented. In defence as well, the valve gear is outstanding. The cylinder bases are true-round as well - by far the best representation. On a layout, though, can you really tell the difference? A Bachmann body on a SE Finecast chassis, with a modified SE Finecast tender towed behind. The original split-chassis nonsense disintegrated so I made a proper one. This loco, too, separates above the cylinders, so the cylinder bases are more rounded. As usual, Ian Rathbone did the superb painting, and I did the usual mods. The tender's been modified to represent one of the trio cut down at the rear for the '48 exchanges, which 60034 kept until 1963 in a swop with FLYING SCOTSMAN. I hope these prove to be of use as ideas.

Oops! I should have qualified that the picture on PN has 60002's nameplate too far forward, and I don't know how to edit previous post - what a dunce! And, I should have also offered my congrats on reaching such a milestone, but, please, dust your models before taking pictures. Other than that, well done. Oh, and I've just found out how to edit a post - not such a dunce? I should have also mentioned in the previous post that the strip on the soleplate on my 60002's tender was made from strip brass (1.5mm?), soldered in place.

In answer to one or two queries - and a few of my own, please........ ALCAZAR's A4 bogie is mentioned on page 173 of Peter Townend's East Coast Pacifics At Work, though no date is given. I imagine it was in 1959/'60 during her last move to 36A. As for a model, unless you make the bogie bearing exactly like the prototype then there should be no outwardly-visible difference. I've puzzled further about 60014's erroneous 65B allocation. I know Tim Easter has done a lot of renumbering/renaming of Gilbert's A4s, as has John Houlden, and I can't believe either of those august gentlemen would make such a 'howler'. Since it's clearly a Hornby A4 (and the 'scuff marks to the rear of nameplate suggest the prior removal of an earlier, longer name), then which one was it previously, assuming that it's the original Hornby shedplate? 60027 and 60031 were latterly allocated to 65B. I know GOLDEN PLOVER was amongst Hornby's first A4s but I thought that came out with a 64B shedplate. My mouldering 1964 Ian Allan Locoshed Book has both at St. Rollox, but by this time the dreaded diagonal cabside stripe would be present. Has Hornby produced an A4 in that condition? It's a bit of a mystery. Further to the A4s, and to pick up a theme from a little while ago, I've never seen mention of why the positions of the nameplates varied so much, particularly the longer ones. For instance, 60009, 60012 and 60013 had their plates fixed (at times) so far forward that the front edges touched or even broke the parabolic lining. Yet, 60001, 60002 and 60008 (amongst others) with (almost) as long names, had theirs fixed a long way back - so much so that their rear edges went more than halfway towards the second cladding band, thus ending up like the longest-named ones. Does this suggest that the placing position was fixed from the rear? Perhaps for the longer-named ones, but who knows? From the picture, 60002's is too far forward. Out of further interest, I've included a picture of my own 60002. This is one of the first Bachmann A4s from the last century which I detailed and modified, made a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender for it and got Ian Rathbone to paint it. The Cartazzi rear truck and lubricator drive are scratch-built, it has a Comet bogie, new buffers and the front numberplate has been lowered. I also thinned down the valve gear a bit. Please note the pushed-back position of the nameplate, and the electric warning flashes (which could be all over the place). As far as the flashes, 60002 was a late recipient (along with 60031) and 60011 never got them - something else I've never seen recorded. And, something else I've never seen modelled is the flange at the base of the tender tank for fixing the erstwhile stainless steel strip to - for those locos participating in the 'Coronation' and 'West Riding' services (though other A4s ran them as well). This was actually fixed below the soleplate, and was merely painted over after the strip was taken off. Only three streamlined non-corridor tenders were so fitted - those attached to 60001 and 60002 and one to the blown-up A4, which eventually ended up behind 60507. Several of the corridor tenders (both 1928 and 1935 types) had these strips as well. Please look closely at pictures. I note Larry's 'criticisms' of the flat 'cylinders', with which I wholeheartedly agree. Rather than fill this thread with A4 options, might I please suggest a look at Wright Writes, where I've posted (or will be posting) pictures of other A4s? I hope some of the above is not perceived as 'destructive' criticism. Peterborough North is justifiably the most popular layout on RMWeb and it provides enjoyment to many. Since great importance is given to overall accuracy, I hope these observations and comments are taken in the spirit they're intended.

Heartiest congratulations on 200 Not Out. Sorry to be a pedant, though, but none of my records ever has 60014 as being shedded at St Rollox (65B). That is unless my eyes are playing tricks with identifying the shedplate.

