cctransuk

Mick, Words are words - they mean different things to different people; that is not a valid reason to label a particular phrase invalid. In this instance, Tony has - on many an occasion - explained in detail his concept of a 'layout locomotive', and the vast majority of those who read his posts understand the context. OK - some lazy modellers will use the term 'layout locomotive' in another context to excuse sloppy modelling - so what? The English language has been used and abused from time immemorial - your dismissal of the term 'layout locomotive' as invalid will have no effect whatsoever in its usage here and elsewhere. Regards, John Isherwood.

It is indeed - I have assembled and run-in two this afternoon; simplicity itself. Regards, John Isherwood.

It is abundantly clear that Locomotion are critically understaffed. Trying to manage the production of commission models, plus distribution and communication, is beyond the capabilities of a single person. I suspect that they are trying to run the operation on a shoe-string in order to keep the product price at what they conceive to be an acceptable level. All very laudable, but if the consequent distribution chaos has a more negative impact than a somewhat higher price, nothing has been gained and, potentially, much has been lost. Regards, John Isherwood.

No doubt - but I've never understood why. I can demonstrate that driving the rear axle works fine and is, I would contend, more logical as the centre axle of a 'layout loco' requires a fair degree of sideplay. Regards, John Isherwood.

Purely as a matter of interest, the attached diagram shows how I am currently re-chassising three old Airfix ex-LMS 4Fs, and I have used exactly the same mechanism to re-chassis three ex-LMS 3Fs from various sources. I have several Airfix ex-LMS 2Ps to re-chassis, and these will follow the diagram below. In a completely different sphere, a model of GT3 was powered as below; and a tender-drive Hornby 9F will be rechassied thus :- A couple of BR 3MT 2-6-2Ts and a trio of BR 3MT 2-6-0s will be fitted with chassis along these lines :- An old Mainline BR 4MT 4-6-0 and a kit-bashed BR 5MT 4-6-0 are scheduled for rechassising :- I could go on - these are just a few of my past, present and future projects; I just wished to demonstrate that it is possible nowadays to power most chassis without the mechanism being visible. Regards, John Isherwood.

Tony, Lovely model - and please don't take my negative comments personally; I would agree that a 'fit and forget' ready-assembled gearbox is ideal for the first time chassis builder. My point was that, if a novice can solder two frames together with spacers, square enough to produce a smooth-rolling chassis, he / she can DEFINITELY assemble a High Level chassis. The latest iteration of these is fool-proof, and the instructions are exemplary - you really would have to try very hard to mess one up! This is NOT a commercial for High Level gearboxes - there are excellent alternatives - but the HL range is so broad and accommodating that it should be possible to find a solution to virtually any drive requirement WITHOUT the drive train being visible. To any modeller - novice or expert - I would say; if you haven't visited http://173.254.28.51/~highlev3/chris/Pages/gearboxplanningpage.html already, you really should do. Regards, John Isherwood. PS. It DOES read like a commercial, doesn't it? Just my personal experience of building very many chassis with these excellent gearboxes.

I'm afraid that I have to agree re visible gearboxes - it just isn't necessary nowadays, and someone of Tony's abilities can easily build a High Level gearbox that has no equals - even from DJH. If missing or incorrect lamps offend the eye, then surely a great rectangular slab of metal, where the lower section of a boiler and fresh air should be, must be far more intrusive? I know that we all have priorities, and that Tony's are robust construction and haulage ability, but there ARE alternatives to the kind of inflexible mechanism that was unavoidable in times past. Tony can clearly use his 'Nelson's blind eye' when it comes to such matters, but his less experienced followers would be mislead if they were to get the impression that such compromise is inevitable in order to ensure good running. Sorry to be 'negative', but it had to be said; nonetheless, Rule 1 overrides all criticism. Regards, John Isherwood.

Ooops - oh yes I do; BL57 @ https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm . Soooo long ago since I was asked to do it !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Paul, I don't do the BBE as a transfer sheet - yet !!! Regards, John.

Well - they won't sell any to me unless they do the 'as introduced' livery - and correctly at that ! Until then, I'll stick to my modified Lima BOGIE BOLSTER Es. Regards, John Isherwood.

DELETED

No - a duplication of the OO Lima / Hornby model. Regards, John Isherwood.

Sorry - the first transaction should have read December 2016. Of course, that was post-Leave vote - but I'll still get a better rate now than when I last went Down Under. I wouldn't regard 1.75 as a 'nose-dive' from 2.00; 12.5% is well within the range that I recall Sterling oscillating against European currencies in pre-Euro days. Regards, John Isherwood.

