thegreenhowards

So is the difference just one vertical bar in the middle of the large grill or am I missing more differences. If it’s just the vertical bar, then it should be an easy plasticard conversion.

Having started all the J17 debate a few weeks ago, I’m pleased to report that my own is now finished and weathered. the hot weather over the last few days meant I set up a workshop under an umbrella in the garden...and very pleasant working it was too!. Here are some pictures and a short video.

That was the point I was trying to make. You explained it much more comprehensively though! Basically the courser the standards, the more you can get away with. Tony’s track is quite unusual in allowing good fast running on finescale track.

A nice rake, thanks for showing us. I couldn’t see the ‘1’s on the BCK in the first picture hence my confusing it for a BSK.

Indeed- I remember a video of a visiting loco going somewhat above the speed limit which is what prompted my post. Of course it doesn’t need to be good track - just remember how fast Hornby Dublo could go!

Is that a scale 80mph?!

I love the work stained B1 and the leading Gresley BSK(6). What are their provenances? Andy

Tony, I totally agree greed with you about the arrogance of certain people surrounding new inventions. And I think the marketing around DCC is very poor, particularly explaining the benefits and what other kit is required. ‘Just plug it in and away you go’ seems to be a common phrase without explaining what you need to plug it into! For me, DCC has three key benefits: 1. Sound, which I accept is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’. 2. Stayalive, which gives such superb low speed running even over insulfrog points. I know your locos and your layout don’t need this, but for short wheelbase locos on shunting layouts it’s a fantastic aid. 3. Some (but less than claimed) simplification of wiring. This doesn’t bear much correlation to the marketing hype around it! I totally agree with you about the frustrations of fitting chips into kit built locos. In theory it should work fine - just a couple of extra soldered joints. But, while this works on some locos, others are much more problematic. It’s easy enough to switch over a non compatible motor, although I agree that outside valve gear complicates the task. But the perfect DC runner, becoming a stuttering wreck on DCC is all too common in my experience. This A3 is a Wills body on a Hornby chassis, which I built to give maximum pulling power while retaining the smooth running of the Hornby chassis (while improving, my kit built chassis are still not as smooth as modern RTR). It works brilliantly on DC and I’ve had it pulling 25 RTR coaches with no trouble. But on DCC it stutters and refuses to move more than a few inches. I presume that there’s a minor intermittent short somewhere, but I’m bu....ed if I can find it! Andy

I finally managed to finished another two coaches yesterday.... it had to be two because they're a twin! These have been on the go for about 18 months, so it's good to have them off the workbench. They are of course a Gresley Diag 18/19 Twin SLF. This is based on Mousa sides grafted onto a pair of Hornby Railroads as donors. Underframe is a mix of MJT, Kirk and scratchbuilt (the trussing) parts with MJT heavy duty bogies. Just about the only things left from the donors are the roof, ends and solebar, and If I was doing this again, I would probably use new Hornby Sleepers as donors, as you would get much more of use on the underframe including Hornby's attempt at HD bogies if you can live with them. They will form part of my rake of the 1958 Night Scotsman, but I need to finish off a couple of 66' Gresley D.157 Sleepers before I can put that together. Andy

Tony, I'm a bit late in responding to this (planning a new club layout extension all last night), but I just thought I’d agree with you that this seems a ridiculous claim. I presume that there was some context about automation of complicated route setting? I agree agree that yours works well, although I do struggle to remember to put the signals back to danger, so maybe some automation would be a good idea for numpties like me! While I use DCC for my train control, my points and signals are currently analogue, and I expect the signals to stay that way. They will be semi automated using Heathcote IRDOTs so that the movement of the trains controls them. I know this is back to front, but at least it ensures that the signals are changed. One advantage of DCC is the reduction in wiring, and I will be using DCC to control the points in my fiddle yard (they’re currently manual). As the 30ish points in the fiddle yard are 15-30 yards from the control panel, this will save several 100 metres of wire which I think is a genuine benefit. It will also enable me to automate road setting using DCC macros. I realise that this is possible in analogue using diode matrices, but that looks very complicated to me. As Phil said, each to his own. Andy

That’s more or less what I’ve done. However, if I was doing it again, I’d use the MJT 10ft CCU with the mailcoach plastic sides on the articulated bogies for extra strength. I’d also use the Comet Heavy duty 8’6” bogies rather than MJT ones as they are much better value (£8.50 instead of £12.80) and they come with brakes. Andy

Thanks, It looks the part to my eyes. I numbered mine last night, 65580. Andy

Thanks for that Jonathan, I’m relieved it’s not too far out. I’ve more or less decided that could could spend a long time on this getting it more accurate but at the end of the day that would be like polishing a t..d! So I’m going to finish it off as it came and it will make for a bit of variety on my layout even if it’s not completely accurate. I have found a picture of one at what looks like a GN location. Can anyone identify where this is?https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/680536193663746788/ Andy

Tony, I think the E4-X looks great. The difference between the unpainted and painted model in terms of visible lines is quite dramatic, and I'm sure the minimal evidence of lines that remain will not notice at normal viewing distances. Having said that, I wanted to challenge the comment that it's not a good idea to use filler primer on 3d printed models. Obviously it will depend on the model, but I've found that for large flat surfaces (such as tank sides), a spray of Halfords filler primer and rub down works very well. For example I show a picture of my 3D printed ex-GNR N1 (sorry about the LNER influence for you Southern aficionados). This was printed by Shapeways about 3 years ago and was quite badly affected by print lines. I used a coat of normal primer and a couple of coats of filler primer rubbed down in between to get the finish here, which I think is pretty good (sorry about the dust!). Andy

