Loconuts

That actually makes me feel quite sad!

 

A modeller with no further use for the Buckingham book.

 

For many folk, myself included, that book was the biggest single literary influence on my modelling for 40 plus years and it would be the last one from my collection that would go.

 

So I have a very well thumbed copy but I can thoroughly recommend that somebody without one in their collection makes the most of this opportunity as you don't see many around.

Yes it is quite sad but things change, I used the book to build Leighton Buzzard Mk1 as a 4mm GWR exhibition layout which was fun to operate.  A brilliant layout for someone to enter the exhibition scene or to progress from RTR to a specialised field.  It does not cost much to build, holds 4 to 5 complete trains and  allows time to build stock.  Could also be built as a British Narrow Gauge layout.

My favorite book is the Wild Swan 'Wantage Tramway' as our first house was along the route and at the time there were plenty of relics still standing although the line had been lifted.  That is not for sale.

The Buckingham Branch does not translate across the pond and is of no use to the American scene.

Loconuts

I have a well thumbed copy of the Peco publication of the Buckingham Layout which is amongst a number of books I intend to sell as they are no longer any use to me.

If anyone wants it and can make a decent offer it is theirs.

Loconuts 

Now you are talking Mr Jones, good old fashion research into a prototype not done before.  Best of luck and good luck to the restoration team.

To all you snipers I know nothing about Holdens designs for the GER, always thought Holden was a Aussie car manufacturer!!!!!!!!! (joke)

Loconuts

Surely if someone takes it all as seriously as you appear to then they would be looking outside r-t-r anyway? I would have thought that to satisfy everybody manufacturers would have to produce pretty much bespoke models anyway, which obviously is not viable.

 

As an aside, and speaking as someone who has been involved with restoring steam locos for nigh on 30 years, what do you think we do to locos when we restore them that distances them from 'revenue earning' locos? I would agree that to get them out on the main line (which I'm also involved with) we have several hoops which we have to jump through which obviously alters the things, but apart from that....?

 

Could it be that perhaps you are one of those to whom a model has to exactly suit or you will find fault with it?

Up until 10 years ago you are on the button, mainly there was no RTR around in my scale unless you commissioned someone to build it.  I buy RTR now but they are quality items and American. I then alter them to conform to how the loco looked in the 1930-40 period. But to say that bespoke RTR is not possible is a bit wrong, there is a American company just doing that, but they are not cheap.

As to your second point, you restorers spent hours and hours restoring a loco and then hang a Thomas the Tank Engine face on the front, joking.  But as an engineer it is not always possible to restore it exactly as it was, example Castles never ran with air brakes under the GWR.  The 18 century replica of a RN Frigate (Grand Turk) has a engine in it, so compromises have to be made.  Keep up the good work with your restoration.

Wrong with your last comment Phil, I am not criticising any RTR model, the O2 looks fine to me and to a standard which will satisfy the majority of 4mm modelers.  If I was doing Southern in 4mm scale I expect I would buy one.  The Bachmann City of Truro blew my mind away, my son has one of those.  I was just pointing out the dangers of scanning to Dave Jones that leaves one open to criticism from the purist.  I am not that serious and do enjoy a laugh.

Loconuts   

I think you're taking toy trains w-a-y too seriously....

Yes Phil I do take my Model Railroad seriously, as I want to produce an accurate portrayal of what I am modeling, there are many of us out there and we have gone beyond the Thomas the Tank Engine stage.

Wow, criticising a model you have no interest in - that sounds farmiliar

 

When you post, basically calling a respected member of this forum a liar, perhaps you could add that it's based on silly rumours?

Ryde-on time you should try reading the correspondence instead of just scanning it. First of all I have not criticised the model and secondly I have not inferred someone of being a liar.  I am just trying to scotch some rumours I heard which if got out of hand could hurt Kernow, similar things are going on the Hornby site at the moment and to be honest are getting out of hand.  Andy should pull the plug on that topic before a backlash comes from Hornby.

I wouldn't listen to rumours mate, tis the road to rack and ruin!

 

As for accuracy, and the gorgeous C.O.T., well the main inaccuracy was the track gauge but it rightly still sold shed loads even if the innacuracy was huge. :-)

I agree with you Dave, it was a superb model of the preserved loco and that is what the NRM wanted, however a very pleasant evening discussing the model over a pint of beer with Martin Finney, its short comings were pointed out.  He has done a shed load of research into the City class for his own kit and details of the changes and the date they were done are reported in the O S Nock books on GWR 4-4-0's.

