Craigw

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 checked that when first looking - they were Gibson wheels, not Ultrascale! Quite a premium for them it seems. Craig w

I was watching a 4mm scale Malcolm Mitchell/David Geen 517. The price last night (my time) was GBP 110 and I figured that it would stay somewhere around that price. Wrong! The final sale price was GBP 235. Unless I am mistaken, the 517 is still available and for considerably less than that? Craig W

David, that really does look nice! I am a confirmed GWR modeller but everytime I see that the Gibson J15 and E4 are available I have to exercise great will power. One question though, are there balance weights fitted to the driving wheels? Craig W

I am another from Sydney, living in the Campbelltown area. I model GWR to P4 standards, and there are a few other P4 modellers in the Sydney area too. I was involved in NSW modelling for a long time, indeed my name is still listed in the AMRM contributing authors team! Craig W

I am sure you are quite correct on that, just as i am equally sure there are a few that seem to want to set themselves up as some sort of moral majority and howel down dissenting opinions. Provided a discourse remains civil, there should not need to be moderation. That usually comes in when people from one side or the other resort to name calling and abuse. Craig W

Ian, I am sure it is tirelessly self indulgent and a lll those other things. Plus more. But why is it that people who are critical of the accuracy of a model the ones who seem to get singled out? There are any number of posts on here and other threads from people saying they will by 5 when it is released, lamenting the fact that they really wanted something else or complaining about the cost. Yet that sort of inane line is considered acceptable. I don't subscribe to the "if it looks like a ...it is a ..." either. My Triang 3F tank that I got for my 5th Birthday in 1969 looked like one, but I am rather glad that things have moved on. If I can take the time to scroll past the posts that I find boring, I don't see why others cannot make the same effort. If a group of people want to discuss the cab dimensions let them. If you don't want to then don't. Craig W

"If you want the 'perfect' model then either build it yourself or commission it from one of the handful of professional builders who could meet your standards. It'll cost a tad more than Kernow's 02 will......" Ok, I have read through the previous few pages and I certainly cannot see anyone saying they want a "perfect" 02. I saw some comments about the size of the vent holes and others commenting on the proportions of the cab. Things that looking at a photo may, or may not clear up. But nowhere at all do any of the ones who are being critical of the model ask for a perfect model. Some people don't like this and belly ache that we have never had it so good. The same thing was being said about never having it so good was being said 10 years ago, should everything have stopped at that standard?. Seriously, some are happy with the model, and some have a few doubts about things. What is the problem if they voice concerns? Craig W

No Aaron, the cabs in the photo are 36 class cabs. They have a handrail below the cab window, which is something the 58 class did not have. Look again at the photos. As I said, there are (or were) 58 class cabs there - just not the ones in the photograph. Craig W

I live in Campbelltown and the line has been obliterated all the way to Narellan. There is a bit of the embankment heading out from Campbelltown station but that is it. Narellan road is now 3 lanes either direction and the whole area is a sea of houses quite unlike what it was when I moved out to this area in 1991. You can still follow a fair bit of the line from Narellan out to Camden though, and the old dairy still exists as does the platform at Camden, albeit in a former car yard Regards, Craig

Martin, I think you have raised a very good point here. Trying to fit a prototype station into a given space can create "opportunities" (I use this term instead of saying problems at work!) and I always took what yourself and Miss prism had said as that the changes in curvature from doing that had altered the context of some of the features that existed at the real station. So, if you "correct " for the alignment changes you lose some of the essential characteristics of the real thing. It is indeed a difficult choice. That being said, I have a bit of a thing for Iain Rice plans. He has produced some wonderfully inspiring ideas and I do like the look of this. Western branches are always talked about as a modelling cliche, yet so very few of them are ever done properly. If you follow through in this form Nick, with correct stock I think it will be a ripper. The fact that it is going to be P4 puts the tick in the final box for me. Craig W

You are getting yourself very confused here by not understanding the way that the NSWGR functioned. The railways were always starved of capital to buy new stock, but they could fairly easily use revenue money to fund rebuilding work. In the case of the 35 class, there were issues becoming obvious with them in the 1930s and they were totally rebuilt in the late 1930s. Amongst the work was new frames and new cabs. There was also a great deal of other work done. Indeed, the reality was that there was not all that much of the original used. But, because it used some of the original the railways could class it as renewal work. The fact that it was totally rebuilt is the reason that many (including me) object to painting the loco blue. It is erroneuous and deceptive to tell the public the loco was blue when it simply was not. other, less polite people that myself would call it an outright lie and distorting history. The 32 class do not have curved frames and never did. The original frames were 1" thick and with superheating being introduced and the frames ageing it was found that a good number of the 32 class were getting frame fractures. Once again, the railways did a rebuild and a good number of the class were rebuilt with new frames 1 1/8" thick and with the boiler centre line raised by 4". This rebuilding occurred from the late 1930s until the early 1950s but not all locos were treated. The common term to describe them in later years was high and low framers although most people still refer to them as the P class. 3203, 3214 and 3237 are all high frame locos, while 3265 is the only surviving locos fitted with original frames - albeit they were built up in the 1920s or 30s to accommodate a superheated boiler and extended smokebox. Will 3642 eventually need new frames? Who knows. At that point interest may switch to restoring one of the other 36 class to service. A 38 class needing new frames will be a serious issue indeed because they have cast frames. Replacing frames is not undertaken casually, it is a big job. never been done in NSW preservation to the best of my knowledge. Craig W

