Tony Wright

Since I'm the one who wrote the review of the Bachmann 4F in BRM, might I respond to Coachman's comments of earlier on this thread, please? Firstly, my point about the cost of a kit-built Star was as a price comparison against a brand-new RTR equivalent. So, might I ask him, what has the price of bacon got to do with this? Comparisons with proprietary models. This is an excellent observation and, certainly, if one compares the Bachmann 4F with the Hornby one, the former is considerably more accurate and detailed and the latter is more expensive. No contest, really. However, though I concede the point about recognising the lengths Bachmann has gone to in providing separate handrails underneath the smokebox door, I think Coachman has been slightly disingenuous with regard to not mentioning the things that weren't right on the Bachmann 4F models. So as not to go right off topic, a 'meaningful' comparison? With regard to my use of right and wrong, perhaps readers can refer to my 4F review for clarification. Though it's a separate item, the nearside handrail on the 4F is far too small in diameter. Any separate handrails on the Star appear to be perfect. The chimney is wrong on one of the 4Fs. Though I only have the one Star, its chimney looks dead right, as do the others (in photographs). The tender isn't right on two of the 4Fs, one more so than the other. The Star's tender I have looks absolutely perfect to me, though, I concede, I haven't seen the others, except in pictures. The arrangement of washout plugs/mudhole doors on the firebox of two of the 4Fs isn't right. The arrangement of such items on the Star's firebox looks exactly right. Exactly where the sandboxes are on the Star I'm not sure, but the front ones on the 4F are in the wrong place and have no means of filling them. One of the 4Fs should have piston tail rod covers on the front buffer beam and one should have the covers where they'd been. Since the Star has no such things, a comparison is impossible but if you want separate detail there's the steam lance on the smokebox door and the lamp irons for spare lamps on the nearside footplate towards the front. One of the 4Fs had poor painting and finishing around the footplate footsteps and the cab front. The Star's painting is entirely blemish-free. Though hardly exhaustive, I think the above comparisons are apposite. There's no doubt Bachmann's 4F is an outstanding model but to put it at a higher level (on the strength of moulded-on or separate handrails) than Hornby's star isn't quite fair, in my opinion. Out of interest, in the January 2014 issue of BRM I'll be conducting a thorough 'improvement' with regard to the Bachmann 4Fs I have the greatest of respect for Larry and have no wish to begin any enmity but, since I don't eat bacon, how much does it actually cost? Finally, on the subject of RTR bogie wheels from all the RTR makers, I don't think any are dead right, even if they have the right number of spokes. Bachmann's tend to be a bit too small and Hornby's, if anything, a bit too big but that might be down to the overscale flanges.

My thanks to those who've posted in response to my comments on the Star. I'll attempt to answer some of the questions. I fitted all the accessories in the pack, mainly for the photographs. These included brake rigging, cylinder drain cocks and the vacuum standpipes. The last-mentioned are quite fragile. The missing valve rod on the nearside should protrude out of the front of the valve chest (the bit above the cylinder), then turn in on a pivot at more or less right angles and go inside the frames. I'm not an expert on GWR locos by any means but on consulting which books I have (Russell, Nock, Tuplin, etc), it would seem that webbing between the spokes of the driving wheels is quite common. Most GWR locos seem to have the crank pin between the spokes rather than in line (am I right?) and this webbing would appear to add strength. But, it seems to be almost arbitrary (it can't be, surely) and its positioning can be on one wheel, one side, or the other, or on two wheels or even three (on one side) or not at all. Similarly, balance weights can be similarly randomly placed. I have no idea if this Star has the webs or balance weights in exactly the right position or not because I don't have an actual picture of it. Perhaps they're correct for LODE STAR (by the way didn't the bloke on the moving footage call it LONE STAR?), but I don't know. I did not know that anybody at Hornby had claimed that 12-spoke bogie wheels were correct for a Star. That is plainly wrong. I must admit that I'm in a privileged position with regard to RTR manufacturers in the hobby, in that I am, and have been in the past, consulted with regard to future models. At the moment I'm helping two manufacturers with the research and development of a new locomotive each. Part of that consultation results in my knowing (just a little) about the costs of new tooling. I'm not here to defend RTR manufacturers but one or two points might be enlightening. To compare costs of new models with models (of a similar type) which have been in production for a time (and are just re-liveries, re-namings, re-numbering, etc) is a trifle naive if I might be so bold. The development and production costs for those were met at an earlier time, before the Chinese economy started to really service itself, as well as make just about everything for the rest of the world. Those costs have now spiralled. I don't believe that we'll ever have it so good again, not at the prices folk expect to pay. I can assure you that things like separate cab (and tender) handrails, though highly desirable, will add considerably more than a couple of quid (or even 20 quid) to the price of a new model. I know models from the recent past have had these, but prices of those are sure to rise because of the labour-intensive nature of the process. Just as an anecdote, my younger son is involved in the production of aquaria and various pieces of apparatus which go with them. About five years ago he visited China and part of the production line for the components his firm required consisted of two or three blokes in a hut, squatting on the floor, assembling the bits and pieces, sweatshop fashion. I'm not suggesting that Hornby locos are made (or ever have been) by such a colonial means, but neither are the bits for my son's company any more - and the price has rocketed! I'm convinced that, if everything that's 'demanded' is to be put on an RTR loco in the near future, then expect the price to be nearer £200.00 or even more. Perhaps the more discerning will be prepared to pay this and there'll be enough of them to make it viable. Yes, everyone makes mistakes - did you know, for instance, that the Graham Farish TORNADO has two few spokes in its driving wheels? If not, read the forthcoming issue of BRM. And the price of that is there or there about equivalent with Hornby's Star. But, what's on offer now RTR is really outstanding compared with just a few years ago. I've been in a lucky position in the past in that the things for the railways I've been involved with, locos and rolling stock-wise, have never been dependent on what the RTR boys gave us. We at Wolverhampton built it all from kits or scratch, out of necessity. Apart from the more esoteric items, that's not entirely necessary now. Look at the the most popular layout on RMweb, Peterborough North. Most of Great Northern's locos and much of his stock is, admittedly modified, RTR. Having that a decade ago would have been impossible.

This is one of the trio of Hornby Stars scheduled for a full review in BRM in the January issue. Since most pictures on this thread of the locos are a bit gloomy, I've taken two for people to see more clearly. I can confirm that the footplate is not distorted and the cylinders are at the correct angle but the valve motion is missing from the nearside. It's also got two too many spokes in its bogie wheels. The rear coupling also droops but this is a minor error. As for the correct buffers, I'm undecided at the moment and I'm conducting some research. From that initial research I can conclude that, overall, the dimensions are spot on. As to the elbow steam pipes or not or whether rivets should be present or not (here and there), my research continues. My view? Though I can understand some criticisms, it runs superbly and the overall finish is to a professionally-painted standard or not far off. The moulded-on handrails on the cab perhaps let it down a bit but it's impossible to tell when it's on the layout at, say, four feet away. As regards the cab interior, that looks fantastic. The 12-spoke B17 bogie wheels are a bit of a mistake (I was mainly responsible for their being fitted to that loco) but anyone who's got a NER loco might wish to make an exchange. Personally, I change the bogie wheels on RTR locos as a matter of course, to Markits or Alan Gibson, so that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. At the price, it'll come out more than the forthcoming P2, so one might expect separate handrails and etched plates but I still feel it's exceptional value for money overall. So, at the risk of starting an all-out war, may I make the following suggestions, please? 1. If you think it's too much money, don't buy it. 2. If the moulded-on handrails are too offensive, carve them off and replace them with separate items. Or, if you can't do it, get someone else to do it for you. Careful patch-painting will be needed if this is attempted. I'd leave them alone. 3. If the footplate is distorted or parts of the valve motion are missing, inform your supplier. Better still, if you can, examine the model before buying. 4. Change the bogie wheels. 5. Fit scale etched-brass plates. 6. Build, or have built for you, a kit for the same. If you build and paint it yourself, it'll be at least twice as much for all the bits. If it's built for you (properly) expect it to be near four figures. Much of the above carries a cost imperative, and I understand this, but I sometimes wonder what's happening to the hobby with regard to actual modelling.

Great Northern seems to be getting into a bit of a self-inflicted angst with regard to running the 'correct' trains. He should not worry in the slightest for what has been created on his PN is very impressive, and very realistic. He mentions me and the Stoke team with regard to what we did in creating 'accurate' sets for a latter day ECML steam depiction. I might add that there were (had to be at the time) fundamental differences in approach. Gilbert's time period is far stricter than Stoke's; 1957-'62 was Stoke's steam-era depiction (my personal trainspotting heyday) because I wanted to run the W1 and production 'Deltics'. This is historical 'nonsense', though it's just possible that had 60700's boiler been not life-expired and the 'Deltics' been delivered on time they might just have coincided. BR's carriage working documents were used for making up the principal trains, but they date from 18 months to two years later than Gilbert's in the main. Thus, our earliest records show only two Newcastle sets having triplet catering in them - the ex-1938 'Scotsman' and the ex-'Silver Jubilee' ones. Gilbert also mentions our study of photographs in liaison with the documents. Those carriage make-up books represent an ideal, but there were many exceptions. Take 'The Elizabethan' for instance. One 1961 shot in my collection, of 60024 taking the Down train up Holloway bank has, after the Aberdeen Mk.1 pair, a standard Thompson TK, then a Gresley TK, then another standard Thompson before the PV or Mk.1 stock (which the train SHOULD have been made up of) appears. Irwell's latest Yearbook shows the Up train 'Deltic'-hauled in 1962, and what a mix it is. A standard Thompson BG (not one of the trio with extended bodysides, though it COULD be because some of the covered-solebar cars had them removed due to rot), then a Mk.1 FK (obviously without Ladies' Retiring Room, though there SHOULD have been one somewhere in the set), then a GRESLEY RF, then a mixture of PV Thompsons and Mk.1s as far as can be ascertained. Another 'mixed bag' is 'The Scarborough Flyer'. Season to season I cannot find any two shots of that train which remotely resemble each other. I might add that is considerably 'easier' now than it was in 1996 to make up 'accurate' ECML trains. Until the advent of the Bachmann Mk.1s, every carriage on Stoke was kit-built or adapted. That we had Dave Lewis (of Southern Pride) as part of the team was a great help because amongst us Dave designed and we built dozens of appropriate vehicles - the pressure-ventilated Thompsons, Gresley steel stock, general Thompson stock and the Newton-Chambers car carriers. It's nice to see examples of some of those employed on PN. The same could also be said of the locos, though, apart from my test-building and writing the instructions for DJH's Thompson Pacifics, the team generated no loco kits, though most of Stoke's loco fleet was kit-built of scratch-built out of necessity. 4mm RTR locos at the time were pretty grim. But, if nothing else, it proved what a like-minded group of mates could produce. So, my friend, I say don't worry too much if your trains are 'dead right' or not. You've provided a lot of enjoyment amongst your 'followers' on the thread so just keep it up. For mine to be 'right' on Little Bytham (apart from my insistence on full-length sets - up to 13 cars), I'd need a shed ten times as big to accommodate the necessary fiddle yard. I just get by by running several 'typical' sets for the various destinations, along with the dedicated trains. If this is anathema to the purists, then I apologise, but at least (like Gilbert's) they are 'based' on records or observations, and you don't get the 'nonsense' of a 'local' train with a Buffet Car in its formation nor a RFO in a train with no Kitchen Car. Both these anomalies appeared on a prominent layout recently in a model railway magazine.