Best of luck with the O2

Loconuts

Nothing 'went wrong' with the mainland version, and yes they are acceptable to proceed to the next phase.

Tampo printing for the test mainland models is now in hand using corrected information from the island deco's, rather than print something wrong and correct it again which is wasteful, time consuming and costs money.

 

With this in mind, due to being further ahead with regards decoration the island versions will go into production first.

 

By the way, with regards to your posting last week, what was the reply from Hatton's when you asked them?

Thank you Dave for your honest reply, I asked the question due to some rumours I heard at a model railway meeting recently.  I have no interest in the O2, not my scene even though I live in that part of the world.

Please do not read something sinister or controversial into this.  (Adrian/Andy spat)

As to the Hattons thing, well the truth is I forgot as my attention was diverted to the redecoration of the bathroom by SWMBO who decided that was more important.  I also now feel that it is not important now as it appears Hattons have a Railway Enthusiast on board and seems to be coming up with some good ideas.

I am not against a 14xx but my beef is the scanning of preserved locos to the detriment of other classes.  Case in point was the Bachmann City of Truro, this was scanned from the present day loco, great as it was the first outside framed RTR model of a GWR prototype, but it was wrong and could only be run in the preserved period and not in its revenue period.  To do that would take a major rebuild of the model to back date it.  Many modelers are quite happy to run it but that distorts history for future generations.

A funny story regarding the 517 class was that many years ago I built one in 4mm scale from the Mallard etched kit, I took it to the club and the numbers of modelers that came up to me that night and said that the cab was wrong for a 14xx.  But that was in the days prior to the Russell books coming out.

Loconuts 

All throughout the deign and tooling process the IoW version have been slightly ahead of the mainland versions, and as such these will follow in due course.

HI Graham

All through the development of the two locos they have been in equal development and even the video of the pre-production model running on the layout was the Mainland version, also both versions were shown in their pre-production form.  What went wrong with the Mainland version dragging behind as I thought it was acceptable to proceed with according to the Kernow site?  When is it due for release then?

Loconuts

Very nice samples, but where is the Mainland one?

Loconuts

I am a 4mm scale 1920s era GWR modeller, albeit working to P4 standards (no EM wheels).

 

It is fairly obvious that RTR steam period models are skewed towards preserved locomotives, or those that people remember from revenue steam traffic.

 

I would suggest that the number of people who remember steam rail motors in revenue service are rather thin on the ground, so the interest in the Steam rail motor is from the preserved one running.

 

A 517 in RTR form would be an absolute headache to do - two wheelbases, inside and outside trailing frames, two boilers, open and closed cabs... the variations go on and on. Not likely! (Besides, I have the Mitchell kit)

 

The 14XX is instantly recognisable and I have no doubt at all that it will sell well when it reaches the market.

 

There are indeed many things that could be done but this does strike me at least as a sensible one.

 

No, I won't be buying it though.... 1920s GWR Is my world. I will get an Austerity body or two though, because I also like Industrials.

 

Craig W

I agree Craig that it would be a difficult model to satisfy all tastes, however a long wheeled based loco with outside frames on the trailing axle in its final rebuilt state would satisfy many peoples taste.  They were more common on GWR branches than the newer 48xx/58xx's with these replacing the 517's towards the end of the GWR.

No the reason I mentioned this as a model is I believe the trade is giving a distorted picture to British Railway History by only producing examples of preserved locos.  Case in question being the Bachmann Dukedog, only a few produced for use in the 1930's on the old Cambrian Railway, although we did see one working around Oxford.  However they ignored the more numerous Dukes which lasted quite late and served all over the system.  Bird series Bulldogs, last until BR (Seagull)

There is a wealth of pre-nationalise non- preserved locos out there which would be good sellers.  Over to you Dave and Hattons.

Loconuts

I'm not 'doing a 14xx again', in fact I'm doing it for the first time.

 

I certainly can't help the fact it's been made before either.

 

However you seem to be under the impression that it's my model. I'm afraid I'm just the manufacturer.

The commissioning company is one who has for a good many years traded model railway equipment very successfully, and I would venture to suggest know a darn sight more about what they think they can sell than either you or I.

 

Please feel free to contact them directly with the same question and I look forward to you posting their reply here.

