johnarcher

Thank you, I have PM'd you my email address.

Thank you, I'll let you know. Yes, I have read comments about the complexity of the bogies - did you do them as they come? Are they worth the elaboration, or could one use kit parts to make, basically, cosmetic sideframes to go on a MJT CCU?

Has anyone, by any chance, an instruction leaflet for a Slaters D14 Brake Third kit, that they would be prepared to spare, sell, copy, loan or whatever? I picked up a kit on eBay, the kit seems OK but the instruction booklet in it is for a Midland 6-wheeler. Which is of little help, especially with the bogies. I could return the kit, but I'd like to use it if possible, they're not that easy to get hold of. Actually I suppose the instructions for any of the Slaters Dean clerestories would be useful, if anyone can help.

Ah, well, I have just been stubbornly seeking a Perseverance 48xx kit, (eventually, I hope, getting one from Chris Parrish) when I suppose I could put an Airfix body on a Comet or High Level chassis for about half the price, or simply have a RTR one for less still, and improve/detail it for not much more. Choices as you say, personal taste - for me modelling is about making things, buying ready-made defeats the object.

Me too. Though basic use of saws is still taught in schools (or was a few years ago when I taught), and do those things really need to be taught there for people to learn them anyway? I learned to solder adequately (on a good day) with an Iain Rice chapter and some practice (and some Burn-eze). If someone can't solder or cut straight with a saw it's because they don't want, or don't need, or can't be bothered to learn I suppose. Up to them, but it's boring if that has become the norm.

Has anyone any suggestions on what constituted the Presteigne branch train in the 1920's and 30's? There doesn't seem to be a proper book on the line, and I've found pre-WW1 and 1950's pictures on line but nothing in between. (just an idea I'm tempted by for a few reasons, a little more information would help decide whether to pursue it further).

I did ask DJ, but they said it's up to Hatton's and I had to ask them. Maybe that will change at some time.

I didn't see that mention, but I should have realised that, as you've made astronomical numbers of locomotives, there had to be some GW ones in there somewhere. You are wise to be so sure of what interests you, I can dither indefinitely.

OK of course about 'pushing', but please let's have a look at the 16xx anyway. I should just remind of a post on here a while ago (#4179) about the insidious attractiveness of things GW, maybe you should have some sort of inoculation before doing the 16xx or, before you know it, you'll be converting Little Bytham into Bodmin Road. Of course those who use unaltered RTR shouldn't be criticised, attacked or imprisoned (well, not for long), but if it is considered elitist to find things made more interesting than things bought (I'd walk straight past a pure RTR layout at an exhibition, unless it's scenically brilliant), or to regret the effect of the strength of RTR on the market for kits and bits then I can put up with it. I do recognise, as I said, that it's easier for me to make as I prefer simpler prototypes (2 or 3 locos rather than 40 or 50).

Hello Tony. I take it it's the 16xx pannier, i was just emailing Dave about when it might appear. I'm sure being Finecast it will be, well, fine, but I (and no doubt others) would be grateful to see something of the build, as I'm considering one. After the J6 please push him to do the GW 2021 (I asked about that too, but it doesn't seem all that imminent). (Yes, GW people, I know 16xx and 2021 don't overlap by much , I would probably do one or the other, though they do, just).

I agree with all this, I have always found big later engines less fascinating (even Kings), maybe what you say is part of the reason. For good-looking tender engines I'd say almost anything of Dean's, but I also have a taste for a variety of smaller-boilered 0-6-0 goods engines - J15, Ilfracombe, LNW coal engine etc.

Recently we've had comments about the good looks of the 44xx and the V2. Any other nominations for especially handsome locomotives? (I don't only like GW ones, I think the J15 is very attractive (both the GE and Irish versions), and the Beattie well tank). GW Mogul's nice too.

Very nice (the 44xx, I think, was a particularly handsome locomotive, done justice here). Mind you I can't really imagine me building a K's chassis for P4, but the body castings were pretty good, and I'd put a K's body on a Comet, High Level or Percy chassis.

You're welcome to the phrase Tony. (If you don't mind using a RTR simile).