Graham Nicholas of Grantham fame has just installed three more working signal arm mechanisms (two signals) for me on Little Bytham. The splitter works in conjunction with the appropriate points. As already mentioned, these employ the Wiseman (is that the correct spelling, probably not?) 'linear' motor principle and operate superbly. I've also commissioned him to build the final signal (Down slow straight on or Down slow to Down fast), as well as install the final five more mechanisms. And the price? Yet more horse-trading. Grantham, for his period, requires a J69, so a phone call to SE Finecast and Markits, out with the soldering iron and, in three days (including afternoon naps!), the result is shown running-in on Little Bytham. Graham now has her to paint. The crew hides a flywheel in the cab. I'll be writing up some notes on its construction for BRM. Though running both ways is 'perfect', the mechanism is a trifle noisy. Foam padding to the motor mount and inside the body has quietened this down, and usage should eliminate it. Also shown (for the first time), are pictures of Hornby's imminent P2 in action. I've had her for three days (tomorrow she goes back) and thoroughly tested this behemoth. I've written a full review which will be published in the next issue of BRM. All I'd say so far is it's superb, and it is 'only' the pre-production model. Yesterday, we hooked up 20 kit-built/RTR carriages behind her and, with just the slightest amount of slipping, she took them with ease. Just out of interest, two of my kit-built A2/2s were tried on the same train (these were what the P2s were rebuilt into). Though they both managed it, there was far more slipping until the load was fully under way. With more vehicles added (on test this morning) - 25 in fact - neither 60501 or 60506 could manage it. But 2001 did, only being beaten on attempting to start the train on a curve. On the straight - away she went. Is this a classic case of 'art' following 'reality'?

A full review of the Bachmann 4F will be appearing in BRM before long, and that, although this current Bachmann RTR example is seen here working on the MR/M&GNR at Little Bytham (taking an excursion to the Norfolk coast), the actual loco was shedded too far away to ever be on such a diagram. No matter, for it won't remain in this guise for long, for I'll be fiddling with it, turning it into something more applicable. It won't take much for it's a brilliant model at source.

When I used to visit Peterborough North (I hope I'll be invited again in the future), Great Northern always used mention the TW 'stabbing finger', pointing out an error or inaccuracy (the wrong dome position on a V2 springs to mind), so may I make some observations (I hope in not too pointed a digit fashion) with regard to the latest pictures showing GRAND PARADE, please? Firstly, the answer as to how to achieve an ex-works finish on my 60054 has been given (see Wright Writes) - Johnson's KLEAR. Is that applied by brush or air-brush? It's certainly most effective, and brings the Hornby plastic finish to life. However, for the period depicted, 60090 should not have a Smith-Stone speedometer (not even one at that most peculiar angle). The cabside numbers appear to be sloping down to the rear slightly. Though this might not have been uncommon, it looks a bit odd. My dodge for getting them absolutely horizontal is to use a very soft pencil and make a line just below where the numbers' bases are to be, giving a natural datum. It's easily removed afterwards with a 'putty' rubber. Secondly, are you sure the Down platform starter was changed to an upper quadrant semaphore as early as 1958? Though I can't locate the exact picture now (why can I not remember which book it's in?), I have a picture of an A3 on an Up express, taken in September 1958, entering the station from the north, with the signal clearly visible and it appears to be a GER-pattern lower-quadrant type, not a GNR somersault - which one might expect. Fincham's little books show it in 1957/'58 (though I would question every single date he gives - most are at least a year later than claimed, including one of 60090 itself which he purports to be in 1957. With a double chimney?). Thirdly, the coaching stock. Unless a gangwayed vehicle were coupled to a corridor tender, as fitted to the first vehicle in a train, the corridor connector would never be extended. It would be retracted and an end-board fitted. Otherwise unwitting passengers could tumble to their deaths. Though the two visible carriages (a Thompson and a BR Mk.1) look well-finished, their relative roof heights aren't right. Look at any prototype picture where a Thompson coach is marshalled adjacent to a Mk.1 and note the difference. The former, though it couldn't be out of gauge, because of its more bulbous roof profile appears to be much taller. The opposite is true in this case. In case I'm perceived as being 'nit-picking', I've been very impressed by the progress on Peterborough North. The work is to a consistently high standard and it absolutely captures the flavour of the place. The crowded, almost overlapping positioning of the signals at the north end is depicted exactly. Now, with them working, it's an almost perfect scene. Thus, my points, I hope, should be taken as constructive criticisms, for these things are usually easy to get right.

The two shots of 60054 show work in progress. It started out as Hornby's A3 of 60093 CORONACH, one of the quartet of Carlisle Canal-allocated A3s for working over the Waverley route to and from Edinburgh - the most elusive of A3s for trainspotters anywhere but in the Borders. Equipped with an AWS protection plate, it was thus inappropriate for any Canal A3. I had hoped to renumber it to 60094 COLORADO, which was the only Scottish-based A3 I saw. However, it has an A4, Dia 107 boiler - fantastic for Hornby to offer such selections - which 60094 didn't receive until 1961, commensurate with the fitting of German smoke deflectors. So, which one to should it be? I opted for one of Grantham's allocation, 60054 PRINCE OF WALES. She (he?) received her 107 boiler in 1958 at the same time as receiving her double chimney, so she's running-in on a humdrum stopper at that time. Someone at the Plant forgot to fit her nameplates! I'll be ordering them from 247 Developments. Simple modifications include the substitution of decent bogie wheels (Markits - they look so much better, yet ride no less well, in fact probably better), removal of the superflous guardirons, altering the drawbar to something in between the won't-go-round-curves setting and the Olympian long jump gap and slightly weathering the frames, wheels and motion. I intend to put a sheen on the bodywork to give the impression of new paint. Hornby's finish, though attractive enough, is a bit dull. The shot of 60501 on a York-King's express illustrates where I can get away with using the big D3 for an eye-level picture. It looks as if the observer is standing on Marsh Bridge, just south of the station. In answer to Brian Macdermott's question about Quad- and Quint-Arts, though I don't have any carriage working diagrams for suburban trains ex-King's Cross, photographic evidence suggests that at off-peak times a single Quad-Art would run as a train. At holiday times, four and five coach sets in combinations would run to the Lincolnshire coast. I've been told that on the way back, wayside stations would literally be flooded with the processed remains of countless pints, there being no lavatories in such trains. One chap (sadly now deceased) told me that at Sleaford, on some occasions, passengers for Leicester or Nottingham used to use the whole platform as a lavatory, and not just the men! Anecdotal evidence? Empirical evidence? Perhaps someone might comment. What it does show is that these sets weren't just used for suburban services. As for going round curves, my articulated stock is quite closely coupled, though I do have fairly generous curves. Great Northern had a Quad-Art set. perhaps he'll let us know how closely coupled that was.

I've painted the C12 and it will be up to Graham to number and weather it. I'm delivering it in a week's time, so you might see it finished before long. I note 2750 is contemplating building a B16/1 from a PDK kit. Good idea, but please don't go the way of building the one illustrated here. Tony Geary built this from a DJH kit but it was a bit of a battle. It's one of the old pre-Consett kits, dating from DJH's Banbury days. Thus it's a bit lumpy and not that good, so much so that Tony had to scratch-build a new boiler. My compliments, as well, to Tom for his brilliant weathering of his locos on his thread. Has he thought of writing articles? And, I couldn't agree more with his assertion for the need to practise, whatever one is trying to do. But please make sure it's the verb form, not the noun. It's probably an Americanism (like licence/license) where the Yanks use the latter form as a noun and us as a verb. No doubt, modern dictionaries/spell-checkers will allow either form. My old (1950s') dictionary leaves no ambiguity - doctor's practice; medical students practise. Anyway, it would appear BRM doesn't know the difference. But, is it always the case? What about a practicing solicitor who's qualified, and a practising solicitor who's not? Answers to pedants' corner, please?

I agree with most of what Jim has written, especially the part about the acquisition of skills. Of course, none of has any skills to begin with (unless you include soiling nappies, throwing up and an in-built ability to keep parents awake) and many of the necessary railway modelling ones can be acquired. Indeed, must be acquired if you're going to do it for yourself. And, many folk can be surprised at what they can do given the right guidance. One of my happiest memories is of being a tutor at Missenden Abbey and Hobby Holidays, and seeing the look of absolute delight when a guy (and girl!) made a chassis for the first time and watched it purr along the test track - sweetly, smoothly and quietly. It was almost like a Biblical revelation, if railway modelling can ever be thought of as such. However, there'll still be some who'll never acquire anything but a brilliant ability to make a mess. My many years in teaching proved that to me. Where I do disagree with Jim is in his disagreement with me over my assertion that lots of cash is a pre-requisite for the building of a large railway. I accept that the purchase of materials can be spread over time, but if you need 20 sheets of 8' x 4' top-quality birch ply (at over £30.00 per sheet), as I did for Little Bytham, it has to be acquired eventually - unless your life span appears to glide into infinity. Lucky for you if it does, but a glance at the recent obituaries threads will convince all of their own mortality - and don't think being young is a get-out clause. I forget how much track I needed - with 27 hand-built points/crossings on the scenic side and over 50 Peco points in the fiddle yard, plus nearly 275 yards of plain track it certainly stacked up - even higher with the purchase of the necessary point motors (does anyone make those themselves?). Believe me, when your fiddle yard has over 25 roads, most capable of accommodating full-length expresses or full-length freights (14 carriages or 40 wagons), you open a box of Peco Streamline and it disappears at an alarming rate. This doesn't include the M&GNR bit either, which at 12' x 4' is a tiny layout in comparison. I agree that the skills involved are no different whatever size of layout is contemplated, but costs and time between big and small are at a huge variance. I built a 6' x 4' layout for my boys when they were youngsters in a weekend. They had two Hornby locos each plus a variety of stock. It had a continuous run, passing loops, a station, goods yard, etc, etc. I can't remember what it cost, but since some of the stuff was second-hand, probably not that much. My first Stoke Summit (20' x 12') in a loft wasn't finished after four years. I built about 30 locos for it at the time, plus a fair bit of the stock. I tell you, it was a lot more in terms of costs and time than the lads' trainset. As an aside, their dubious little railway was quickly abandoned once they saw what they could play with in the loft. Little Bytham also has four main controllers, a 'slave' unit for the fiddle yard and a separate one for the M&GNR. As for locos and stock, I haven't even counted but it's well over a 100 locos (mostly kit-built), over 200 coaches (many kit-built) and oodles of freight stock from a variety of sources. Granted, much of this has been made over the last 30+ years, but there's still a huge cost implication there. In case folk think I'm stuffed with cash - I most certainly am not, but by building things myself or horse-trading down the years, I've been able to acquire what I needed without falling into debt. For the exhibition Stoke Summit, I generated a fair bit financially by writing about it as it was built and having it published in MORILL, and many of the other mags as well. Indeed, that paid for a lot of it, but please don't tell me costs and the time were the same as for a small project, even though the skills might be the same. Please don't think I'm bragging, but building big layouts is never going to be as cheap as building little ones. And, what about the guy/girl who has neither the skills nor the time to make a big trainset, but has the readies to have it made? One of the most exciting layouts I ever photographed was largely the work of Norman Solomon, populated with a mind-blowing selection of exquisite O gauge locos and stock - in a room getting on for 100' long. Norman builds little layouts on commission, too, but they're nowhere near the same price. If the owner of the most popular layout on RMWeb had wanted a branch line terminus instead of a major railway station, do you think his bank balance would have been no different? And, I bet Birmingham New Street will eventually cost a lot more than four 17' layouts. No, in my opinion, although the skills can be learnt (or bought) and time can be found, if you want a main line layout in any scale/gauge, even though you can save money in the ways I've described, in a time given to mortal men/women, it's going to cost you a lot more than little layouts - however many you might build. I await a heated response!

