pom-pom

Yes, the finish needs to be somewhere halfway between the two... ;-) I wonder if the Hornby dome comes off easily? Perhaps it could be put aside whilst a replacement whitemetal one from say the Southeastern Finecast kit could be experimented upon.

It's interesting to see these two alongside each other and emphatically shows just how over-shiny that dome is on the 0-4-4! I'm aware that they were polished but such a high lustre doesn't seem to transfer directly to 4mm scale realistically.

Or thirdly, to stripe just one side on the basis that one can never see both sides at the same time of course. An option for the indecisive.

The sanding pipes are more likely to be accurately pointing in the right place; it's the wheels that aren't in the right place at 16.5 mm apart.

Such a shame, so near yet so far. Smokebox handrails are bent upwards toward the front but at least it's the same angle as the frame 'ski-jump'. Nice to be consistent. Dome isn't attached very well in the Rails example either. I would think that Hornby have by now missed out on many A1/A3 sales since the assembly line issues started appearing. Really is a shame as otherwise it's a nice model.

Congratulations on your retirement - that sounds like an immensely satisfying plan, re., layout planning in the loft. Some of us can but dream from afar! Regards, Nick

Quite agree. I actually work creating websites/applications for mobile devices and many aspects of life have changed for the better, a simple example being the immediate availability of internet information and/or services in our pocket and in 'phoning we now call the recipient rather than the recipient's house. Having said that, your comment on how these devices are used reminds me of the comment oft used by the pro-gun lobby in America: it's not guns that kill people it's the people using guns. And so it is with smartphones... all that's required is a bit of decency and common manners; switch the thing off when appropriate, don't interact with it when in conversation or even the company of another person. But try telling that to a 'social-media' addict... they won't even hear most likely. Drives me nuts. And I do like the solutions mentioned here regarding disconnecting a rude person's call and throwing 'phones in water butts... even though I'd never dare!

Apologies to you Sir for misattributing your fine work earlier. The sweat exuded and the trials and tribulations experienced are represented magnificently in your description of the works! To extract the salient points, if you'll excuse my cheek, and for future builders of McGowan kits here is a summary of what one should expect: an epic demanded a lot of alteration had to be replaced a swine I could see no hope filed off MASSES of whitemetal an appalling joke provided lumpy bits filed another load of metal off none of the major components of the kit actually registered with one another in any obviously "correct" or "intended" way last thing I wanted to find myself doing caused enough headaches Said much tongue-in-cheek..!

That's fantastic Tony, I am quite taken aback that such a convincing representation would result from a box of small horrors. You've given me inspiration to look at mine from a new more positive perspective. The speed at which you have accomplished this is an interesting reflective point. Had you been constantly sidetracked by trivial corrective processes you would still be at the "filing masses of metal off" stage yet here we are two days later and what you have is unmistakenly a D9 despite small dimensional errors. Something there for many of us to learn. Mobile phones... yes... it both amuses and horrifies me to see groups of people who have met and gone out somewhere yet are completely in ignorance of their companions as they tap, tap, tap away. Even my girlfriend sits bathed in the cold grim light of a LCD screen on the sofa each evening, tap, tap, tapping. I wonder what the statistics are on road traffic accidents caused by texting-pedestrians wandering into the paths of vehicles. Even the phones are irritating - the art of handwriting replaced by one-digit tap, tap, tapping. I know how to spell but my finger misses or hits adjacent keys to those intended... the result is rubbish... only to be further belittled by the spell-shecker software kicking in, offering to correct all my awful mistakes. And yes, allowing a phone streaming endless 'social media' notifications to take precedence over interaction with someone in person is the height of bad manners! Nick

This is most useful to know, thanks. So it would appear the McGowan D9 boiler plus cladding diameter is slightly large and in fact nearer that of the D10. The very slight ovality to the boiler is greater in the vertical plane and so if one wanted to go to the extent of some serious filing on the top surface, as you did with the B4 then things could be corrected. However, taking a look at Tony's commendable finished efforts I would be hard pushed to notice. For sure, taking a close look at details reveals limitations of the castings and their fit but overall I am convinced that I am looking at a rebuilt D9... the end result and the speed in which it was accomplished is impressive. I am certainly now reevaluating the potential of my kit of 'lumpy bits of metal'.

What an amazing view. Is this "old layout" Buckingham Central by any chance? That looks to be a GCR 11B, having the original 4' 9" diameter boiler and shorter firebox.

Thanks for that, I knew I had seen it on here somewhere. And reading the text there's yet another approach to mounting the front bogie using a pin in a curved slot... perhaps this is the best approach for a locomotive with outside cylinders? I'm unsure but would welcome an education on the merits of both approaches. If I recall correctly, the new Hornby B12 has just such a pin running in a curved slot but this is of course an inside cylinder machine. I do like Tony's solution on the D9 as what with the tender bearing slightly on the rear of the locomotive frame and the front being sprung slightly upwards by the bogie attachment method the inherent heavy forward weight distribution problem of a 4-4-0 is seemingly solved.

There's negligible difference between the two on the McGowan D9 boiler hence Tony's measurement of the smokebox diameter being approximately equivalent to a measurement of the boiler diameter which as you can see comes out at 23.5mm, i.e., an overall scale 5' 10.5" diameter. In reality, it's probably not going to be noticeable and we, sorry I, are delving deep into rivet-counting territory!