The cabs in the photo are actually from a belpaire 36 class, notionally from the two that were not converted from round top boilers (3622 and 3663). There are (or were ) some other cabs that were from the 58 class order. These were originally from Enfield and moved to Thirlmere. Craig W

Dave, I have to agree with you about the resin casting. In this case it seems like a very sensible use of the medium and indeed the right one for the job. I have an interest in military modelling and the use of resin casting in that field is widespread and at an advanced level compared to this field. I have some detailing sets by K59 productions for a Tamiya Marder that are simply amazing. Enjoying the build a great deal Dave, it really does look good. Regards, Craig

Mine arrived in the post today (great service) and it does look very tempting. I have to finish a Nigel Lawton Simplex and fitting a Brassmasters chassis to a Bachmann 3F before I can start on it though. On the bright side though, I should be well aware of any issues by that time.... Looking great Dave, the more I look at things like this (and my collection of KB scale kits) the less appeal standard gauge has! Regards, Craig W

That really does look nice. I understand the attraction of RTR, but that is in a different class altogether - well done.

Looks good so far Dave, I assume the fair bit of cleaning up was filling the cusps and squaring up the layers which you look to have done? Is yours being done to On 16.5? Keep up the good work and updates, at least one person is interested. Regards, Craigw

Nothing so simple Kenton. I saw the review of the model in Narrow Gauge and Industrial a couple of issues ago and intended to get one but got distracted as is my way. Seeing the start of the build on here stirred me into action. The kit was shipped last night so now comes the opportunity of finding out if the airmail this time around uses a jet or a carrier pigeon. Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing this build. Craigw

I just sent an email to Neil and received a reply a few minutes later. He must be having a late night (I am in Australia). He has the kit in stock and I am now 175 GBP lighter... Regards, Craigw

Dave, This is one of those kits that screams out to me to add to my stash (seen in the review), so I am looking forward to the build. I have a feeling that nothing you say or show will stop me buying it! Regards, Craigw

Coach, The 47XX entered traffic fitted with 3500 gallon tenders. The first of the Collett 400 gallon tenders were lot A113 which were delivered between September 1926 and July 1928. This is the lot built with the twin fillers although according to the Finney notes there were other differences fro the later tenders. Regards, Craigw

From looking at photographs, there were 3 changes that were implemented on the Churchward 3500 gallon tenders during the 1920s. The first seems to have been introduced with the tenders used on the Castle class and then eventually retrofitted to other tenders (including eventually 2500 and 300 gallon tenders). This was the beefed up springs which are very obvious by having a straight top rather than the more familiar curve of the springs. Whilst shown in a photo of 4073 in grey in August 1923, it seems to have been slower to implement on other tenders. The earliest photo I have seen them on another class is of a Star at Oxford in May 1925 (GWRJ 30) The strengthening bracket is a later modification - the Castle class locos built with 3500 gallon tenders did not have it up to at least the 6/27 entry into service locos (5006 shown in Russell). There is a very good photo of a County 4-4-0 fitted with a modified tender in 1930 (Great Western Scene plate 2). The third modification is the transverse vacuum cylinder. This was not in use on any of the tenders on the Castle class up to 6/27 (5006 as above) and the earliest definite one I can find is the County photo above. They become progressively more common through the 1930s even appearing on some 3000 gallon tenders. Anyone who feels like looking at photographs and trying to become a bit more precise on this please do. I would suspect that GA drawings if they survive would have ammendment details to cover these. All we need are GA and detail drawings! Regards, Craig W

Clive, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next aluminium foil hat wearing cupboard dweller, but let us be realistic here. The main person pointing things out is Martin who produces Templot - for free. Templot will still be downloaded and installed - for free - by people who work in scales or gauges other than OO. So, where or what is this vested interest? Regards, Craigw

Miss Prism, According to the Martin Finney instructions, lot A113 comprised of tenders number 2384-2403. By my count that is twenty, so plainly not all King class were even fitted with these tenders unless ten on A117 were built to the design as well. Regards, Craigw

Coachmann, I have been reading through the Finney and Mitchell 4000 gallon tender instructions and there was only one lot built with that configuration. All others had a single filler. The earlier lots had a patch over the spots where the twin fillers had been in the original design - this was later removed. If anyone has the instruction they could post which lot and quantity were built with the twin fillers. regards, Craig W