SE Finecast will supply all the parts you need for a C12, including motor/gearbox and wheels but they only supply the basic Romford types. Thus, the bogie/pony wheels have 12 spokes rather than the 10 they should have. Markits can supply exactly what's required. These are the most user-friendly of wheels but they're not cheap. I wouldn't recommend this kit to an absolute beginner because it's four-coupled. These are much harder to get to work sweetly than six-coupled - a question of balance and so on. I'd recommend an inside-cylinder six-coupled tank from SE Finecast as a starter. You'll also notice a fair number of 'additions' to this loco. Niceties like brass/steel sprung buffers, safety valves, vacuum standpipes, etc, come as cast-metal pieces at source. Lamp brackets aren't even thought of and things like the guardirons have to be scratch-built. Extra pipe runs, highly visible in photographs, have to be made from various gauges of fusewire. The gear mount for this loco was Finecast's own, but considerable care is needed to ensure such 'basic' drive units run quietly and sweetly. If you are just starting, get a made-up motor/gearbox from the likes of DJH. The firm's AM10 is ideal for smaller locos in 4mm scale. As for soldering white metal, once you've mastered this technique you'll wonder how you ever 'stuck' with glue. Practise on some scrap white metal first, using a temperature-controlled iron, low-melt solder and lots of flux. I demonstrate the techniques involved in Right Tracks part 1 and 2, available from Activity Media/BRM (sorry about the plug). Even then, some parts had to be glued, including the smokebox to the boiler (lack of access), and chimney and dome. As always, any glue work must be done AFTER any adjacent soldering. It'll all appear in BRM before long.

In answer to Herbert Hopkins' question as to who will be painting the C12, the answer is its owner. LNER 4479, of Grantham fame and most justifiably popular on RMWeb is to take delivery of the C12 in the not too distant future. Since I no longer build on commission, what is going on? The answer is the simple expedient of horse-trading. May I explain, please? Many are the types of railway modellers. Some merely collect RTR items and have the greatest of times running them round their trainsets. There's a delightful 'innocence' in that - I used to have it but it's long gone. I miss it. There's also the type who models a 'typical' scene, cleverly arranging what's available into a most believable scenario, even if the thing isn't 'real'. There have been many excellent examples of this - perhaps it's the most successful sort of railway modelling, if measured in the numbers who follow it. Then there's the type who models an actual location, getting it as accurate as he/she possibly can. I fall into this category, but I need help. If you follow this path and model a large main line prototype, to achieve anything like 'success', you're going to need considerable skill, and/or considerable cash, and/or considerable time and many other multitudinous combinations. If done properly, with a guy/girl leading the project who has the 'vision' to see it through, the results can be astonishing. Roy Jackson's Retford springs to mind. If you don't have all the attributes mentioned (who does?), then team-work is a way forward. If you don't have a team, don't have much in the way of skill but have plenty of dosh, then your job is 'comparatively' easy. You become a facilitator, ordering what you want, from whom you consider are the best builders and away you go. The facilitator still has to have an idea of what he/she finally wants to own, otherwise it's an expensive mish-mash of stuff, with no real sense of its being 'real'. However, facilitated well, the results can be truly outstanding. Having mentioned that I belong in the model-a-prototype camp, what can I bring to the party? I can make locos and stock to a 'professional' standard, lay and wire track and do basic scenery. Baseboards I struggle with, and architectural modelling I leave to others. I've made working signals but consider the job a bit of a fag. I now have considerable time but don't have lots of cash. Mick Nicholson made my superb signals (when I was in employment), but how to make them work? I'd met up with LNER 4479 (Graham Nicholas) over three years ago and invited him over to see Little Bytham. He'd started on Grantham (he's multi-skilled indeed), including the making of working signals. Would he be interested in making mine work? Time, for Graham, is tight (he's still working full-time) and the thought of a stipend, though attractive I suppose, didn't balance against his time imperatives. But, what could I do for him instead of just waving money towards him? The answer's that simple - he wants a C12, and I want working signals. He could build a C12, but why not 'swap' our times to good effect? This is where teamwork can really come into play. No doubt he'll explain how he makes the signals work in due course. Part of the deal is that he paints the loco, though I might just turn it out in plain black before it's delivered. Just to show that it does work (if still pictures can ever do that), there are two further shots of it in operation on Little Bytham. There's also a picture of one of the signals working, constrained by the same visual limitations. When Graham visited nearly three years ago, he brought some of his locos along. I took pictures, the results of which are shown here for the first time. As to their absolute origins, perhaps he'll respond on this thread. I've also noticed on his own Grantham thread shots of his 'Coronation' in action. Having seen and photographed this recently, it really is impressive. I've also recently photographed Golden Age Models' 4mm 'Coronation' set on Little Bytham. Visually stunning, the firm could learn a lesson in making its set run properly from Graham and Roy Mears (who built the Grantham set from Mailcoach products). Finally, as already mentioned before, a sequence of trains for running on Little Bytham is being worked out. Part of that sequence includes the simultaneous passage of the Up 'Queen of Scots' and the Down 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'. The A1 is from a DJH kit, built by me and painted by Ian Rathbone and the A4 is a modified Hornby item, again painted by Ian. It's my one member of 'The Great Gathering'. The 'Queen of Scots' rake is a mixture of Hornby/Comet/Trice components and the 'Tees-Tyne' rake a mix of Hornby/Trice and Bachmann cars. The scene is really anomalous, for by the time the Mk.1 cars were in action, the station had closed and the platforms demolished. The J6 on pick-up duties was built by Ian Wilson and me from a Nu-Cast kit. The photographs show a slight dilemma facing me with my photography. I can't get on with weeny cameras and the mysteries of 'stacking' and computer jiggery-pokery. So, I use my Nikon D3 with its 55mm 'Micro' lens, wedging it on the track/baseboards with little blocks of wood and track rubbers. The trouble is it's too big, giving the eye line of a giant, with the need to fudge some sort of background in (see shot 01). Slightly lower down (perched on the edge of the embankment) the result is more realistic, though there are now some curious reflections in the Pullmans' windows. Heh-Ho, at least I'm able to take pictures again. I'll be submitting a series of articles for BRM in the near future explaining how the locos and stock were made for Little Bytham, together with how to arrive at a running sequence which gives satisfaction and interest. I'll keep you posted.

Of possible interest as a taster. I'm presenting a step-by-step article on building this SE Finecast C12 for inclusion in a future issue of BRM. Having been highly-critical of some of the step-by-step articles in the current BRM, I thought I'd better put my money where my mouth is! Jumping forward a couple of days the loco is now complete.

Many thanks to Graeme king for posting the pictures of his 1935 steel-bodied artics built from Phoenix kits. He's certainly not 'muscling into my domain' (do I have a domain?) and I'm personally delighted when people expand topics, especially when it's showing examples of their work. All the cars 'sit' perfectly, and there's no 'rubber-like' characteristics of any kind (build-wise or camera-wise). Perhaps it's an advantage not to have a 'pro' camera in this case. The painting is exquisitely done, and you've taken the models much further than using just what's provided in the kit. I notice you've not used the BSL/Phoenix bogies. Good, for though these are beautifully free-running, they're really heavy-duty Gresley bogies in appearance, and should only be used for the centre bogie. Note how deep the sides of the bogies are on the other set. Are the ones you've used old Hornby Gresley bogies? Though these have the right depth of frame, they carry too many footboards. Though some should be present, you need to nip one or two off. Still, at least there are footboards. One extremely expensive set I photographed recently had none at all! Apologies if I appear to be pedantic (though your Ivatt Class C1 looks stunning, it really should have ten-spoke bogie wheels!), but if it leads to more accurate models, then that's all I'm trying to do. If this thread turns into a 'critique' of models I'd be delighted - first in the list will be mine, because I've perpetuated some howlers in my time. I'm also immensely gratified by seeing individuals' work appearing. Something that someone has actually made, and I can't stress that firmly enough in an age of uniformity. Finally, Graeme, please get in touch and arrange to have some more pictures taken for inclusion in the magazine. There must be a whole series you can produce on your models and modifications.

Some more items showing a further range of coaching stock, from a wide variety of sources. Weathered RTR vans. Time was, and not so long ago, that the only way to get decent passenger stock of the variety needed to populate a main line scene (or even a branch line scene) was to kit or scratch-build in numbers. Now we have a marvellous range of splendid vehicles to use at our leisure. Here we have a Hornby four-wheeled ex-SR van, then a Bachmann BR GUV, followed by a Hornby Gresley BG. The last mentioned still has issues with the body shape but the horizontal beading is now in the right place. Rob Davey weathered the SR van and the GUV and I just dry-brushed the roof and underframes of the BG. GE Section TSO. Years ago, when etched brass was in its infancy, a firm called ROCOM (I think) produced kits for the GE-section 'shorty' Gresley coaches, a TSO and a BTK. Here's the TSO made up by me. I've lettered it with the GE prefix, and I don't know if that's right. Certainly, several images exist of latter-day GE-section stock (including BR Mk.1s) prefixed 'GE' (then suffixed 'E'), but is this right for carmine/cream condition? The kits were really quite pricey but made up well, if a little lacking in surface detail - no provision for hinges or door bumps for instance. It's something a little bit different, and despite my assertion above that we now enjoy a great range of RTR carriages, kit or scratch-building is the only way to achieve anything like this. PC Gresley BG. Even more years ago, PC used to do kits for LNER stock. Mostly in pre-printed teak condition, the firm also offered the same carriages in BR carmine and cream. The effect was far less successful, largely because the beading relief was almost non-existent. It didn't matter so much with the teak stock because the lining brought it out. However, at the time, the only alternative was BSL kits (which had no relief at all) or scratch-building. I built this example 40 years ago, little realising that probably only one Gresley BG was finished in this manner, and not this one. PC Gresley BG. I always found the making of PC kits a bit of a struggle, especially forming the ends correctly. Though BSL kits had no beading and the stamped-out sides could be distorted, the basic construction was very simple and the cast-metal ends substantially correct. So, I married a BSL BCK with the appropriate PC sides. At a distance (the further the better) on a layout it's just about acceptable, though printed-on door handles and grab rails are pretty naff. But, it's part of my model-making history and I keep it more out of curiosity. And, I made it (perhaps that's a foolish admission). Mopok Hawksworth BG. More dinosaur technology - a coach kit made of cast metal, aluminium (I think), plastic and wood. What a combination. The pre-printed sides are much too dark in my opinion, though they saved the hassle of painting. The thing weighs a 'ton' but is absolutely rock steady on the road. I really don't know who made this, since it came my way many years ago by way of some horse traiding. Or, who weathered it either, but it's quite effective. Hornby Hawksworth BG. Look at today's alternative. Way, way superior from Hornby. Rob Davey did the weathering and it just brings this beautiful vehicle to life. However, shouldn't it have the central bodyside lettering as on the Mopok vehicle? Queen of Scots. I made this rake many years ago from Hornby/Comet/Trice components, writing it up in BRM. Ian Rathbone produced the perfect painting. The end board was from The Famous Named train Co., but it's not quite right in terms of design and lettering. But, it looks fine as the set bowls by. This Parlour Brake Third runs on 10' Pullman bogies, just as something different, though accurate. These came as spares from a Mailcoach articulated kit. As mentioned already, though Hornby's current Pullmans are beautiful models they're not really right for the later day ECML in numbers. This started off as one of the original cars, now available in the Railroad range. Tourist twins. Built by me from the Mailcoach product, these were written up in the Railway Modeller in the last century. They're a bit of a fiddle for the sides are just clear plastic. I hand-painted these, the alternative being to spends hours/days/weeks masking off the windows for spray painting. These cars were to be seen all over the place in the '50s/early-'60s as part of all sorts of trains. After the war they never ran in fixed rakes and a depiction of the type is essential for an ER layout of the period. TSOs. More Southern Pride-originated sides, completed using Comet and Trice components. These were made and finished by Tony Geary, representing a post-war Thompson carriage and one of the pre-war Gresley steel-bodied cars. Highly unlikely to be available as RTR products, kit or scratch-building is the only way to get types such as these. Non-gangwayed steel artics. Even more Southern-Pride originated sides. These outer-suburban steel-sided Gresley types saw extensive use in the NE but after the inevitable march of the DMUs, they were displaced to other areas. Thus, it's just possible that some saw out their lives on secondary services, even on the ECML. I have no photographic evidence that twins such as this were used in Peterborough Grantham all-stations stoppers, but they do make a pretty sight. As usual, Tony Geary completed them using Comet/Trice components and weathered the pair to perfection. Please note the tail lamp and screw coupling. Because my trains only run one way round I can indulge in such visual niceties. But, even if your last vehicles have to use tension-locks, please make sure there's a tail lamp in place.