 

Dave

I know what their reply will be, whats a 517?  the fact that the 14xx was just a modernised 517 people seem to over look it.

It is funny that the Airfix model came out in 1978 as that was the year I was commissioned to build a 7mm scale 517 (Fair Rosamund in 1920's condition) for Mike Little, the present owner of 1450.  Scratch built right down to the cab fittings.

I was also commissioned by several customers to build the successful Malcolm Mitchell 7mm scale kit of the 517 when it appeared so that might answer your question on whether it will sell.  To be honest small GWR Locos sell well, look at the Wills Small Metro and the various Pannier Tank kits that have been produced over the years.  The Wills Small Metro sold like hot cakes when it first came out and you were lucky to get your hands on one.

I know this is a commission for you on behalf of Hattons but the RTR trade just seem to be regenerating the same models, is that because they are preserved and can be scanned and less research needs to be done on the prototype?

As for producing well selling models of locos that lasted into BR days, you have been commissioned to do the GWR Steam Railmotor, long gone before WWII but it will sell well as it is ideal for small branch lines, I have built 4 on commission in 7mm scale.

Sorry for being controversial, but just wanted to point out there is a wealth of other locos waiting to be modelled out there.

Loconuts 

Why oh why are you doing the 14xx yet again, why not the more common 517 which had a longer life and lots of variations.  True they did not run into BR, but they did run late in GWR.  But with the various rebuilds it would be a best selling and long lasting model.

You could even include the only GWR Named Tank Engine ' Fair Rosamund'.

Loconuts

Two points.

 

One is that the Blue Pullman was snapped up pretty darned quickly unless you were trying to sell them with custard all over the nose ends.

 

Two is that "the best part of £100 a coach" is not entirely fair when you consider one contains a motor while trailers, whether there be one or two of them, don't.

 

Yes the price might be north of £250 but put another way that's around £160 for a motor coach (broadly in line with the price of a Kernow-commissioned weathered Western for example) and £45 each for trailers which for specially-commissioned items of limited run is not a bad price and could be compared with the £100 asked for the Kernow-commissioned two-coach unpowered gate stock set.  Or £50 a coach if you prefer.

 

Our models are getting much more expensive.  I don't see commissioned items rising in price significantly more sharply than catalogue ones.

Agree with this, just get used to the idea that one is going to pay a much more realistic price in the future.  Gone are the pile it high and sell it cheap days.  The manufacturers are going to bring in smaller batches and sell at a more realistic price.

Coming from 'O' scale these prices for 'OO' are unrealistic and how the manufacturers make a profit is a wonder.  Check out the price of the Heljan coaches 'O' gauge with the price of a 'OO' coach.

Loconuts

This is what I have done on the Collett Goods anyway (I bought a gas torch especially for that task), and will be doing much the same for a GNR(I) "S"-class 4-4-0.

 

What interested me was whether the 4mm cranks would take the cross-drilling method that "ozzyo" successfully employs in 7mm. Ozzy seems to think it will work in 4mm.

Hi, Yes you can cross drill in 4mm scale if you have got the right equipment to do it, however you will be reducing the surface area of metal to solder to.  My question is why you would want to do it?  The cross drilling and pinning of the crank to the axle is to add strength to counter act the rotational load on the two items and as you are not using the cylinders to drive the loco there is no need to pin.

I fabricated my first cranked axles from separate components and I did cross drill them, basically to stop them from falling to bits, but you are using a one piece casting so there is no fear of that happening.  As long as the crank is a good tight fit on the axle and some solder around the web and axle is applied it will be strong enough for the service you require.

It takes a long while to build a loco, so why make extra work for yourself.

Loconuts 

These are 4mm scale crank castings - quite thin in cross section. I suspect there would be quite a lot of broken drill bits.

Hi Horsetan

No need to cross drill the cranks or silver solder.  On Martins stand is a 7mm scale axle complete with eccentric sheaves, inside cranks and outside cranks mounted on a Slaters Axle.  I put that together many years ago when Martin first introduced the castings for use with his inside motion kits.  It is only soft soldered together and I think it still runs true after much handling.  I can also vouch that the soft solder route is strong enough in so far that a pannier tank I had just built decided that it would like to take flying lessons and hit the deck on the crank axle.  The chassis was bent upwards but the axle still ran true.

All you need to do is ream the axle holes so that they are a press fit on the axle, once positioned heat with a micro-blow torch and apply solder around the axle.  When fitting the cranks on the axle you will have to put a loose spacer between the side cheeks of the crank to stop it squeezing up.