It seems that one only has to post a picture of a Thompson Pacific or mention them and partisanship 'breaks out'. Gilbert's (and micklner's) points are well made, and I've written reams about them. However, perhaps a few observations might be relevant. As is probably known, in the last 12 months I've had privileged access to the first-hand (unpublished) notes of some of those responsible for the running of the P2s up to their rebuilding. There is no doubt there was a near mutiny in Scotland and, as has been said many times, how ET obtained permission to rebuild them in the darkest war days still has a hint of mystery about it. Though the rebuilding cured some of the problems, equally debilitating (if not more so) features were introduced and the locos could no longer do what they could as P2s. According to the late and 'in the know' Malcolm Crawley, not a penny of the expenses incurred in the rebuilding was ever recovered, and the six locos weren't as useful (or reliable) as rebuilds. One hears of ET 'making the most of a bad job' - not according to the guys who actually ran the P2s (and Toram Beg was only in the junior links at Haymarket at the time). The A2/1s are a curiosity. The irony is they weren't as good and reliable as Kylchap double-chimney V2s, so that rather begs the question why, at the time, didn't ET just fit the last four with this device? That said, the same question could also be asked of Gresley, and the BRB in the early/mid-'50s. The A2/3s were the best, of course, but were let down by features such as the poor front end (no need to inherit the cylinder arrangement from the A2/2 for new construction), the further-forward dome and the old-fashioned cab front. If they had been 'right', a further 15 would have been built under Peppercorn's signature. The A1/1 is probably the most contentious, and Gilbert's observations are dead right. I've recently assisted Peter Coster (in the most modest of ways) by proof reading his latest A3 book and checking on the picture captions. Our e-mail correspondence on 60113 was most enlightening. One cannot question ET's motives in seeking to produce an 'improved' post-Gresley pacific. However, apart from the divided drive/separate valve gear (the latter, one could argue was better than the conjugated sort), the best bits in in were Gresley features - the A4 boiler/firebox/combustion chamber and the Kylchap exhaust. Where it failed was in the frame/cylinder arrangements, dictated by Thompson's insistence on equal-length connecting rods. Compared with a double chimney A3 (with an A4 boiler?) it was no better in terms of performance and far less reliable. None of the Thompson Pacifics rode as well as the Gresley pair (neither did the A1s/A2s as well, until ALCAZAR got an A4 bogie - then it rode like an A4). This was probably due to the use of the inadequate B1 bogie (why did Thompson need to change a bogie/bearing/springing arrangement which rode so perfectly?). My observations of ET's Pacifics were that they were almost always used on secondary services - I never saw HONEYWAY. The 'almost' refers to 60500 fairly blasting northwards through Retford after a signal check at Grove Road, on the down 'Heart of Midlothian'. 60504 turned up on a humdrum stopper later on, its front end obliterated by its own steam. A few days later, on Bawtry Station, I watched 60506 really struggling in an even larger wreath of steam to recover from the viaduct slack, as 60032 just regally breezed by on the up 'Elizabethan. During my only visit to York in full steam days (summer, 1957), most of the Thompson Pacifics allocated there were on shed and 60515 was south-side pilot. But, it was all such a long time ago, and, as Gilbert has alluded to, the fact that, in England, they were always shedded at places with little top-link work rather does indicate what the operating authorities thought of them. Still, I can relive those memories through the models I've made, and, as models, the Thompson Pacifics run just as well as any others.

I agree entirely, Larry, if you want a carriage to the standards to which you can aspire, especially with your outstanding painting. But, for 'layout' carriages (by that I mean vehicles in rakes of up to 13, and lots of those), I think these Hornbys have a place, as I hope my pictures show. I also agree about the lozenge window effect (which no manufacturer of plastic-sided carriages has ever solved) but, ironically, it does give an effect, from certain angles, of the wooden surrounds to the inside of the windows. I've only ever seen interior wooden window rebates/reveals modelled once, in 4mm, by Rodney and Vera Cooper. It was at a Scaleforum some years ago, and their carriage justifiably won first prize. Whether they put the moisture-capturing grooves in the bases or not, I wouldn't know, but I'd not be surprised if they did! So, whilst agreeing in principle with everything you say, I still think these budget cars have a place with just a bit of work. As I imply, on a layout, the compromises are less apparent, and, I can't tell, in the 'going-away' shot of the three Hornby carriages whether they have moulded-on handrails or not, even though I know they do. But, in the close-up comparison of the two brake ends, I agree, you can. By the way, I've got a couple of friends coming over to operate tomorrow. One has seen these cars, one has not. My intention is to put the four into different trains and run them round. These trains are a mixture of Comet, Bachmann, Southern Pride and Comet/PC overlays making up the Mk.1s, plus Comet, Trice, Southern Pride, BSL, etc for the Gresley/Thompson stock. I'll not say anything, but ask them if they noticed afterwards. Many thanks for your interest and comments.

Neil, I didn't take any 'offence' at all, and my reply was ambiguous to say the least. As for criticism of models, I've been doing that for years. Anyway, constructive criticism is how standards improve, so I actively seek it. What I meant to say (but didn't) was that whenever I take a picture of any model I've made, I'm usually horrified by what my camera reveals. For instance, 60504's roof does lean forwards from back to front (possibly prototypically) but it's most noticeable via a picture. But, thanks for the kind comments, and, maybe, she does look purposeful. Like Gilbert, I remember these locos in everyday service, and they did look powerful, but slightly 'odd' in my opinion. In my naivety, I recall being given a railway book one Christmas which had a cut-away picture of Cock O' The North in it, only it was as a P2. I couldn't understand, and obviously didn't know, about the rebuilding (I'd be about ten, so Christmas, 1956). So, I puzzled at length why the Cock O' The North I'd seen a month or two before looked so different. Just as any, not particularly bright, decade-old schoolboy might have done, and did. Anyway, enough of my mumblings, and back to Peterborough North.