Firstly, my thanks to Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern) for his kind words of support, and there's no danger of his hijacking 'my' thread. Far from it, for I welcome his contribution. The debate over model/camera, what causes what, etc, will probably have no resolution. All I would say is to reiterate that most times I point a camera at a model I've made and smugly sit at the computer to admire my 'excellence', the results (not of the picture quality) are mostly disappointing, as the lens cruelly highlights my wiggly building and general carelessness. It's quicker than it used to be, though the sight of the image gradually appearing in the Stygian gloom of my darkroom brought just the same results, only slower. Mallard60022 gives me some hope because he reckons it's the camera's fault when things look out of kilter - thanks Phil. He also makes an excellent point that the coaches in question, when seen in reality, fit in perfectly with the general appearance of Peterborough North (though I still don't believe they're in the same league as Peter Leyland's architectural modelling - that could, however, be construed as comparing apples with pears, though the latter is truly outstanding work). I also think he raises another important issue - the one where it's all too easy to be critical. One side-effect of the web is the immediacy of the communication, and there's a danger (as I know too well) of posting without thinking. My motivation of being critical of the models in question was in defence of Andy's camera work. But one must be careful not to be perceived as a zealot, a sort of railway modelling member of the Taliban. Anyway, Phil is due to visit Little Bytham soon, and he can point his finger at any of my wiggly wobbly modelling. No doubt he'll report accordingly. Anyway, perhaps a few pictures of interest.... Golden Age Models Coronation set. Just to give hope to all of us who struggle to get our trains straight and true, even the best don't always get it right. I've just been photographing Golden Age Models' LNER streamliners and, in posing for a close-up I noticed that two of the articulated cars didn't line up. I tried pushing one one way, the other the other, but this is the best they would line up. Just parking them after being loco-hauled made the situation worse. Hornby 8F further weathering. With time on my hands, I've been doing a bit more fiddling. Here's Hornby's current (or most recent) weathered 8F, renumbered and with more weathering added. 8Fs on the M&GNR must have been very rare, but it's really not my property. I did it for Ian Wilson as part of our horse trading, and just posed it on the higher level of Little Bytham. It just needs its replacement pony wheels to arrive. Modified Hornby O1 and 02. Further horse trading, for this is also Ian's property. Pleased (smugly) with my own Hornby O1 fiddlings seen recently, I decided to take this one a step further. A glance at the prototype picture here will show that 63786 was most unusual (unique?) in having no continuous rising arc handrail above the smokebox door - just a horizontal crossrail substituted on the door itself. It's also one of the very few O1s to carry the bulbous smokebox door as supplied by Hornby, so why not? After all, only the last digit of its number needed changing. It's seen alongside my earlier O1, which was a pre-weathered example, to which I added more. This one was in pristine condition out of its box, so needed more weathering at source. Whereas the earlier one had included some semi-matt streaks, this one was given an all-matt dry-brush treatment by way of a difference. Both front numberplates came from Ian Wilson's own Pacific Models' range. Modified Hornby O1 03. More of a photographic conundrum here. Many's the time I've been on a layout photo shoot, and returned home to process the pictures to find umpteen artefacts in the images festooned with spiders' webs. Hours would then be spent in removing them in Photoshop. Occasionally, my photo-flood lighting would show up the arachnids' devious traps, and I'd remove them with a soft brush before taking the picture. However, my method of taking pictures in my shed is to use only the ambient lighting - white light strip-lighting and any reflected daylight through the windows, and then 'filling-in' with a powerful electronic flash (Metz CT60) bounced off the ceiling and walls during the exposure. What it means is that you don't see the horrors to the left of this picture until it's on the computer. Moral, always brush off your subject matter first. Modified Hornby O1 04. Talk about model distortion! Just look at the front and central sections of this loco's footplate. I'd noticed it was slightly distorted during the weathering, but nothing had prepared me for this. And (quack, quack!), it's not the camera's fault. The Nikon D3 doesn't play wiggly tricks, this is definitely the model. How disappointing, but, in agreement with Phil, on the layout, running by, it isn't really that much of an issue. It's been the victim of a heavy shunt at March! It, too, awaits its replacement pony wheels. 63786 March 31B. The prototype in question. 60500 on Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train 01 and 02. I've just spent a most enjoyable couple of days with two mates from Wolverhampton, and Ian Wilson, planning out a running sequence for Little Bytham based on BR's own timetables. Here's one of the trains to be run in that sequence - the fast block train between Kent and Midlothian. Peter Townend tells us in one of his books that an A2/3 was the only class of locomotive which could keep the tight sectional timings between Tallington and Stoke up the bank with this heavy train. 9Fs couldn't do it. So, praise for Mr. Thompson after all. Our esteemed administrator joined us for the afternoon, taking a picture of a weathered 'Deltic' on the trainset. The railway, I'm pleased to say, ran impeccably, as I hope Mr York will confirm - a portent for the future? I made the loco and Rob Kinsey made the train. More on rolling stock matters to come....

What an interesting development (sorry about the pun). My hat's off to you for entering into a debate in this manner Andy, and for your honesty with regard to the 'pitfalls' associated with all advancements in technology. Remember, I'm Ned Ludd's immediate predecessor and have to be dragged kicking and squealing out of the darkness. I doubt if I'll ever be able to get the infinite depth of field you do, but I'm far too old to learn anyway, having been a pensioner for two years. I've tried to replicate the shot of Gilbert's 1935 gangwayed artics (shot 02) as near as possible, taking pictures of the same vehicles, but built from a different source.I agree, at such a sharp angle, any anomalies in the building of vehicles will be exacerbated to an extreme - I know, because just when I think I'm getting somewhere with my building, I take a picture and everything I thought was perpendicular, parallel and true is anything but, be it loco or carriage. However, it's a pity the camera has exposed (apologies for another pun!) the shortfalls in those particular vehicles. Great Northern is to be heartily congratulated in having the foresight and commitment to 'oversee' such a modern classic as his Peterborough North. Quite rightly, it's by miles the most popular layout on RMWeb but advances in photography all to frequently show up what the naked eye doesn't see, and those carriages underneath Peter Leyland's peerless station buildings are a bit anomalous. May I suggest they're not photographed at such an angle in close-up again? But, as by way of a defence, might I suggest viewers scrutinise closely the two pictures of 'my' 1935 Gresley artics. I say 'my', for they're my property, but are completely the work of Tony Geary. I don't have the exact CK to go between the two pairs (I only have one pair, anyway), so an ordinary Gresley CK is substituted for the picture. Gilbert's dead right in using the set in a King's Cross-Peterborough services, but for work a bit further north they were split up more, and mine runs as part of a through train. I say 'by way of a defence', because I think Gilbert's set is made from BSL/Phoenix kits, though I stand to be corrected. If so, and if they're the same as the many BSL/Phoenix carriage kits I've put together, then the sides are stamped out, not etched (if that situation has changed, then perhaps a viewer will put me right). For Stoke Summit's coach construction, just such a 1935 artic steel pair was required, and we examined the BSL/Phoenix option but rejected it because of its relative crudity in comparison with the etched sides being produced at the time. I've mentioned before how having Dave Lewis of Southern Pride as a member was so fortuitous to the Stoke group, but everyone stepped in for the production of the carriages we wanted. It wasn't just a matter of money (though we all contributed). Amongst us we did the research, Dave produced the master for the etching, Tony Geary and I did the test-building, I wrote the instructions for some and initially formed all the sides before Dave got a press, and Norman Turner produced several patterns. I was once called 'lucky' by someone, for being part of a group who could make the things it wanted. I certainly count myself lucky to have been part of that group consisting of such marvellous friends, but everyone was a craftsman in one form or another. Yes, money was essential (the 'Elizabethan's' first test etch had cost £600.00 to produce) but we, as a group, had the skills to see the projects through - all the Thompson carriage types, numerous Gresley types (including the 1935 artics), non-gangwayed stock, BR catering cars and the 'Anglo Scottish Car Carrier'. Rob Kinsey had started the patterns to make the masters for the Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train (the circular container sort) but Stoke Summit has been retired now, so there's no necessity. Dave Lewis, bless him, had the business, the drawing abilities, the contacts and much more, but nobody just threw money at him. I suppose I was lucky. Apologies for the protracted nature of the above, but I want to set the record straight with regard to how we arrived at the vehicles we required. And, if those vehicles were already available but weren't of the standard we wanted, then we avoided the hostage to fortune situation that others might have found themselves in. And, Dave sold the items to the public as adjuncts to his already-established range. Was it worth it? I hope the pictures of the artics prove it. Dave produced the sides, and Tony made up the rest with Comet's components, with a Kirk pair of roofs. He also did the painting and weathering. I did suggest close scrutiny of the pictures, and I can't deny that both these cars aren't exactly dead level in the centre (the problems of articulation), neither is every window entirely flush in its reveal (these cars have had a hard life) and the roof cornices could be better, but the result is far superior to the alternative. Yes, there's the relative building standard to consider as well, and Mr Geary has seldom been surpassed in my opinion, though that's for others to judge. I don't want this to come over as a criticism of one man's models and another man's model making, but, now that Andy has explained that it wasn't a 'stacking' consequence nor a lens aberration, then I suggest the 'camera cannot lie'. Finally, I've stood on the same spot (or almost) on PW's Leamington as Mr York. I just took 'one' shot with a Nikon 'bridge' camera. No distortion!

