Edwardian

My twopenneth: Unless you are modelling the coaches in the original sets (in which case you may be better with the original panelled livery, which Hornby almost certainly will never do) or the Weston formation mentioned above, the handed composites seem a bit of an unnecessary luxury, and a brake composite would perhaps have been a better use of the 'slot'. Handed Van Thirds would seem more useful as they allow formations with brake ends outermost. Of course, this is only really useful if you need to keep the corridor on the same side. The extent to which the GW was bothered about this is perhaps best judged by looking at a lot of photographs of trains. Just to show how slanted things can be when considering only one part of the system, I am collecting stock for running on the South Devon mainline, Newton Abbot division, mid-'30s. On cross-country expresses, to which 57 footers are largely confined (West of England expresses overwhelmingly used 70 footers), I find no use for handed composites, as in no formation do two composites appear marshalled together. I have use for plenty of composites, just not in pairs. Brake composites I would need by the shed load, so, for me, this is an unfortunate omission, but, then, until Hornby announced the Colletts, there were no decent GW coaches for my period at all, so I make no complaint. Restaurant car? Well, one, maybe, alternating with an LMS vehicle. All thirds? Not as many as you'd think. What would be the single most useful Collett not in the Hornby announcement is a full brake or brake 'Van'. Lots of these cropped up and the absence of one severely limits what you can run. Mind you, my preference would be for a K40, which is a longer vehicle than the Bow-enders announced. For LMS vehicles on North to Wests you need lots of Brake Thirds and Composites and Full brakes. No need for Thirds or Brake Compos. Fine if Bachmann ever produced its Period I pair in fully lined crimson (it appeared to be doing so for the Compound train pack, which I would have bought just for the coaches, but Bachmann appears to have bottled it. Pity). Other routes would, I have no doubt, give you a rather different picture. All in all, however, I am just grateful for what we are getting.

Thanks JDW!

Wow. I'm in! But, then, I always.

Thanks, N15. To be honest, though, I wasn't anticipating the replacement of the cab to be the issue because I would not have thought that this would involve the model's mechanism. It's really a question of the height of the firebox, I would imagine.

Like the model. I think the Bachmann C has the edge when it comes to representing the black lined green SR livery, but it, nevertheless, a fine looking model. Hornby is, I feel, to be congratulated, and I am grateful to Hornby that a model suitable for the inter-war period has been produced. Could the Hornby model be re-boilered to represent the class prior to the post WW1 rebuilds? I guess that the mechanism is in the firebox in this model. I believe that the rebuilds had higher pitched boilers, if so, there is a risk that the Hornby mechanism would sit too high? I am guessing that it would simply not enter the mind of anyone at Margate to design a model to allow for a variant that could only represent a pre-grouping era locomotive, with no way of using the expensive tooling to sell a BR or preserved version, so my hopes are not high. Not complaining; these are just the facts of life!

Thanks for the answers. Hmm, if you had a, say, 4mm scale drawing, could you scan it in and somehow convert it? How I would draw something to scale on this I cannot imagine, though I imagine it would be a lengthy process. Also, could you do a 57' coach side or a 70' on Portrait?

Please do not mistake my question for one of the periodic expressions of impatience one sometimes sees. It was the apparent disappearance of references to the model on DJM's website that raised the concern, rather than the absence of updates. I assume that an absence of updates merely means there is nothing to update, which, of course, is fine. I have ample patience. I have considerable confidence in DJM. Confirmation that the project has not been abandoned was all I was looking for; the "if" part, the "when" will be whenever. Otherwise I tend to agree that life is better without speculative, anticipatory and impatient posts.

Really good bit of subtle atmospheric modelling.

