BernardTPM

If you go for the earllier steamlined units they had short bogies like the Japanese chassis have.

Good luck, Pete. I hope your move will go smoothly.

An indoor garden railway is certainly original thinking and those tiny Bagnall 2-4-0s make very attractive prototypes.

Minor point on car registrations. At this time they ran from 1st August to 31st July, so L reg. is August 1972 to 31st July 1973, making it even more likely to have been built in 1972. A to D suffixes were for 1963 to 1966 respectively, but E reg only covers 1st January 1967 to 31st July followed by F reg from 1st August 1967 to 31st July 1968. Apparently this change was at the request of the motor trade to improve sales mid-year where they had traditionally been low, but in the end the annual suffix/prefix system distorted the market.

The FWD 1500 was later re-engineered to RWD as the Dolomite, but externally there's very little difference.

Tesco's and Morrisons (and probably other) value jam comes in glass jars at only 27p (so-called 'lemon curd' only 22p), rather less than Nutella costs! Usual tin with rubber seal lid. As well as a container for white, spirit, etc. you can wash them out, sterilise them in an oven and replace the contents with decent, home-made jam (the price charged for empty jars is just silly).

Pre-BR vans were withdrawn from normal service by the end of 1972. Those not scrapped would end up as engineers or internal user stores were they would tend to get washed by rain and faded by sun. Mind you, the latter processes also  applied to reveue stock, though they'd acquire fresh dirt a lot of which would be brake dust - basically iron oxide (rust) The wagons in this train are in fairly typical condition: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwf2009/7152749765/in/set-72157629623169032 Paul Bartlett's website has plenty of colour pictures of these kind of vans, mostly 1970s/80s, but some earlier, including this very grubby ex-GWR van in 1967 (next to a cleaner ex-LNER Plywood one): http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brgwrvan/h34902e45#h34902e45

Great work, Missy! Enthusiasm does wax and wane; I've not had much for sustained periods for quite a while, but every now and then, well, you get a buzz. What you're doing is too good to let it go forever.

Given the way it works it could probably 'power' other vehicles too - I'm assuming the traction magnet drops into the holes on the moving chain. It reminds me a little of the Matchbox Motorway system (without the slot).

Might be worth getting in touch with the S Scale Society (formerly S Gauge Society) as the chances are they'll know something about the builder. http://www.s-scale.org.uk/main.htm Those are a nice looking set of locos.

Hi Pete,

I think the problem may be the height of the pick-up beam. Compare to the EPB here: http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class415_5.html 3rd picture down.

Also a drawing in the Railway Modeller, November1973.

The Chivers CCT/PMV kit is nice, but it's worth replacing the truss rod with wire; easy enough during construction. The kit could also be used to build the 'Night Ferry' brake with a new bit built into the middle.

The BHE one, I think, is the same as the Shire Scenes one - nice etchings (the door even opens!) with good castings for the base and that awkward-shaped roof.

As a matter of record, the Airfix and Dapol figures, whilst very similar, are from different tools. The most obvious difference is the base (rectangular block on Airfix, tapered mound on Dapol), but if you look at the faces and various details, they clearly vary. From the modelling point of view, the best thing is that both are moulded in styrene so can be readily adapted, rather than that flexible (polythene?) that Airfix used for most of their figure sets.

The figures add to the presentation as well. In fact they've almost a Michael Bond of Paddington Bear fame touch about them from his book illustrations.

I was thinking along the same lines, but the TV animated version - all you need is a small teddy in a duffel coat and hat to complete the scene.

Keep up the good work, Pete. Merry Christmas!

Suggestion to strengthen those fold lines: leave a minimum thickness black edge at each end of the fold line. There should still be enough guidance from the central part to fold where you want, but the thin continuous edge should stop the crack effect going right across.

I would also suggest that rather than half-etching below the guard's door, etch everything away below it. They are quite deep on the real thing.

The smaller windows don't need the half-etch area as only the main windows have the 'hopper' vents, the smaller ones are two fixed panes. The division is also at a different height. Somewhere I think I've got a notebook with the sizes noted. If I can't find that I've got some half-done drawing of the buffet car that I never completed.

The up-down effect can be seen here: http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class411_2.html

The weather looks much the same as it was in July! That odd looking 'hut' (I photographed that too!) I think may be off a ship.

Hi Pete,

I've got slides of it in July 1979 and the buildings are basically off-white for the upper area and a mid-grey below the window level (up to and including the 'waistband'). Unfortunately I don't have a slide scanner, otherwise I'd post them. The edge of the canopy (which is very obviously two planks) is also in the off-white (off-white as in a very, very pale grey rather than cream ormushroom). It doesn't look that heavily weathered in 1979 either.

You can see in the top picture where the wheels have polished the plastic! To be honest, I don't think you really need to remove all the rib; not because I think you should leave some rib in place, but simply to save time. As an alternative to the burr, a chisel knife blade would do the job too.

Their N gauge version is a lot more accurate!

When you buy the Easitrac you might find you need some Blue-Tak to stop it rolling as it doesn't have the grooves to do that like your garden table has!

Looks good. I scratchbuilt one about 30 years ago but haven't got round to weathering yet. I do have nice wonky stanchions though. As you say, just like the real ones do!

The Hornby and Lima versions both came out around the same time, mid-1979. Though both were a long way from perfect, to my eyes the Lima had the advantage as it wasn't disfigured along it's lower edge by the join line and those awful clips. The cab roof and windows were its big let-down. I was looking at repowering mine with an Athern U28-C as the bogie wheelbase was practically spot-on. It has a nice big motor with flywheels; much more up to the job than the Lima pancake.

The one area the Lima model scores over the Heljan one is the main bodyside grilles which correctly sit virtually flush with the main bodyside. Both the Hornby and Heljan ones are set in by around 10 thou." which just looks wrong, especially when viewed from end on.

Might be worth seeing if there's a Japanese tram chassis that could fit if done in N. I think the Bachmann Brill will be too wide in the chassis block.

Narrow gauge vehicle size is one of those things that is determined by a whole host of factors, some of them unique to particular lines. The original FR was very much restrained by the two tunnels on the line being built for the original horse working, while the earliest coaches were also kept low because of uncertainty over stability on the narrow track and the coaches were twice as wide as the slate wagons because the latter were man handled around the quarries, thus avoiding reloading between the quarries and the FR. The much later Leek & Manifold was much larger as it ran transporter wagons so the structure gauge had to accomodate standard gauge goods wagons and vans on top of the transporters. Even ignoring the approx. 6" in gauge difference, you'd be unilkey to find two such kinds of stock working together; the larger stuff would foul the gauge of the smaller, while the smaller stuff would be less efficient/comfortable where there was plenty of room. Of course, these days it's more a case of what an line can get hold of.