Hope I have been of help.

Loconuts

Kernow will surprise you all, just wait and see.

Just seen this and I know what the surprise is, they are going to produce models that AdrianABS cannot criticise.

Loconuts

The wheels supplied with the kit are RP 25-100 I believe. Has anyone tried them on ME code 70 points?

The wheel profiles work very well with Micro-engineering track standards, however they will not work with the Peco track which is course scale and developed for these kits for use with a Triang chassis.

I am surprised to see these kits still about, quite right they appeared in the late 60's and I had forgotten that they were introduced by Stephan Poole.  I have seen a layout of the GVT where the inspection panels on the side skirt were raised up showing the outside motion.  That was many years ago, only seen it once and never again.

Loconuts

Too expensive? No but blummin expensive nevertheless and needed a bit spending on a replacement sound unit too but mine are staying put as it seems the chance of any other manufacturer doing these in 1/48th anywhere near that price is zero.

Compare the Heljan price to Bemo and Roco and they look pretty good, plus Heljan has already produced some stunning HO steam for their home market so my confidence is high. I sacrificed a 16mm one for a 009 fleet I could use more often. I have to say though that the video of the SR liveried Lyd on the L&B coaches at Woody Bay means mine will probably be often worked at the transition period so I can justify a bit of crossover of the liveries whatever the actual history was

Hi Paul, I don't know much about the prices of Bemo or Roco, however having purchased all of the MMI range with a few spare I do disagree with the blummin expensive statement.

It depends on which end of the market you are coming from, the 4mm end and yes they look expensive from the 7mm end they are not considered expensive.  This is a 1/4 scale model, not HO.  Look what you have to pay for the Blackstone HOn3 models, I believe it is around the same price as the MMI ones and they still sell very well.

I stated that they were about the same length as a British 7mm scale 4-4-0 tender loco, for a while my K-28 stood in front of a Martin Finney 'Bulldog'.  The K-28 cost me at the time £290, the 'Bulldog' sold for over £2000 pounds.

I agree the sound decoders in the first K-27's were rubbish and I now have Tsunamis fitted to the locos.  But the detail and finish is superb and I have not had a bad runner.

Also the gap between each introduction was such that you could save up between each one.  I don't suffer from my eyeballs being bigger than my wallet as many modelers in this country do, you know the ones, I want one of those and one of those etc.  Also I have nevered wanted something for nothing, if it was too expensive I will walk away.  Having built Locos for other people I have had to deal with this type of person and rather than agreeing to their price I have walked away.

No all things considering the MMI range was fairly priced, double the projected Heljan price and you would be in the MMI price range but you are paying for a 009 (4mm) Tank Engine which would be half the loco in 1/4 scale.  Also this is a projected price by Heljan, memories of the Lionheart 7mm scale 45XX which had a projected price of around £800 came in around the £1200 and yet it still sold.  If it is a good model then people will buy it, rubbish model then you can pick one up at discounted prices.

Loconuts 

Ixion have made it pay with their On30 'Coffee-Pot' based on an obscure Australian prototype where I understand the production run was 1000 followed by 1500 Hudswell Clarkes which have almost all gone and a re run in a different delivery is on its way.

 

Perhaps Heljan (and Peco) are hoping to cash in on visitors to Woody Bay in the way that 'Coffee-Pot' sales were boosted by the fact that one is preserved and some sales were to tourists - but then again the same could be said for the K Class MMI locos - perhaps they were just too big and too expensive. I remember Paul Martin (EDM) saying that the recession hit the USA harder than the UK and many proposed developments from a number of manufacturers never happened.

 

.

Hi Mike

I agree with your comments to a degree, however I did not consider the MMI K class locos too expensive.  The quality was superb and having worked in 7mm SG the price was no different than a Martin Finney kit, yet these came built and painted.  Also the MMI models came from South Korea and used lost wax castings which Precision Scale had the patterns for.  I don't consider them too big, they are no longer than a SG 4-4-0 in 7mm scale.

The recession hit the model market really hard in the States after 2008 and still affecting them.  I have two PSC vestibule coaches on order, they have been on order for 7 years and I don't expect to see them in my lifetime.

It is about time we had some British RTR so good luck to the ventures, but manufacturers please don't forget there are a lot of 7mm Narrow Gauge modelers out there.