No comments here since November and no reference to the project (that I can find) on DJM's website; has this project been scrubbed? It would be marvellous to have a RTR model of a small industrial and particularly good news if it is to DJM standards. If possible, and not too late, I wonder if a thought could be spared for those of us who remain in an unevolved pre-group phase - a variant with an early cab for the c.1890-1914 period would be most welcome. I realise that this is a controversial heterodoxy that will surprise and dismay most members of the hobby, but, apparently, railways existed before the 1950s (and were quite varied and colourful too). "Build it and they will run"

I echo BG John's point. Though there is some really useful information to be gleaned over forty pages, the net result, for me, is confusion. There are so many permutations, particularly regarding software. With the following intended use, can anyone, please, suggest a potentially wining hardware/software combination: Primary use would be for 4mm scale coach sides - 4-wheelers up to 70 footers Most coaches would be wooden panelled types I would like to attempt both plain plasticard sides as well as colour printed card sides Other items are likely to be loco parts, fencing, canopy brackets etc from plasticard I have absolutely no experience of any graphics or design software. To illustrate my limitations, I simply could not master Templot (at least I concluded that the time it might take to do so outweighed advantage) - so any track plans are simply done using PAD technology (Pencil Aided Design, back of envelope, not to scale). What else might I need to think about, e.g. materials, sources of card, printing, scaling, colouring? Thanks for reading

BG - 2 minds but with a single thought! Some of this nominally HO Thomas range appears to use 'OO' British outline tooling. It will be interesting to see what scale, if any, 'Oliver' comes out at. E.g. 'Spencer' (who ever the Hell he is, he wasn't in the books!) appears to have Bachmann's LMS Period 1 compo as his "special coach". Scale-wise, some of the items are adaptable; ARC models do 4mil body kits to fit the Bachmann 'Percy', for example. When my son had a Hornby Thomas train-set, I bought him the Bachmann 'Toby', because it seemed to me that it was much closer to the size of a 4mil J70 than Hornby's, which was massive. Toby proved also that these Bachmann toys run really well, and much better than the Hornby equivalents. I have the feeling that there is bound to be some little Victorian 4-coupled passenger tank that you could hack out of this one. But .. this is Off Topic. My question to Dave at DJM must be, will your 14XX have moving eyes? If not, I think you're on to a loser ... P.S. Maybe Dave from DJM could study the Bachmann image; it might help DJM to capture the face of the 14XX.

Normally I would say that it does not do to be too picky, because no RTR model is likely to be 100% perfect, but that DJM's are likely to be superb, to raise the mark as to what is the best achievable model, and prove to be the definitive versions of the classes concerned. It is not just the skill DJM exhibits; it is their approach that I believe makes the difference. So, I have faith. I have nailed my pre-order colours to the Hatton King, as I expect that this, not the Hornby King, whatever its virtues, will prove to be the definitive 4mil RTR model. I would unhesitatingly have said the same about the 4800/14XX until a few moments ago when I spotted something that caused a radical rethink on my part. In short, I fear that Bachmann might beat DJM/Hattons to market with the definitive 14XX:

Surely the natural companion for the forthcoming 4800 (and the 517, if one were to be produced (go on, you know you want to)), and the pendant to the Gate Stock, would be a new auto-coach by DJM? I am thinking 59' or 70' wood panelled ex-railmotor (I don't think the, rather extravagant, idea of converting the forthcoming RTR GW steam railmotor into an auto-coach will catch on!), and/or, a matchboard trailer!

I would add that Dean Sidings has been contemplating a resin body kit of the 517 for years. I suspect there may be difficulties in fitting the tanks over the Airfix/Dapol/Hornby engine block, but, for whatever the reason, it hasn't gone ahead. My point in raising this is that Dean Sidings had, apparently, planned for all the main variants; the moulded parts would allow for the swapping in of different fireboxes and bunkers for example. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to do this. It is beyond my wit, by a good way, but not, I imagine, beyond that of a locomotive designer/manufacturer. Apparently the Bachmann E4 body divides into parts just at the point necessary to substitute the parts necessary to back date it to Stroudley liveried days. Apparently, also, the Bachmann Earl body divides so as to allow the swapping in of a Bulldog boiler. This may be coincidental, and, even if it isn't, we could be in our graves before Bachmann is able to get around to such variants. But, these are examples of how design can allow the model to represent re-boilerings, new fireboxes, extended smoke boxes etc. I wish Hornby had shown such foresight with its T9 and Class 700, neither of which can represent their pre-grouping states. I would back DJM for a 517, not only because I anticipate that the accuracy and quality achieved is likely to be second to none, but also, I would guess, the experience of producing the 4800/14XX would stand that firm in good stead.