Well - against the Euro and some other currencies, perhaps. I have today been checking the Pound Sterling / Dollar Australian; December 2015 - 1.66, September 2018 - 1.75. I'm not complaining! Regards, John Isherwood.

You didn't put the plastic floor in to reduce weight - K's didn't supply a cast one !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Oh - come on !! That's got to be the over-statement of the year !! Both the UK and the EU have too many of their financial interests at stake to allow Brexit to get too far out of hand. We are now at the 'who will blink first' stage - which may indeed continue right up to next Spring's deadline. Even if there is a theoretical No Deal exit, you can be absolutely certain that there are too many vested interests, on both sides, to let a financial situation develop where trade, and more pertinently, profit and dividends, take a dive. Yours cynically, John Isherwood.

MTK DMU kits were perfectly capable of being turned into nice models - I built a GRCW two-car set back in the late 1970s and it looked and ran a treat. I have always regretted selling it when I moved away from the BR blue era. Regards, John Isherwood.

I believe that it was a combined buffer / coupler. On the model, it fitted into a keyhole shaped recess in the rear of the van chassis - I'd guess that the prototype had something similar, but with a locking device. Regards, John Isherwood.

I'll take them if no-one has got there before me. Regards, John Isherwood.

What could be seen in that clip is the road wheels retracting into the voids within the chassis. Regards, John Isherwood.

My recollection is that the prototype, and the model, had an underfloor chassis structure, with the bodysides extending to the bottom of the chassis structure. Thus, although the wheels appeared to be recessed, they actually sat within the chassis structure and behind the extended sides. Regards, John Isherwood.

This particular discussion relates to the new Peco-branded ex-Parkside kits - which formerly were supplied with Markits wheels but now, apparently, are supplied with Gibson wheels. The wheels supplied with the venerable Peco Wonderful Wagons kits were (are still?) moulded in hard nylon - 'Hardlon' in Peco-speak. These were (are?) commendably concentric and free-rolling - but they attract track-muck like magnets; (static electricity, being nylon)? Regards, John Isherwood.

Eight years retired - and still they tell me how I should (have) do(ne) my job !! Anyone can state how the ideal cycle facility should be built from the cyclists' standpoint - the hard part is reconciling those, (and they're all different), with the equally forcefully felt demands of all the other categories of road user, the physical reality of how little highway space is available, and with how little money the powers-that-be are willing to spend. Only when you have done that - for the best part of forty years - can you tell me how it should be done. Thank God I got out after forty years - this last few days have forcefully reminded me how many people there are around with huge opinions and little practical knowledge. End of my input to this thread. Regards, John Isherwood.

This was from the outset, the central plank of the cycleway network that we set about creating in Cambridge. Unfortunately, that policy was widely criticised by the local cycling pressure group as relegating cyclists to a second or third-class status, and that policy has in recent years developed towards providing high-cost cycling infrastructure within the curtilage of the major radial routes serving that city. This is as it should be nowadays, but it was and is my contention that it was necessary for the provision of cycle facilities to evolve over time. The success of lower-key facilities eventually persuaded those who hold the purse-strings to invest in the higher-impact schemes. That evolution was hampered by cycling pressure groups demanding that we skipped any form of evolution, and morphed directly from the 'amoeba to the primate' in a single step. On the other hand, the vast majority of everyday cyclists seemed to appreciate and use the alternative routes via parallel secondary roads. Just my experience as the officer who frequently had to justify policy at hostile public meetings and in the local press. Regards, John Isherwood.

I joined local government engineering in 1971 and, until 1984 we - (myself, wife and two children) - never owned a motor vehicle. All local travel, professional and leisure, was undertaken by pedal-cycle in a busy city with probably the highest cycle-use in the UK. At the time of our arrival, that city had zero cycle facilities. Over the subsequent forty years our engineering team - the majority of whom were cycle-users - developed cycling and shared-use facilities which were way ahead of practice elsewhere. Indeed, the DoT authorised special experimental regulations to enable us to 'push the envelope'. Visiting parties of highway professionals regularly came to see what we were doing - from within the UK and the rest of the world. So, I think that I can reassure you that we professionals - at least within my team - had a more than adequate understanding of the needs of cyclists for a safe environment; along with a clear impression of the prejudices of some cyclists (and their pressure groups) against any facility that does not provide for maximum convenience for cyclists, regardless of inconvenience and compromise of safety amongst other road-users. This may be unpalatable - but it is fact. Regards, John Isherwood.