Thanks. I think I’ve heard that recommendation before, but it seems that Halfords no longer do that colour. I’ve heard that they can mix any colour, but mine don’t seem to be able to do so. I have tried the Railmatch aerosol, but I didn’t have good results - probably because I was lazy with the prep - shaking and warming etc.. I also use the pencil line and Modelmaster transfers to cover the join trick (as suggested by ‘31A’). I know that ‘sir’ regards the transfers as overscale which is probably true....but quite an advantage when you’re covering a paint join! Andy

Tony, I completely agree. I’ve always had good results with Halfords or Hycote Car paints and they’re so easy to apply. I haven’t tried an airbrush for 35 years and have no intention of trying again. All that cleaning sounds far too much like hard work! Where i struggle is crimson and cream livery. I haven’t found a decent match to cream in car paints, and I don’t really get on with masking tape. So far I’ve tended to spray the crimson (Ford Rosso red) and then hand paint the cream. But it doesn’t produce perfect results. Andy

Tony, That overall view view really shows how complete it now looks. I remember the spaces for resting tea mugs which have now been scenically completed from my first visit and that was only ~three years ago. They say a model railway is never complete but I think LB is as near as it gets. It looks superb! Andy

Tony, That’s looking good. The 3D printing lines seem to have largely disappeared under the primer. And touches like the brass turned buffers really raise it up a notch. Andy

Thanks for all the answers about the chassis on the J17. I should have guessed that it would be some reason like that. But if it is a specific chassis for the kit, then you would have thought they would have corrected the error at that stage. Anyway, I can live with the difference - it’s not really noticeable in practice. Thanks Tony for the photos. My spectacles look OK I think...unless I’m missing something. According to the green book, only 12 of the class had their buffer beams drilled for snow ploughs, and only five had the tender cab and another five with ‘tender spectacle plates. I think I’ll avoid both of these oddities, and stick with a standard engine - probably a Cambridge one, but I need to find the right photo first. I see see what you mean about the coupling rods. How often is something in 4mm scale made too fine?! Andy

Thanks, They’re Modelux laser cut kits. Nice kits, but appalling instructions! The wall is from Model railway Scenery - printed paper stuck onto card. Andy

This is my latest project - a Becs J17 rescued from Ebay. I paid £46 and it was described as 'not very well built 30 years ago' and incomplete, so I wasn't expecting much. But what is there seems well built and the chassis was well put together - square and free running. It was let down by pick ups and the X04 motor and didn't show any sign of life. So, I spent yesterday morning ripping out the pick ups (which had been built at right angles to fit round the springs behind the wheels) and replacing with nickel silver wire. I cut off the springs behind the wheels on the insulated side to make a good run for the wire (as 'Sir' taught me). After this it worked a little, but the X04 was very noisy and got hot quickly. So that was ditched for an ECM motor/ gearbox combo out of my spares box, and it now runs very sweetly. I have a couple of questions for the LNER cognoscenti: 1. The chassis looks purpose built for the kit and the wheelbase matches the splashers on the kit body, but the wheelbase is too short for the prototype - 7'9+8'3 instead of 8'10+8'10 on the prototype. Does anyone know why this might be? 2. I'm sure I've seen a picture of one of these on a freight somewhere between Hitchin and Hornsey on the ECML. I'd like to model that engine, but can't for the life of me remember where I saw the photo. Can anyone remember such a photo? Andy

Brian, Thanks for your help on E25457. I've now completed my model of it using the Replica FO as a starting point. More details of the build are on my workbench thread. Andy

A long time since my last post, but I haven't been idle. It's just my normal problem of lots of projects started, but none finished...until today. This is my latest 1957 Mark 1 prototype. It's a Doncaster SK, number E25457. This was a more spacious version of the standard SK with only 7 compartments and a toilet each end. AFAIK there is no kit available, so I based mine on a Replica Mark 1 FO which had the correct window spacing on the compartment side, and just needed the toilet windows filing in on the corridor side (thanks to Brian Kirby for this suggestion). I happened to have one in the spares box, bought before Hornby brought their version out and it made more sense to cut this up rather than cutting into a new Hornby coach. The process was: Strip detail off Replica sides Fill toilet windows on one side with plasticard behind and green squadron filler Move vents on roof to match my best guess from the picture I have - p113 of Parkin Mk 1 book paint sides with Ford Burgundy red rattle can. Add decals Spray with Testors dullcote to seal decals Paint roof with Precision roof dirt Add Replica flush glazing Add door furniture (MJT) Craft interior from bits of old Hornby mark 1 SK and paint 'Glue on Bachmann Mk 1 bogie mounting point and use Bachmann Mark1 bogies (there were none with my Replica body) It will form part of my 1959 White Rose formation (on which it was a regular). I think it will fit in OK with modern Hornby or Bachmann Mark 1s.

Mostyn is an obvious example which hasn’t yet been mentioned. Back in the steam era, I can’t believe that The Gresley Beat hasn’t been mentioned. For me, it’s layouts like that, LSGC and Grantham which I can watch for hours and I regard as truly inspirational. Andy

Tony, i think it depends a bit bit on what one is trying to achieve. If it’s a model railway as a whole with all the parts blending nicely together and creating a full picture, then it doesn’t really matter about those wagon numbers because nobody is going to read them. LB clearly achieves this superbly. However, if we’re building model trains, and in so doing, trying to get each one as accurate as possible, then getting the number right is part of the project. I wouldn’t be happy building any item of rolling stock, loco, carriage or wagon and then sticking any old number on it, because researching and finishing the item correctly right is part of the fun. Having said this, Like you some of my older wagons probably have incorrect numbers, because I didn’t know better at the time. And in some cases that’s only 5 years ago! Andy