I don't think you can produce frozen anything by cooking it. Maybe that's where you went wrong?

Yes, full size coffee stirrers, with just a bit of strapping. Job done!

Oh dear. Well, there is a reason why RTR exists. That reason is because some of us cannot be trusted even to attach a resin body kit to a proprietary chassis. Today I dusted off the Hawthorn Leslie starter kit. Yes, starter kit. It's a neat little kit, designed to fit on the Bachmann Percy chassis. I make no criticism of the kit, or the instructions. What follows is purely down to me. Because it's a starter kit, it comes with moulded handrails. Ironic, because fitting handrails is about the only thing I was likely to be capable of . There is a lot of hacking required to remove Percy's extensive moving eyes machinery before the new body will fit. I may have gone too far because the motor now just flops around and now has only a passing relationship with the gears. There is a piece of circuit board. Gods knows why, or what it does, but I'd like to bet that the chassis doesn't work without it. Bachmann intended it to live out its days screwed to Percy's cab roof. The Hawthorn Leslie needs you to transfer it to the other end of the locomotive and screw it to the underside of the saddle tank. It is mentioned in the instructions that it is preferable to file the chip narrower. A somewhat alarming instruction, but I carefully complied. My chip slowly became more of a French Fry, but I was running out of board that did not contain vital looking bits and it was still to wide to fit into the body. So, a considerable amount of resin had to be scraped away from the interior of the tank before the board, or chip, would fit. It was only after I had finished that I saw the advisory at the end of the instructions warning that the resin dust was "highly toxic" and that I should wear a "gas mask", which latter advice seemed a bit extreme. Fortunately, my old S10 respirator is somewhere in the attic in a box of rotting DPM combats and webbing, so I will be OK next time. In the meantime, I'm wondering what the consequences of breathing half a locomotive's worth of resin dust are likely to be. I don't feel well, I can tell, but so far the dizziness has not affected my ability to type. Unfortunately, it was then that I noticed that one of the soldered wires had parted from the board. Now, assuming that I could find the soldering iron I once purchased as an optimistic Youth, I would undoubtedly melt a major part of this component should I attempt to reattach the wire. What is a minor irritation for most is thus a disaster for me. So, having wrecked the chassis, I turned my attention to the body, various bits of which needed sanding and filing - more dust - and I decided to remove the moulded handrails and drill the various holes required. This went well and I was within an ace of having a body all prepped to be washed and then undercoated when the cab rear went pinging off into the vastness of our junk room. It is, I have been forced to conclude, lost for good. So, I have managed to create a non-working chassis from a childproof product, and lost part of the body for it. I am also now coughing and feeling disorientated and sick, but I am sure that will pass. All I can think to do is take the chassis to the local model shop where the Man Who Fits Decoders might resurrect the chip. I will have to fabricate a back out of plasticard, though, of course, I do not now know exactly what it should look like. Thus ends today's comedy of errors. Tomorrow, however, is another day.

I would have thought one suitable for 1905 would be something you could expect if the approach I have advocated were adopted. I'd want one for 1905, one for 1912 and two for 1935 as my minimum. Of course, if there was also a short wheelbase one with smokebox wings in Wolverhampton green, I'd have one of those too! How many would have to be made overall and in each variation to make a new model such as this feasible, I wonder. If I had the sponduliks, I'd commission them. As it is, aerial pie.