Many thanks once more for the interest shown in this thread. Now, in response to some questions regarding rolling stock, here are a few pictures with extended comments describing some of my passenger-carrying rolling stock. Bachmann BG. This is Bachmann's current Thompson BG in BR maroon. The re-vamped range of 'Newton' carriages by the firm is imminent, but I wonder how much will be done to correct them. One hopes that the roof profile will be altered to the correct pattern and the 'armoured' sides reduced in thickness. The thick sides aren't too much of a problem with the BG, though this one has had the roof profile changed by my method of drawing a Stanley knife blade, flatly along the too sharp edges and finishing off with emery paper. The destination board brackets have yet to be reinstated (micro-strip) - I should have done that before repainting the roof. As the last vehicle in a train, the gangway should have an end board in place, and don't forget the rear lamp. I've fitted the dummy buckeye, vacuum brake and steam-heating 'bags', too. Weathering completes the underframe, but it should really ride on 8' bogies. Someone asked about compromises. In this case, in a train bowling by, an altered but still compromised vehicle like this, I think is acceptable. Straight out of the box? No. Southern Pride Bachmann BG. As a donor vehicle, the Bachmann Thompsons aren't too bad. Here's a BG with Southern Pride's etched sides fitted to represent one of a trio of such vehicles running in the post-war 'Flying Scotsman', then the 'Capitals Limited' and finally 'The Elizabethan'. I made up the whole English portion of 'The Elizabethan' using this method, writing about it in BRM in the last century. The roofs have been altered in the prescribed manner and the whole ensemble looks quite impressive running by at speed. This one should have 8' heavy-duty Gresley bogies, but in a set bowling by? One thing I would say is that proprietary carriages are, in my opinion, too dull. Compare this vehicle with the standard Thompson BG. Prototype pictures show prestige stock like this as being quite shiny, with a rich red finish rather than dull maroon, though cars did vary in rakes depending on how long it was since repainting. Both 'Elizabethan' sets were taken out of the winter 'Flying Scotsman' service in April/May each year, lifted, serviced and repainted for the summer season. They always looked magnificent. Southern Pride TK with Ladies' Retiring Room. After service in 'The Elizabethan', two of the pressure ventilated Corridor Thirds with Ladies Retiring Room saw service in 'The Heart of Midlothian', and one is seen here. After 'The Elizabethan' finished, the FKs with Ladies' Retiring room were used, running as unclassed. Again, I've employed the usual method of Southern Pride sides over mutilated Bachmann Thompson donors. This time, it's running on the correct 8' 6" heavy-duty Gresley bogies. The difference in finish between it and the Bachmann. Mk.1s can be noticed, though the Bachmann cars can be bulled up with a bit of polish. Beware, though, because they're painted, not red plastic through and through, and too much vigour might remove the paint. I've yet to remove the over-prominent roof ribs from the Bachmann cars in this picture, and weather the underframes. Though I have several kit-built and 'butchered' Mk.1s (Comet sides over RTR donors or full Comet kits), I see no need in making any more, unless they're of types not made by Bachmann. A compromise, where one goes from the path of kit-building righteousness? I don't think so, especially where dozens of Mk.1s are needed, and if the roof ribs are removed. Southern Pride RF and PT. Two more of my Southern Pride/Bachmann conversions, this time producing a Kitchen Car and Pantry Third (later Second). The latter has the rounded corner windows. Both run on the correct HD bogies, and I think these cars look lovely. Not because of what I've done, but because of the shine produced by Halford's Ford Burgundy red car acrylic. Lining and lettering (like the others) are by PC 'Pressfix' transfers. Trice Hornby RF. Why Hornby chose to model a Buffet Car for its catering vehicle in the range of Gresleys, I don't know. This would have been a much better option, for Restaurant Firsts like this ran as unclassified vehicles as well. This started life as a Hornby Gresley vehicle but has had Mike Trice sides added to make this RF. Not only do you get a different vehicle but the body-side profile is corrected and the horizontal beading is in the right place. I wrote about how to do it in BRM, and showed the process in motion on Right Track 4. Extra underframe detail and correct HD bogies complete the picture, and the car was painted in the same way as previously described, but this time with just a touch of dry-brush weathering. Note that the corridor-side windows are white, like the kitchen ones the other side. This is correct, but I've seen a professionally-made example where the corridor-side glazing is clear, revealing the interior. This is wrong. Next to it is a similar conversion as 'work in progress', representing a Gresley Pantry Third (later Second). Both cars form the catering facilities in 'The White Rose', the rest of the train being made up of BR Mk.1s (Bachmann), as it should be. An acceptable compromise I believe. 'The White Rose', like most of my trains is made up using BR's official train make-up documents. I'll show some of these in due course. Comet RF. This time the work of Tony Geary, an earlier diagram of Gresley RF (note the turnbuckle underframe), built from a Comet kit. Tony's coaches are beautifully done and superbly natural in their environment. Immediately with it is another Thompson Pantry Third (later Second) with Southern Pride sides, but this one was completed by Tony using Trice and Comet parts. Other cars in the train are also made by Mr Geary from Comet kits. Trains like this, formed mainly of Gresley/Thompson vehicles don't appear that often in the day-to-day consists in BR's late '50s/early '60s documents, yet they appear frequently in photographs. Perhaps they're reliefs or summer Saturday extras, though we're told such trains often had no catering facilities. Yet, the photographs show them. Personally, I often model a train (as best I can) from a photograph, though catering vehicles are often difficult to decipher exactly. More compromises? I'll let the reader decide. Bachmann Mk.1 catering cars. This pair represent the catering cars in the morning 'Talisman', though for some reason I've got the RU the wrong way round. Normally, the kitchen section would be between the two classes - First Class passengers would be eating in the RFO, and Second Class in the open section of the RU and the TSO alongside. I'm sure such anomalies occurred, but I'll turn it round on the layout. All this train is made up of Bachmann Mk.1s and it was another of my write-ups in BRM. I dismantled the First Class cars (not easy at all) to re-fix glazing that had popped-in, and to 'paint' curtains at the windows (some lower-class cars had popped-in windows as well. I hope Bachmann has improved its glue!). The over-prominent roof ribs have gone (as shown in Right Track 4), and weathering has been applied by son Tom using powders. Coach boards are by John Peck, and this the and the 'Elizabethan' are my only trains fully described so to speak. The 'Elizabethan has ARW boards which are a bit coarse. Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' range of such boards will be used in future, for they are excellent. I suppose this rake could be described as a bit 'dull', but it does have a uniformity which looks 'right'. Why some folk don't look at how real trains were actually made up, I don't know - even if they have to 'selectively shorten' rakes to fit the available space. In a recent issue of one model railway magazine there's a shot of two passenger trains made up of Bachmann Mk.1s. In one train, there's an RFO in the middle of a set but with no Kitchen Car of any kind to support it. Unless the train's empty stock, an RFO is always marshalled adjacent to an RU, RK or RF, and they were the rarest of types. The other train in the picture has a Buffet Car in what's described as a 'local' train. An all-stations stopper with catering facilities in it? Even if you can't make things for yourself and have to write cheques, do check that your trains are as near right as possible. Being a zealot, I insist on correct-length trains (13/14 cars in some cases), and I'm not prepared to compromise on this matter. I'm lucky in having enough space to accommodate such long trains, but I could squeeze in more if I were prepared to compromise on my fiddle yard geometry and running. I'll post some further pictures to show you what I mean. Bachmann BSK. The tail-end of 'The Talisman'. Again, make sure everything's in place. My trains only go one way round in the sequence, so I don't need an automatic coupling at both ends. Anyway, for the ECML, many long distance trains ran as two sets - one Up, one Down, reversing roles the next day. So to see, say, the same 'The Elizabethan' set running in both Up and Down directions at different times on the same day isn't right, anyway - especially for the anoraks taking the cars' numbers. It's OK if it's 'The West Riding', 'Yorkshire Pullman, 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' and 'The Northumbrian', but not the Edinburgh trains. You could, of course, run the 'Master Cutler'/Sheffield Pullman' four times if you wished. Hornby Comet Kean Pullmans. I hope I've spelt 'Kean' properly - if it's Keen, my apologies. Unfortunately, though Hornby's current Pullmans are magnificent models, they're not really the right type to be used in numbers for a latter day steam depiction of the ECML. Hornby's earlier cars were, though they only made a Parlour First and Parlour Brake Third (now available in the Railroad range). So, though I can use just one or two of Hornby's current Pullmans, most have to be made by butchering the older cars, attaching Comet sides and fitting Kean (plastic) or Trice (cast metal) 10' bogies, the latter for preference for they ride so well. I'm happy to use some of the earlier Parlour Firsts and Parlour Brake Thirds as they are, providing I replace the bogies and re-work some of the roof ventilators. One can be seen in this shot, as can a current Hornby Pullman car, either side of this Kitchen Third running in the 'Yorkshire Pullman'. The downside is the painting of the modified cars. Ian Rathbone did all mine, and there's a not-inconsiderable cost imperative involved. Thus, I admit, I'm a cheque book modeller in that respect (he painted most of my latter day green locos, too). People are very sensitive about being described as such. I'm lucky in as much as I've been able to make locomotives and rolling stock, and having been involved with the guys at Wolverhampton MRC who can make things, too. Thus, I've only written cheques for Little Bytham for parts of the trackwork (Norman Solomon), some stock-painting (Ian Rathbone), some stock (Tony Geary) and the signals (Mick Nicholson). That's apart from paying for the materials - kits, motors, wheels, raw materials, etc, of course. Thus, the buildings and bridges (Ian Wilson) are paid for in locos built, the baseboard-building (Norman Turner) in locos built, the wiring design and fiddle yard control panel (Rob Kinsey) in locos to be built and the working mechanisms for the signals (Graham Nicholas of Grantham, The Streamliner Years' fame) in rolling stock and a loco to be built. Bartering, it's called, and I recommend it. As for the derogatory 'chequebook modeller' epithet. All I can say is, it's your money, you've earned it, so spend it on what you like. More rolling stock elements to follow...