Hello Tony, yes, I think with Michael's helpful alert regarding the necessity for boiler cladding thickness to be taken into consideration we are now surely approaching very near correct dimensions. I'm fascinated to see your progress, yes please. As an aside, I've seen this McGowan B4 model (below) somewhere here on RMweb but can't fathom whereabouts: I was under the impression that you had constructed this Tony? Apologies extended if incorrect. But the salient point is that with considerable will the most challenging of McGowan offerings can be built into something above and beyond presentable... inspiration and a glimmer of hope for all those peering into McGowan boxes with an air of despair! Nick

Some would say the GCR atlantic was "one of the best proportioned locos ever" and it is a tantalist. I would venture that one way of approaching such a model would be to salvage what is useable from the McGowan kit but acquire a sacrificial Bachmann O4 for the smokebox/boiler/firebox assembly which I believe is the same. The O4's chassis might well be used as the basis for a Q4 if you have a Millholme Q4 kit lying about. The Bachmann O4 ROD tender could also be modified and assimilated into the fold. This is off the top of my head so please excuse me if I've overseen any glaring dimensional errors with the above little lot!

Aha, yes good point there. I've not seen a drawing, only gleaned information from the literature in which the thickness of the cladding is quite probably omitted from quoted diameters. However, and being rather pedantic, that still leaves an oversize diameter for the McGowan boiler, albeit only by about 2mm now (i.e., 23mm equates to 5' 9")... barely noticeable.

Much obliged Tony for the insight into your build. It just goes to show that the McGowan kit does actually go together well in the right skilled hands. I'm most interested in your approach to the chassis vis a vis the bogie attachment and its springing. I am still battling with an old DJH D6 which was designed to pivot the bogie on a bolt mounted vertically under the smokebox but your approach seems emminently more satisfactory. It's also interesting to learn of your findings on the dimensions on the etched splasher overlay. Talking of dimensions, the boiler diameter discrepancy I noted was that ultimately all D9s were fitted with 5' 0" diameter boilers which equates to 20mm in 4mm/ft scale. The McGowan boiler is approximately 23mm in diameter which is of course a scale 9" oversize. However, upon re-examination of the boiler castings the section is nowhere near as oval as I thought it was. Drawings-wise, the only 4mm/ft scale I am aware of is the one published in the September 1963 MRN which I don't believe I have seen. It would be interesting to know if this is accurate. Irrespective of these issues, your build is coming on nicely and is certainly inspirational, thanks again - can't wait to see it finished. Nick

An even harder cynic would say that for a McGowan D9 there will be far more scratchbuilding than kitbuilding. I have one buried away somewhere and from what I recollect there was a nice set of etched wheel arches/cabsides but otherwise it's just a heap of badly formed whitemetal. I put mine straight back in the box when I saw that the boiler diameter was far from accurate and also oval in section. I'm sure these are not insummountable problems in skilled and dedicated hands. Talking of which, are you going to treat us to your build details Tony, please? John Quick (the esteemed GCR historian) made a nice looking 4mm scratchbuilt D9 in the '60s. I have the magazine details around somewhere if anyone is interested. Nick

Will it still be engineered to the same fast alignment through the new embankments and bridges of the 'gap'? I imagine that if not this would be a speed bottleneck in the middle of the line notwithstanding being single tracked. Loughborough is actually in a dip and was one of the fastest sections on the line along with the down descent into Leicester. My step-father sometimes refers to the speeds he witnessed through Loughborough and there are documented speeds well into the 80s (mph) by various authors, Nock, et al. Perhaps the objective in speeding through Loughborough being an easier climb up the grades both north and south. I seem to recall that the fatal accident under Empress Road bridge in the '30s was at a similar speed too. I'd be amazed to see anything of this nature on the GCR through Loughborough in an accurate recreation of mainline speeds. And I'm sure many wouldn't want to see it - a breathtaking spectacle on a now much more sedentary Loughborough platform. Nick

Yes I saw that B3 - your paint and lining job has done it proud. I would very much like to see a B7 (some would say a better loco) resplendent in full LNER lined red on black one day or perhaps more realistically a non-Scottish D11 in the same black lined-red... I shall tackle one of the latter when it gets onto my bench. And all credit where it's due, it's your lining and painting endeavours that give the rest of us the inspiration if not the skills.

Hi Mick and all, this latest LNER liveried is surely far better than Bachmann's previous effort, the mostly unlined No. 2934. Aside from what you point out re. the tender lining the latest model is also missing a thin red line around the edge of the leading pony-truck wheels and the driving wheels. I understand that there should also be a red line around the sides of the triangular, curved frame fillets in front of the smokebox. Otherwise looks much improved over the last version. Nick

I believe they made it into Loughborough just north of Leicester, on the old Charnwood Forest Railway in to Derby Rd. station. There was a typical small LNWR loco. shed there until recently... now covered in the ubiquitous housing complex. Regards, Nick

Thank you Ian, it's appreciated. I was not aware of issues in another forum thread and extend my apologies where due, to Aardvark if I inadvertently trod on a sore point. Regards, Nick

In all fairness, a forum is the right place to discuss both the merits and the defects, as you say. We do this both to praise and to collectively approach the solving of any defects or varietal modifications that are deemed necessary. I'm sure this thread will come to a natural close soon as there don't appear to be any real issues, let alone serious ones and widespread praise, though due, naturally dwindles.

Hi James, looks interesting. If you're modelling it in later superheated and lengthened smokebox form but with a Robinson chimney and extended cab then I guess you will be representing the loco in late pre-grouping state or maybe very early LNER? If so, I'm very intrigued, that dome could be either the original height one or the LNER period one which was cut down slightly? If it's the latter, do you have a source where these may be procured please, if at all..?! I have an original height one but I'm hesitant to reduce it by taking a horizontal slice out as the original height dome is also useful for other locos like the Kitson Class B (LNER J60) . I could do with assessing how to replicate it as a cast really. Regards, Nick