Thanks, Kenton, though something to do with my firewall won't let me copy and paste on the forum. I don't know, pooters! Yes, but BG, only if you are tied to a particular date location (prototype or fictionalised version) will that be a potential problem. The ability to modify will still be there and if all the main variants are there.... Most people, me included, will by the pretty ones/all of them!

Sorry, I have not yet worked out how to link another page, but over on the DJM wish list thread I have made the suggestion that a model should be made of this class. I mention this in case anyone wants to register support for the idea. Obviously, it's in the DJ Models section of the Manufacturers board.

Well, RBAGE, the Nidd Valley found room for a GW Steam Railmotor, so stranger things have happened! In general I would welcome NER types. I have a weakness for anything pre-grouping, but the NER as a railway has it all and, yet, is one of the least well represented.

Good point, BG John, but the case is more the combination of elements for a particular locomotive for a particular period. The basics - 2 wheelbases, cab/bunker variations, round top or belpaire etc can all be planned for and to combine them to represent a particular locomotive at a particular period, stick to the photographs, of which there is no shortage.

517 0-4-2T, in all its main variants and liveries. Indulge me, if you will, or ignore me if you prefer, if I give some reasons for this choice. It is undeniably a very attractive locomotive. It spans the 1870s through to the 1930s. They were plentiful, widespread, ubiquitous. They saw enough variations, modifications and liveries to last a manufacturer, modeller or collector a lifetime. Pre-Nationalisation, the 517, not the 4800/14XX was the quintessential small branch line locomotive. I look forward to the Hattons 4800/14XX, not just because of the quality we can expect, but because, finally, a pre-war version will be available. Nevertheless, right up to the mid-'30s, the 517 predominated. Aside from a pair sent to Cornwall in the early '30s, the class was, I think I am right in saying, mainly conspicuous by its absence from the South West peninsular until the first one arrived for service on the Ashburton Branch in 1936. Certainly, the 4800s were not typical, or widespread, or in such numbers at the time as one might assume. The classic, if not clichéd, GW branch terminus between the wars layout would be much more representative with a 517. It is the 1950s, more than the '30s, when the 14XX and autocoach was the classic branch train. I will risk a word concerning some of the reasons why a model of this class would be a departure, but, nevertheless deserves to be considered. The intention is not to be polemical and I am really not up for a debate; if you don't want a 517, or more pre-grouping types, that's fine by me. We have seen a wonderful expansion in Grouping and Pre-grouping models, BUT, so far they tend to represent one of two trends; either the aim is to satisfy the majority BR modeller and earlier livery options are a sort of bonus available where the tooling for the BR version permits, or, the model represents a preserved example, which, more often than not, will not represent early careers in service. Now, I do not for a moment that there is anything wrong with that approach; it is commercially sound and has resulted in some wonderful models. I also appreciate that life is easier where there is something around to scan. BUT. Forgive me; no generation lasts forever. When things move on from those who remember the late '50s and '60s, what will we model? Will it only be Blue Diesels onward? Will steam outline be confined to mainline specials and preserved lines? The latter have not yet taken off to the extent one might expect given the ease with which RTR offerings allow preserved steam to be modelled. If steam outline is to survive to be modelled by those who do not recall the steam age, might not an option be to encourage exploration of the rich (and very colourful) eras before Nationalisation? This requires a manufacturer/commissioner to think beyond what has come before - attractive pre-grouping designs that saw long-lives across a whole system, but which didn't make it to the last 2 decades of steam and, hence, to a 'heritage' line. The 517 fulfils this brief, with the added advantage that, as GWR branch line terminus models will probably always be with us, this will not be a model for which it will be hard to find a home.

I don't know, I rather liked the coffee stirrers. Lots of interesting nooks and crannies. Look forward to seeing what you do with it.

Point made. Worth a go.