Firstly, in answer to Brian Macdermott's question about the replacement chimney on the 4F in an earlier post, it's from South Eastern Finecast. Dave Ellis does several chimneys for the 4F - Midland-style (the one that's on the current Hornby 4F), squatter one, tall Stanier one, etc. A phone call to 01342 824711 will enable you to order whatever parts you want from the man himself. The one I used was the Stanier chimney, based on a photograph in 'East Midlands Branch Line Album' by Anthony Lambert, showing the loco at Syston Junction, having travelled over the M&GNR/MR to Saxby Junction and beyond. I assume from what Brian says that he's still going to use the original Airfix tender drive, claiming that it runs very well. He must have the tender-drive equivalent of how-many-in-a-hundred Winchester rifles actually shoot straight. My experience of them is that they're universally ghastly - noisy, jerky, and try running them through hand-built pointwork. I've included a further selection of 4F pictures, derived from a variety of sources, some of which are ex-Airfix, having replacement loco/tender frames. Hornby 4F R3030 01. This is the current Hornby loco-drive 4F in LMS as-built condition. It's a huge improvement on the tender-drive original, though the driving wheels are still a bit coarse. I think it's correct in having a capuchon on the chimney and extended covers for the piston tail rods. Hornby 4F R3031 01 and 02. Here's the BR version, the one I modified by replacing the chimney, removing the piston tail rod covers, fitting lamp brackets, scale shackle, renumbering and weathering. As intimated, the chimney is wrong - it shouldn't have a capuchon in BR days (I filed off the capuchon, but the chimney still didn't look right). Neither should it have the piston tail rod covers. At the price, these should have been correct, and the omission of lamp brackets is a retrograde step. Compared with a Bachmann 3F, it's quite a bit more expensive and isn't as good a model, so watch out for Bachmann's forthcoming 4F. However, the Barwell 4F will have to run superbly to match the performance of this one. Alan Gibson 4F. This is the one I made and painted for Right Track Parts 1 and 2 and 3 in the Activity Media DVD series. Ignorance allowed the retention of the chimney capuchon (all Alan Gibson's 4F chimneys have it), and removing it wouldn't be easy because it's made of lost-wax brass - tough stuff! Ian Rathbone weathered it slightly. 4F 43938. I built this one from a SE Finecast kit (it was one of a pair written up in BRM some time ago). It's got the tall Stanier chimney. I painted it and John Houlden dusted over the weathering. The tender has coal rails, catered for in the kit should you wish to model it with this feature. Visible stock in the 4F pictures is almost all RTR-based, tinkered with and weathered. The old Airfix LMS coaches are a bit poor, but, for the moment there are still a few providing some of the M&GNR services. The later Hornby Staniers are much better, and I await Bachmann's forthcoming 'porthole' stock with interest. 4Fs 43871. This is a Wills 4F (forerunner to SE Finecast), built by Rob Kinsey and sitting on a scratch-built chassis. Rob's provided a K's MR tender for something different. I painted and weathered it, though I can't explain the bend in the footplate. This one has the shorter chimney. Just check with prototype pictures to make sure you get the right one. 4Fs 44412 and 44404. Both of these are ex-Airfix tender drive derivatives. I modified 44412, using a replacement SE Finecast set of loco and tender frames, and painted and weathered it. 44604 has a scratch-built chassis and a high-sided Fowler tender from Alan Gibson. This was the earlier work of the late John Horton, he of Scale Seven fame. It's a cherished locomotive for he was a dear friend. Both locos retain their original chimneys. 44412 has one of the regular three-coach Nottingham-King's Lynn trains on the M&GNR, and 44404 is waiting to take the single track section westwards on the daily Up goods. What appears to be really shoddy trackwork in front of 44404 is, in fact, a wooden walkway, parallel to but raised up above the rails. 44418 and 44519. Trains pass again at Little Bytham Junction, this time a King's Lynn-Nottingham train waits for the daily Down goods to clear the single track section to Saxby (an unlikely situation, I know, but one just posed for the camera). 44418 is the second of the featured pair of 4Fs I wrote up in BRM. It has a squat chimney, and exhaust steam ejector (indicated by the pipe on the right hand side of the smokebox - left as we look). 44519 is another ex-Airfix body/tender with replacement frames, and this one has a Stanier chimney (I think that's right, but some Midland chimneys were tall and slender, too - as always, check against prototype pictures). How I made replacement chassis for the 4Fs (and a variety of other locos) was featured in this year's BRM Annual). Secondly, some further locomotives of possible interest. Crownline B12/3. If ever a loco deserves to be available RTR, it must be this type. Despite Hornby's recent upgrade of its B12, it's still not a 'scale' model. This one is (at least as 'scale' as a OO one can be, I think). I made it from a Crownline kit for Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern, of Peterborough North fame), and Ian Rathbone painted and weathered it to perfection. It was written up in 'Model Rail', I think. Speaking of Peterborough North, progress is certainly spectacular and it's the most popular layout on RMWeb by some margin, with justification. The photography of the layout has come on in leaps and bounds, and I was especially interested in Andy York's more recent images, particularly post #4297. What a stunner, I thought, until I looked at the train, is it to do with the 'stacking' process? I know this has been touched on, and Andy has actually shown me the procedure for getting almost unlimited depth of field by this method - picture after picture of the same subject with the focus altering slightly with each one, the computer programme then stitching them together. But it does, in my opinion, produce anomalies - like a rubber train? Being a Luddite and a product of the age of dinosaurs, all this is bewildering to me. Even though even I have gone digital, I stick with a heavy lump (a Nikon D3) and a 'micro' lens stopping down to almost F45, driving the whole thing by the seat of my pants, producing one picture at a time. Anyone have any thoughts on current model railway photography? I admit (as you can see from these pictures), I don't get an infinite depth of field but my track doesn't end up looking like cooked spaghetti, I don't get trains made of rubber nor buildings looking like they're made of Plasticene. I await a heated response! Magna Models J10. This is wholly out of place on Little Bytham, and it's built from a kit I suggested avoiding. It emerged from its box, blinking into the light to have its picture taken. It might suggest I don't like my children, for this kit was given by me to my elder son, Tom, when he was 15 or 16. He wanted to have a crack at making a kit, so I thought, even if he messed it up, it wasn't that expensive and it could act as a learning curve. I scratch-built the chassis for him, and away he went, soldering iron fired up, lungs ready for permanent boiling flux damage and young fingers ready to be scorched. Despite the kit being a bit 'rough', he succeeded, but it would have been better to have given him something better to cut his teeth on. He certainly didn't mess up, not at all, for here is the result. I did, though. Looking on, and scoffing at his initial timidity with the iron, I plunged in, cranked the iron up to nuclear mode and promptly burned a great hole in the tender top. I backed away, and he muttered some youthful piece of verbal communication. The hole was so big it had to be patched up with filler. He then painted and weathered the whole lot, hiding the paternal crater completely by covering it with coal. Why a J10? Because I saw this one at Chester Northgate as a nipper, and it's such a pretty loco. Note that all my locos carry appropriate lamps and are crewed. N5s. Two N5s from two different sources. The one on the left is from Millholme (I know it doesn't carry a lamp, but it was just posed for the picture). It was built by Ian Wilson and rebuilt by me, ensuring that it finally ran really sweetly. The one on the right is from SE Finecast (before the etch for the tanks and bunker was produced). I built this, and it was featured in one of my books. I painted both, and John Houlden did the airbrush weathering. Wills A2 into A1. I mentioned in a previous post how my earlier Peppercorn A1s were arrived at. Four were sold on, but I retain this one if only to try and persuade myself that my modelling has improved down the years. It started off as a Wills A2 kit and the alterations entailed a scratch-built chassis, turned (extended) smokebox, scratch-built central footplate and splashers (the latter, I made a bit too big), tender made thinner and all beading removed from it. I painted and weathered it. It's kept as a curiosity, if nothing else. Finally, for Phil (quack, quack of 36E). Don't do yourself down. Having seen examples of your work, scratch-building would hold no fears for you at all. And anyway, a more apposite description of my work from raw materials, rather than scratch-building should be 'I built it and it got scratched!' I'll be picturing examples of rolling stock next.

In response to LNER 4479's incredulity at my being able to build two locos a week, perhaps I should qualify that, for it could be perceived as being slightly disingenuous. Fordley Park, from Wolverhampton MRC, had been invited to the Warley Show at the end of the '70s/early-'80s. In those days it was held at the Harry Mitchell Centre, and was considered one of the top shows (obviously, it is now THE top show). How Fordley Park became an Eastern Region layout is a complex story, but suffice to say, as originally exhibited, the layout was a bit of a disaster - even after all those years, its appearance at Joseph Leckie School in Walsall still makes me shudder. All that seemed to work were soldering irons, and only three trains - two pulled by my locos and one built by a dear-departed friend, with a scratch-built chassis built by me. It was an almost unmitigated disaster. A kit-built Royal Scot (ostensibly professionally made) wouldn't even pull its own tender and all the others either buzzed, derailed constantly, shorted or went the opposite way to convention when the controller was turned on. My apologies to any exhibition-goers who remember it. A club EGM was convened and I said my piece, stating in no uncertain terms that it wasn't the layout's fault (the soldering irons weren't actually needed!) but the stock. Now, if you really want to offend fellow modellers, criticise their stock, particularly locomotives. After some heated discussion (in which it was suggested we actually baled out of the show so as not to let ourselves down or, particularly, let the host club down), I said that all my locos and stock would be available if needed, but it was all ER-based prototypes. Previously, I'd been a bit reluctant to put stock on club layouts after a clot asked to see an A2/2 I'd just scratch-built, promptly picking it up by the valve gear! I don't think I repeated a profane phrase for nearly 30 seconds! Do any other members of clubs have similar experiences? So, my bluff was called, and, with nearly four months to go, Fordley Park was to appear as an ER layout at Harry Mitchell. Previously, political correctness and democracy meant that it was based 'somewhere in England' - anywhere, in fact. But the guys, bless 'em, pulled out the stops. One bloke built the appropriate Prototype Models' kits for the station and signal box and I donated my previously-built model from the same source of Little Bytham goods shed (how the wheel turns!). Two guys, sadly now departed, were building exquisite BR freight stock and another bloke and I had made enough passenger trains from kits or modified proprietary. But, allowing for enough replacements in case of failure, we needed at least 30 locos. Now set (with much in the way of modeller's licence) 'somewhere in the West Riding', the layout also allowed for Midland Region and BR Standards to be used. Two guys had two such locos each, built from kits, and these worked well (they came out of the woodwork at the EGM), but we were still about a dozen-fifteen short of appropriate loco types, especially if ringing the changes was contemplated. I mentioned being disingenuous, and, though I was teaching full-time, part of my loco building build-up to the show coincided with the last two weeks of the summer holiday. Part of my department at the school included a fully-equipped metal workshop, so I virtually locked myself away for days on end with a stack of drawings and raw materials, and a list of locos to make. Jamieson kits provided the likes of an A2/1 (hand-cut kit) B1s, J39s and V2s, so those could be erected quite quickly. However, stuff like the other Thompson Pacifics, a K1, O4/8 and O1 had to be scratch-built or kit-bashed (my A1s were stretched Wills' A2s on scratch-built chassis). Mike Edge had built me an A2/2 and A2/3 from scratch some three/four years before (locos only), though I was never entirely happy with them - that's not a criticism of his work, by the way, it's just that we were both on learning curves at that time, and today he's one of the top loco builders in the country. Now substantially rebuilt, they can both be seen running on Great Northern's Peterborough North as respectively WOLF OF BADENOCH (original identity) and DANTE (renamed and renumbered from WATLING STREET). Other kits from the likes of Wills, K's, Nu-Cast, Cornard/McGowan and Craftsman gave me quick routes to other types as well. RTR locos were rejected as being unsuitable (how times change), apart from some Hornby-Dublo A4 bodies running on scratch-built chassis, hauling Wills' tenders. Cast-metal chassis were dumped at source and replaced with scratch-built alternatives or frames/bogies from Jamieson. Wheels were all Romfords and the drives 5-pole XO4 derivatives with Romford gears. Cylinders, motion and valve gear, where necessary, were from Jamieson or Nu-Cast. Boiler fittings and things like sandbox fillers and axleboxes came from a variety of sources. Gadgets like an accurate horizontal milling machine, Boxford lathe, large pillar drill and Gabro bending machine allowed the almost mass-production of body bits and chassis (four A4 sets of frames along with their rods could be made in one go - sweat eight strips of curtain rail thickness brass together, do the same with the rods (strips of code 100 bullhead rail), mill a true edge, use the rods for marking out the axle spacings, centre drill, one eighth interference drill and ream out, mill the cut-out for the motor, separate and He-Presto there you go. Because the frames were so thick, no bearings were necessary. Jig-assemble using a Jamieson jig, appropriate spacer strip and a 75W iron, drill and tap spacers for bogie/pony screws and Bob's your uncle. Thus, a kind of mini loco factory was set up. But, nobody expected fully-detailed end products. Niceties which I expect today (indeed, insist upon) were not considered. Thus, my locos had no brakes, no lamp brackets, no beading on the sheet metal ones and no fiddly pipe runs and sandpipes. I painted them, but here's a confession. Though I achieved my 15+ locos in about eight weeks, visitors at the said show might just recall an A5, B1, K1, O1 and V2 running 'in the raw'. I ran out of time before I could paint them. The layout ran perfectly - Bob Daw (if you're still around), Arnie and the Bates family were vindicated, and the rest, as they say, is history. In a way it was 'old-fashioned' modelling as I saw it. I/we were freed from the diktats of what the RTR boys had to offer loco-wise, stuff was 'made' as appropriate and we all had great fun. My locos looked liked those of nobody else (not always a compliment, I know) and stuff like it had never been seen before. Compared to what's seen on RMWeb now, Fordley Park doesn't stack up. Some of my rolling stock of the period makes me wince - modified Hornby-Dublo Pullmans, some Hornby-Dublo SD coaches with just the buffers replaced, and Ratio wooden Thompsons! Needless to say, I have nothing of that now, and apart from some of the 'dinosaur' locos which have appeared on this thread, none of those earlier creations. But, I/we built it ourselves, and no amount of superior-quality modelling (and much of what's seen on this site is fantastic) can take that away. As a preparation for my eventual future as a professional loco builder, my loco batch-building of that period was invaluable. They were happy times. Do any RMWebbers remember them, too?