I agree about Jidenco, ( I remember an 01 kit), and also that some K's ones were OK (I must keep an eye open for another 44xx kit, I wish I could afford the Mitchell one). It is ranges like K's that have got a bit rare, I suppose the sales of popular prototypes (the 14xx, 57xx I mentioned, now RTR) subsidised the rest of the range? I wasn't objecting to people using RTR, as I said personal preference, but I do regret that its prevalence (and quality) seems to make 4mm kits less viable commercially, affecting those who like the making for its own sake. Personally I'd rather deal with a dubious kit, and restrict my plans to what I can make in a reasonable time (the type of prototype I like makes that easier) than use RTR, but that's just my choice. Buying something ready-made if I could make it seems a bit like getting someone else to eat my favourite food for me.

You're right of course, I suppose in a way I'm lucky in that I'm not especially keen on mainlines, but am fascinated by small, rural, light, branch etc prototypes. So it is more practical to follow the P4 route, despite, at my time of life, having limited time. As you say, it's different if you want a mainline prototype. Incidentally, when you say 'without all the hassle' you mean making or adapting models? I suppose there are two approaches to the hobby, on the one hand one is mainly interested in the finished result, and, as some have said on here, will feel that when a RTR model appears it is no longer 'necessary' to make a model of that prototype. On the other hand for some the making is an interest in itself, and a self-made result (from scratch or kit) is far more satisfying than a bought one. Being in the latter camp I rather regret the developments of 15 years ago that you mention, look at the popular prototypes (Terrier, Beattie well tank, 14xx, 57xx) for which I don't think there is a current kit, presumably because of the popularity of the RTR version. Both approaches are fine, of course, a personal choice, but it's a shame if the success of the first limits the second.

When someone answers 'good' to 'how are you' it always sounds to me like a claim that they are virtuous. (A claim that is not always justified).

I would really like to put one of these on a High Level chassis (if my current quest for a Perseverance kit doesn't work), but it's a lot to pay nearly £100 for one of these, 40-odd for the chassis plus motor, wheels etc., as Hattons say they don't plan to sell the body shells separately. Maybe eventually one could sell the DJ chassis?

It looks a fine model, but it does seem an odd choice. Surely a GW one that survived into BR days would have had wider appeal? It also duplicates the Comet kit, which (with Phoenix and Mallard apparently hard to get) seems to be the only kit one now (I could be wrong there, haven't really searched) - so maybe for a GW trailer it is still a matter of butchering the old Airfix one? I'm not really moaning (I don't really want an auto-trailer at the moment), just thought I'd balance some of the discussion of Eastern coaches recently. By the way, does anyone know what is the situation with Phoenix now?

Yes, that's partly why I look at unmade kits on eBay, ones you can't get now, and am tempted but haven't bought one yet - it's hard to be sure some crucial bit isn't missing. One was on a while ago where the seller had never even opened the box (it still had old sellotape on it) and wasn't prepared to do so, yet it sold for a good price.

Thanks for your help yet again.. I wish I could buy all the books again, but if I did I couldn't afford any kits, so I rely on online sources which clearly have their limitations - Gwr.org gives A31 as 59' 6".

On eBay at the moment is a Mallard kit for a 57' autocoach, bow-ended. It doesn't say what diagram, I can't see a 57' Mallard or Blacksmith one in the GW.org listing, and the picture on the box lid has number 219, which I think was a K16 full brake? I haven't decided to bid, but I'd be interested if anyone knows what it is anyway?

Isn't he Harpo Marx? Appropriate for the period. But, more importantly, they look excellent figures - I'm glad they are to appear in 3mm scale especially, a scale a bit short of good quality figures.

Hello Kevin I didn't intend to accuse you of that, or anything. Sorry if it seemed so., It was just that the word 'trouble' seemed an odd choice. If more people are designing for visual accuracy then that is presumably what they prefer. It would be a 'trouble' if that approach were forgotten - as it wouldn't then be available to those who might prefer it, but maybe not if it's just neglected (ie less common) due to more people choosing to do things differently. I don't really see how it can be a forgotten art (even if not so dominant as it once was) - anyone can look at , and admire, Buckingham , for instance. As you say everyone is free to follow their different preferences, and looking at discussions here and elsewhere when people are planning layouts there seems to be at least as much talk about operational possibilities as anything else.

Why 'trouble'? If someone prefers railway modelling in the sense of modelling a bit of real railway, even if that limits the sort of operation many other people prefer, why is that a problem? After all there's still plenty of the other sort about. Why assume operation is more important than appearance - either can be more important to the individual.= - 'one man's meat', 'chacun a son gout' etc I doubt if Mr Lamacraft suddenly regrets his beautiful model of Hemyock because it can't be operated like Paddington (or Buckingham) - no problem for him or anyone else.