Loconuts

As an ill informed commentator I would like to say the next manufacturing base will be.................North Korea.  How do I know, well my friend in Taiwan who has a plastic moulding company is moving his plant from China to there.  Reason, to get over the labour shortages and to keep his prices down.  The company was originally set up in Taiwan, however his workers paid for better education of their children who now do not want to work on the shop floor of a factory but want to work in a nice clean office environment.  The same is happening in China.

​I wish to say thank you to Dave (DJ Models) for backing my views on the Bubble Bursting on the UK manufacturers which was on another thread, I was considered consensus for those remarks by some,  Apologises will be excepted on a postcard.  They know who they are.

I hope that the Bubble does not burst in the near future and if the slowing down of the American market starts to pick up we might find that the British market slowing down.

Loconuts

Not my scale or scene, but it is sure good to see someone else are making a move into RTR narrow gauge, the other being Bachmann with their Baldwin in 009.

However to give you guys some idea as to the minimum numbers that have to be manufactured in order to get a decent turn around for their investment.  I was told by Precision Scale about the number of  MMI models they needed was 5000 units and they needed to achieve a certain number of pre-orders before they started cutting metal.

They failed to achieve enough pre-orders to go into production with the C-21 and the other D&RGW models announced to be viable concerns and the MMI division was shut down.  The same could happen here if Heljan or Bachmann fail to see a sizeable number of pre-orders.

So if you want one or two, stop speculating and put your money where your mouth is or it won't happen.

Loconuts

The more import thing is, what colour are the boxes and are they shiny or matt.  Also how many could you pack in a cupboard!!!!!!!

Loconuts

This is to Arthur, do you ever study the prototype because LSWR locos did not have clack valves mounted on the smokebox and as far as I know no loco had that feature.  The LSWR Adams locos had lubricators mounted on the smoke box.  Clack valves were used to feed water to the boiler so would not be a lot of good feeding it to the smoke box.  The Highland 103's did not have this feature but did have a builders plate fixed to the smoke box side and the lubricators were down at footplate level.

It is not a Adams T3 as the frames are the wrong shape, unless Oxford Rail have made an error.

Loconuts

I cannot see the picture becoming any clearer with the days, and as the mistyness could be smoke, could this not be a smokescreen.

They say they are producing '00' railways, but not which scale and seeing 0n30 runs on 16.5 gauge track it could be a Welsh Narrow Gauge prototype in 7mm scale.  Say a Double Fairlie?

I mentioned earlier about a Welsh Radial, here it is.  It ran on the Brecon and Merthyr Railway.

Loconuts

I'll bite! Really don't think there is much in it between the Radial and the H, when it comes to packing in a good mechanism.

 

The first thing not to do on an 0-4-4T is copy Hornby's layout from the M7. I doubt there's another OO/HO 0-4-4T available to copy, so any designer is on their own. But the H does boast a decent pair of side tanks running back from the rear coupled wheelset to the cab: bags of room there for concealing motor and gear train driving the rear coupled axle, leaving the space forward vacant for the largest lump of dense material that can be fitted for mass over the drivers. Decoder socket and space in the bunker, leaving the cab clear.

 

Now look at the Radial. Tiny little side tanks, a boiler barely bigger than a tea urn, cab that has to be see through. While it may not have the balance problem intrinsic to the 0-4-4T, it's going to need a very carefully arranged miniature mechanism to produce a fully concealed drive.

Having built an M7 in both 4mm & 7mm scale I know that it is feasible to produce a chassis that stops the usual bunker yawing and balancing the weight distribution.  With the 4mm model I used the Guy Williams method of constructing the chassis as a 0-8-0 with a pivot point behind the rear drivers thus allowing the chassis to flex with front and rear pivots.  In 7mm scale I just reversed the method I used for 4-4-0's involving side control springing and the rear of the loco supported on the centre of the bogie.  The side control springing controlling the swing of the bunker and leading the loco into the curve.

Now on the 7mm scale Adams radial I built the chassis as a 4-6-0 with the rear axle sprung vertically, side control on the front bogie.  The gear drive on the rear axle with the motor pointing forward and contained within the driving wheel wheelbase.  I would think this method would work on a 4mm version and leave room for a decoder, not a problem I had in any of these build as DCC had not been developed then.

Unfortunately chassis design has not been a strong point with RTR manufacturers which has given rise of companies like Brassmasters.