Once again, many thanks to all posters for their continued interest in what is put on my thread. Here are a few more images of 'lesser' locomotives, arrived at by a variety of means. Some date from antiquity, and are pretty poor models by today's standards. However, I keep them out of little more than sentiment, though, in their day they were used on exhibition layouts. But, things move on. Altered Hornby Britannia. Earlier on the thread, I showed pictures of various Britannias. Currently in bits because of a failed motor (entirely, for it's stone dead), this is Hornby's current loco-drive Brit, renumbered and renamed to represent the warrior queen. Elder son, Tom, did the weathering using his airbrush. Replacement bogie wheels (Markits) are a huge improvement and ride no less well than the originals. Looking at other threads featuring masses of 'fiddled with' RTR locos, the clumsy original bogie/pony wheels are retained. One asks why, for it can't be for economic reasons, surely? Why spoil the ship.... as the saying goes. What I should have done, though, is replace the deflectors with etched-brass items and also replaced the lumpen chimney. Both these items compromise what otherwise is an exceptional model. DJH Austerity. Also earlier, I posted shots of various Austerities. Here's another, built and part-weathered by me. After I'd painted it and dry-brushed some weathering on, John Houlden 'unified' the whole thing by dusting it all over with his airbrush. Compare this with the earlier VULCAN, which was just dry-brushed. This definitely looks more uniform, but should all weathering be uniform? Despite the excellence of the current Bachmann RTR Austerity, I still feel the DJH kit makes up into a better model, especially with regard to the 'thin' edges of the cabsides and tender. That said, it's more expensive, has to be made and, on a layout it's hard to tell the difference between the two types. Except, that is, that the kit-built one is much more personal. What do others think? Hornby L1 01 and 02. Here are a couple of shots of Hornby's L1, fiddled with by me and weathered by John Houlden. It's in operation on Little Bytham, but is a bit incongruous. 67800 was shedded at Grantham, but later on, probably after the station had closed, and the usual route for Grantham's tanks was eastwards to Nottingham, not south. ECJM L1. When I built and painted this L1, anyone suggesting that eventually (in over 30 years' time) one would be available RTR would have been considered a 'nutter'. It's from an East Coast Joint Models' kit (latterly ABS), and is even more incongruous than 67800, for this one represents 67781 from far away Gorton. Why? Almost without exception, I made models of what I saw, and a warm August day in 1957, spent at Manchester London Road provided many 'cops', including this one. However, in reality I never use it, because of its being so out of place, but it makes a nice picture, especially being so recently ex-works. Its train, like in the second picture of Hornby's L1, is a mixture of kit-built and modified proprietary items, making a typical all-stations stopper of the period. The first carriage is from Comet by Tony Geary, the next two modified Hornby items by me, and the six-wheeler a Mark's Models' kit by the proprietor. Craftsman A5. This is a Craftsman kit built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary. Unlike the L1s, Grantham's A5s were definitely used on Grantham-Peterborough stoppers. Since Tony went all O gauge, I've acquired a few of his constructions. They're beautifully done, but I must lower that top lamp bracket to be on the smokebox door. WSM J6. I mentioned WSM as being kits I wouldn't touch, in a previous posting. I should have also mentioned McGowan/Cornard (at least mechanically, with their cast-metal chassis, coupling and connecting rods) and Bristol Models. Many's the tale to be told wrestling with such monsters. At least I did make this J6 from a WSM kit, scratch-building a chassis in the process. To say it's a bit of a lump is being kind, though my heavy weathering acts as a kind of a disguise. This one definitely never sees service now - I dug it out of its box just for the picture, just to pretend that it's actually indulging in pick-up freight duties. Nu-Cast J6. This makes a much better J6, though the tender provided is only right for this particular loco in BR days. Ian Wilson built it, I part re-built it (it was glued together and 'came apart in my hands' - if it's metal (other than aluminium), it must be soldered). I painted it and Tom Wright dusted it over with his airbrush. London Road Models J6. Though they take a bit of making, this is the best route for a J6 in my opinion. I built and painted this one (to represent one of the earlier series locos), and John Houlden gave it the lightest of touches with his air brush to finish it off. Apparently, the J6 is high on several wish-lists for RTR production. I wonder? Nu-Cast K2. Another of my dawn of time antiquities. As usual, the lump of white metal purporting to be the chassis was melted down for ballast and I scratch-built one that would actually work. The painting, lining and weathering is mine (in over 30 years, it's probably weathered naturally), and it only sees service on the M&GNR bit of my trainset. Fortunately, over half of the circuit is hidden, at least as far as this loco is concerned. London Road Models K2. Something much, much better with regard to a K2, though it does require a bit of making - especially the chassis which had some ridiculous elements of design in it (in my opinion). Mr Crawley, if you're looking down on us now, despite your insistence on being 'right', I still think my method of assembling the chassis was better. That said, the gentleman is much-missed. My work, with Ian Rathbone's peerless painting, this also runs on the M&GNR, though it's so pretty that I run it on the main line as well at times. Like many of the 'better' models on this thread, it's featured in the pages of BRM. Jamieson B1. When Fordley Park was first exhibited at the Warley Show during its days at the Harry Mitchell Centre, just prior to its appearance, I was building locos for it at the rate of two a week (still teaching full-time, mind). We were short of engines, you see, and to get a representative stud of ER motive power required much in the way of kit or scratch-building. For a B1, the Jamieson kit was an obvious choice, and a brilliant introduction to the diabolical arts of jig-assembling chassis and 100% soldered-construction. And, it made into a basic B1. But, compared with today's brilliance from Hornby and Bachmann it's a bit of a dud. Note, but not too closely, please, the chimney (a lump), lack of front footsteps, the lack of beading (especially on the cab and tender), the wrong tender (large front cut-out) and general lack of detail. It's my painting (the cabside numbers are too small) and the nameplates and front numberplate were made for me as bespoke items by King's Cross Models - they had to be cut-out, and the front numberplate has the incorrect-style '6', and they cost a fortune!. At least the smokebox door is the far more typical NE-style. Nu-Cast B1. This cast metal kit gave you much more in the way of surface detail than the nickel-silver Jamieson product, but it was saddled with the gut-busting weight of the cast-metal chassis. I made this one and fitted a Comet chassis - the original B1 one with the hopelessly out of proportion radius rod and eccentric rod combination. Why did the late Steve Whoofe (I hope the spelling's right) use the Roche drawing as a guide? Look closely, the pivot for the die-block and expansion link is way too far back in the radius rod, resulting in a much too short eccentric rod. Compare this with the Jamieson B1's gear. I should have used the Nu-Cast gear instead, though I probably nicked that for something else. It tows a Bachmann tender, and the painting and weathering is mine. However, a Retford-based (36E) B1 would be unlikely motive power for a stopper south of Grantham. The first two cars in the train are steel-sided articulated Gresley stock, introduced in 1935 for outer-suburban services, running as a pair of twins with a corridor composite in the middle. Post-war they tended to get split up. These were made by Tony Geary, from sides produced by Dave Lewis of Southern Pride. Having Dave as a member of the 'Stoke' group was terrific, and he/we generated umpteen different coach kits of the accurate types we needed - no masses of RTR coaches to begin with, then. I'll be describing more of the coaching stock in later postings. Part Scratch-built K5. Time was when I'd built from kits or from scratch all the ER locomotive types I'd seen as a trainspotter. I then considered ones I hadn't seen, and up popped the K5. This was Thompson's waste of time 'experiment' in making a two-cylinder K3. Needless to say it flopped, wore out its frames too quickly and was never perpetuated. I made this from parts of a Wills K3, scratch-building what else was necessary, including the tender. Looking at it now (it's another one that never gets used now), I don't think much of it, and I think I went over the top with the weathering. At best it's a curiosity. Hornby O1 01 and 02. In response to a request or two, a couple more shots illustrating my more-weathered Hornby O1 previously featured on this thread. As already mentioned, this is a brilliant model at source, and all I've done is the slightest of modifications (I should have replaced all the cabside numerals when renumbering it for there is a slight difference in the colouring). People have heaped praise on this but it's undeserved, as far as I'm concerned. For one, I didn't make it and most of it was pre-weathered at source. Yet, by just doing the slightest of alterations, an excellent model results. Anyone can do it (well, almost anyone) - all you need is the money and the slightest amount of skill. But, apart from my ownership of it, it's not 'mine'. Not in the way that many of the other locos illustrated here are, even though they're inferior (other than their not having wobbles in the footplate). An interesting philosophical question? What do others think? It might stimulate some debate.

Thank you 'Robert'; I hope BRM's readers will, in time, enjoy what the camera could see from that angle. Hopefully I am not unique amongst modellers in taking a change of clothes and a bar of soap on my travels.

Some more weathering pics. The latest Bachmann Austerity is as supplied - correct with black buffer stocks (unusual, though not unique on a Cowlairs-shopped loco). The weathered Bachmann Austerity is an earlier manifestation, provided pristine. All I did was to fit scale plates and apply plenty of my dry-brush weathering grime. The DJH Austerity was built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary. I added the smoke (apologies if this image has appeared before). Speaking of smoke effects - here's the Wensleydale Railway's J72, departing Leeming earlier this week. Would one like to replicate such smoke effects on a model? Probably not.

In response to Micklner, I know that the DJH A2/2 doesn't make into an LNER period loco. In fact, as I said, it only really replicates 60505 and 60506 after they were fitted with Thompson/Peppercorn boilers. But to build the DJH kit so that it makes into an LNER A2/2 requires a lot more than just providing a full 'V'-fronted cab. The smokebox lengths are different - 9' 10" original, 9' 3" later (over 2mm difference). The length of the central section of the footplate is also different, with the Thompson/Peppercorn- boilered locos having the 'S' curve in the footplate over a foot further back - 21' 9" original, 22' 10" later (over 4mm difference). There's also almost no firebox visible beneath the footplate on the originals, unlike the later versions where' the 'S' in the footplate cuts across it, revealing a big chunk underneath. Firebox handrails lengths are different as well - 5' 0" on the original, 4' 0" on the later (4mm difference), and the boiler is divided into one fewer segments. However, just taking the boiler bands off isn't enough because the smokebox/boiler division isn't in the right place at source for the original boiler, with the superheater headers and snifting valve further forward on the later boilers. The boiler handrails are supported by seven pillars on the original, with eight on the later ones. This would be relatively easy to alter, though it means plugging the 'witness' holes provided by DJH. Check on the Isinglass drawing. I considered building an original A2/2 from a DJH kit but decided it was too much of a compromise, requiring too much in the way of alterations. Sorry to be pedantic, but it isn't that simple! Of course, if Micklner has done all the modifications then hats off to him. You're a more determined modeller than I am! For it's-er (John), if he wants to see my O2s (which the Heljan representatives have at the moment), please look a few pages back through the thread where they're present. I shall post some pictures of the smaller locos and items of rolling stock later, commenting accordingly.

Thanks to all posters for their positive comments. Just a few points to be raised. Firstly, my most profound apologies for my appalling misuse of one of the tenets of English in my last post with regard to the contraction of 'regulations' when answering gismorail's question about planning matters. Even a half-wit would know that the contracted form of regulations should be reg's, not regs' as I put. I also noticed one or two careless typos here and there. At least this maintains my status as a hypocrite, because I've occasionally been puzzled by the standard of English displayed by some posters on RMWeb. The majority of posts is (are, which is right?) well constructed but In some cases the basics of punctuation, spelling and grammar seem to be disregarded, lessening, in my opinion, the worth of the message that the poster is trying to convey. Typos, perhaps, one can forgive (I admit to carelessness in that regard), but really poor spelling? Not that poor use of English is confined to posts on various forums. As is probably known I'm a great cricket fan, but have now taken (not took, see later) to having the sound turned off whilst watching the Ashes because of the mangling of English which a certain commentator indulges in, one 'Bumble' by name. Recently, we've been assaulted with 'he's just took his boot off' and the many variations of 'they've been sat there all day', 'I'm sat down in the corner' and 'they're all sat there there behind the bowler's arm'. Doesn't he know the correct 'taken' or 'sitting'? Doesn't it make you cringe? And he's actually paid to destroy our beautiful mother tongue in that way! Sorry, rant over. Apologies, too, in advance for any grammatical mistakes in this post! And, a further apology for not including Millholme kits in my list of 'do not touch at any price'. Other than as ballast, unless someone gives you a kit for nothing (don't ever buy one, especially if it purports to represent an A2/2 or A2/3) they have no worth. I did build examples of both types but so much was discarded and replaced, and the finished models so poor that I resolved 'never again'! Tony Geary built an Ivatt 'Doodlebug' from Millholme but it was several weeks before he stopped twitching, and someone once asked me to build an original 'Merchant Navy' for him. Just picking up the box gave me a hernia! I recall at one show, a Q1 appeared, but it merely buzzed. Even the most powerful motor available would have not been man enough to merely move the loco itself. Why didn't Millholme contemplate making a complete kit of an armoured train? Crownline A1/1. No chance at the moment for the A1/1 to appear RTR, so it's kit-build or modify. I know some of this ground has been gone over already, but it's still of interest I'm sure. Here's my A1/1, built by me from a Crownline kit and painted by Ian Rathbone. The grotty resin boiler and discrepancy in the greater diameter of the smokebox let it down. Graeme King A1/1 conversion. I believe this is the best way to go right now to achieve a model of this loco. It's based on Hornby's current A3 (the sort with an A4 boiler, which 60113 had). No doubt, it can be found elsewhere on this site. Crownline A2/2. If you want this later manifestation of an A2/2, or all the class on rebuilding, then it's kit-building I'm afraid. 60503 and 60504 retained their original boilers and 'V'-fronted cab to the end. Using Graeme king's conversion bits to turn a Bachmann A2 into an A2/2 will only give you the later choice for 60501/2/5/6 - I assume he provides the two different cab styles, and proposes to use a Hornby A3 high-sided tender or A4 streamlined non-corridor tender depending on whether the first two or last two are modelled. This one isn't a great kit - the resin boiler is poor, there's the discrepancy between the smokebox and the boiler and the cabside has had to be altered to give the correct proportion of the lining rectangle (see the description of the Crownline A2/3). DJH A2/2. In my book, still the best way of replicating an A2/2, especially if you want it to really pull something. I made it and Ian Rathbone painted it. However, the kit as supplied only makes up accurately to represent 60505 and 60506. If you want 60501 or 60502 you'll have to alter the cabsides by turning them in at the rear edges and apply beading, and turn the front edges of the tender in and also apply beading. DJH A2/3. If you want an A2/3, in my opinion, this is the preferred route. It has been seen before, and I don't want to go over the worn out Gresley/Thompson argument (though this class wasn't a rebuild) but, as a 'layout loco' (Iain Rice's description, Phil, not mine - I just plagiarised it) it fits in perfectly I believe. It's possible (in the future) that an RTR manufacturer might consider one, but who knows? I built this and Ian Rathbone painted it. It will pull anything. Crownline A2/3. This is not so good a starting point, for their are a few discrepancies. Because the cabside proportions are so far out, the only way to achieve the 'correct' relative appearance of the lining rectangle is to raise the horizontal handrail up to be level with the bottom of the windows. This is obviously wrong, but looks right. Graeme King A2/3 conversion. Here's another example of Graeme's inventiveness, with his own A2/3 made from a Bachmann A2 donor. I believe he now includes etched deflectors in his conversion packs, which are better than the resin ones. If you have difficulty in making kit chassis go, this is the route for you. Tim Easter A2/3 conversion. I think this is a brilliant representation of an A2/3. It's the property of 'Great Northern', converted on commission by Tim Easter and is seen running on Peterborough North. Using Graeme's parts (though I gave Tim the deflectors and cab, spare from a DJH kit), the results are most convincing - especially the weathering. A possibility from Bachmann RTR eventually? Unlikely at the moment, but when I've done an A2/3 conversion using Graeme's parts I'll hand it over to the firm. Jamieson A2/1. If you want one of the four locos representing this class, then it's kit-building (unless Graeme is doing a V2 conversion). This is my prehistoric Jamieson hand-cut kit for the type - getting on for 40 years ago it cost me £27.00, and that didn't include the tender I wanted - it came with a six-wheeled GS type (only correct for the locos' early lives). This one eventually got a SE-Finecast A2 tender. I painted this loco, entirely by hand using transfer lining, though it's not in Mr Rathbone's class. Nu-Cast A2/1. Here's an alternative, but it's a bit of a lump. Once more, as with all my Nu-Cast kits, it's got a scratch-built chassis. Ian Rathbone painted it but it doesn't ever 'sit' right to me ('Bumble' would say 'it's not sat right at all, so why have you took the picture from this angle?'). If you want 60507, you'll have to source a different tender because HIGHLAND CHIEFTAIN inherited the streamlined non-corridor tender off the destroyed A4 in the York air raid. Modified Bachmann A4 rear view. I can understand Micklner's issues twith the SE Finecast A4 tender, but with a bit of work it can look right. I admit, it is heavy, but because of its use of a nickel silver sub-frame the whole vehicle is extremely free-running, not impacting on tractive effort much at all. As supplied, because it's corridor tender width and still has a flange at the base of the tank it's anomalous (it's designed from the Roche drawing - oh no!). I carved off the flange (for a corridor tender, the tanks should be full width) making it right. I also wanted to represent the cut-down rear of the tender as towed by LORD FARINGDON from the '48 Exchanges (three tenders were cut-down to clear the lower water cranes on the LMS and Southern, MALLARD and SEAGULL being the other participants). Since I don't like plastic as a working medium, then metal was my choice - note the cut-down rear and solder-applied beading. Try doing this in plastic. I displayed my ignorance by not reducing the length of the streamlined fairing at the tender front. With careful use of Stanley knife and files, I should be able to modify it without ruining Ian's painting. SE Finecast W1. Graeme King also does a conversion kit for this loco using a Hornby A4 as a donor. Without doubt, it'll produce a superior result (with a Rathbone paint finish), for this kit is a bit lumpen. That said, it does what the prototype did - hauling massive trains. The tender supplied is the corridor one, so not right for my period. It's got a repacement SE Finecast A2 tender, with the rivets filed off. Graeme did a Hornby conversion to go on Roy Jackson's EM Retford, but the RTR chassis wasn't up to the job it would seem. When I last saw it (two months ago), it had a complete set of brass frames as a replacement. Massive layouts like Roy's can 'eat' locomotives, and a few RTR OO conversions to EM are wearing out rather quickly. Hornby Britannia. Now the discredited tender drive has been abandoned, Hornby's latest 'Brit' manifestation is a real beauty. The body's entirely new, too (though the chimney's still a bit wrong). Son Tom detailed and weathered mine, turning it into BOADICEA, but at the moment she's in bits - the motor having packed up, something I find very rare with my own-built locos. Modified Hornby Britannia. Though the tender drive was decidedly poor, the older Hornby 'Brit's' bodywork was very sound. With this one I've discarded the tender-drive, replacing the whole lot (loco and tender) with Comet frames, though the connecting rods, motion and cylinders are still Hornby. The coupling rods came from Alan Gibson, for they're not sold as part of Comet's frame pack. Dry-brush weathering completed the job, after the loco had been fitted with etched-brass replacement deflectors, much in the way of extra pipework around the lower firebox and was renumbered and renamed. In case people are puzzled by the appearance of a (by the time depicted) 55A 'Brit' on the ECML, in the late summer of '58 I saw her rattle through Retford on a Down fast goods. The piece of antiquity immediately behind the tender is from Mopoc, dry-brush weathered in the prescribed manner. One for Mr PR of 36E. DJH Britannia. Though now available as a good model RTR, I still think a decent kit-built 'Brit' still has the edge over Hornby's model, especially with regard to haulage power, 'thin' deflectors and a proper chimney. This one was started by Bob Alderman, completed by me and painted by Ian Rathbone. She's running-in from Doncaster in September, 1958. I've an idea that the water pick-up dome might be too high for the tender on this specific loco. Oh, those loco-picking delights!