jamieb

There's a building on the road from Telford to Bridgnorth,between the river and the cliff that looks like it should be a railway station but I think it was some kind of waterworks 

Can you all stop with the petty bickering please,it seems to be an ever growing phenomenon here.I come on this site for entertainment, not to endure grumpy middle aged men arguing over toy trains! 

I know it's unlikely but an unpainted/grey primer version would be fantastic,even if available direct from Rapido only?

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

St Vincent helped the poor, so we need to pray to him keep the price of a loco with two chassis to a level we can afford !

I'd reckon £400 for that 

I think the idea is you buy several examples and mix and match to find the version that suits 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

Yes please, a U1   !!  Hasn't been done in RTR, also worked on the Lickey, so it's suitable for an LMS layout.

 

Well that's one of the most random postage stamps ever! Do you think they chose U1 because it was close to UI (Union Island?)

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 61xx/5101 mech would work for a 3150, but the rest would have to be a completely different tooling; the locos are different in almost every dimension.  I'm interested to see how they cope with an 81xx, as simply putting smaller 2mm smaller diameter driving wheels on it will simply result in a 61xx/5101 with buffers out of alignment by 1mm, and that is not quite the same thing as an 81xx.  Neither is 1mm packing between the chassis and the bodyshell; that will get the buffers the right height but there will be a 1mm gap between the top of the cylinders and the bottom of the running plate, three inches scaled up and quite noticeable.  The 'sit' of the boiler is 3" lower on and 81xx.

 

I wouldn't be fooled by a simple renumbering exercise with the excuse that high mileage wear on a 61xx/5101's drivers is not far off new for an 81xx; if you have both models on your layout, you want the 81xx's wheels to be visibly smaller, and your 61xx/5101's wheels not to be on wear limits with vestigial tyres.

 

I can't offhand recall Dap saying that ther were thinking in terms of a 3150, but I hope so, for reasons I'll come back to in a minute.  Mind you, I don't recall them talking  about an 81xx either; sometimes it's nice when things turn up unexpectly from left field...  A 3150 would be move in the direction of what is a major wishlist loco for me, Collett 1938 31xx no.3100, allox TDU from 1946 for the post-war resumption of the daily Porthcawl-Cardiff commuter train, the 'Residential', which it worked until it's withdrawal in 1957 following a 'heavy contact' with the buffers at Porthcawl.  The 'Residential' had been handled pre-war by a succession of Bulldogs, not the usual fayre for a South Wales coalfield shed, but Tondu had 44xx as well!  And banging on about my wishlist items works for me with Dapol, as they have relented and put the ex-Lionheart Diagram N autotrailer through the 4mm ray after me reminding them every so often over the last eight years or so...

 

3100 was the doyen of a class of five, and was rebuilt from a 3150.  The difference was a 220psi boiler and 5'3" drivers, which will be even more of a drop in size than between a 61xx/5101 and a 81xx and again require an new body tooling.

 

The problem with GW engines is that they are all the same except when they are different, and they are in fact all different in subtle and devious ways.  When you get used to them you can identify the difference between a Grange and a Hall front-on from about half a mile away; the sit is different, it's only 2" but it is discernable.  Boiler pitch is determined by wheel diameter, so for a no.4 the highest were the City/Atbaras and Churchward Counties, and the lowest the Aberdares and 8-coupled tanks.  3150s were the same in that respect as the 43xx moguls, but the moguls had a longer low section of running plate ahead of the smokebox saddle, so the proportions were different, a mistake I made during my ongoing and occasional attempts to kitbash 3100 out of RTR bits from an Airfix 61xx and Mainline 43xx and 56xx bodyshells.

Your maths are out here! There isn't a 2mm difference in wheel size,it's 2" on the prototype which is 0.66mm on the model,well within 'worn tolerance limits' should they decide to go that way,although that does depend on what diameter the Dapol 5'8" wheels are in model form If they are oversize they'll be no good for an 81XX, if they are slightly undersize,they may get away with it!

As I see it, there are A LOT of locomotive classes that haven't been made in RTR ,or not even had kits available.Some are quite large classes,not withstanding the DX goods mentioned before,but locos such as the Fowler 7F, the Fowler/Stanier 3P tanks already alluded to, on the Southern there's the U/U1 classes,Q class 0-6-0, C2X, the LNER has J classes everywhere,K4,B16,all sorts really, whilst glaring gaps in the GWR are Saints and County's,both done to a lesser standard in the past.Im not a fan of continually updating perfectly serviceable models from the past but these are in need of it,however I can't see another GWR 4-6-0 appearing so soon after the Manor

AS are probably leaning towards locos with preserved examples ,as most manufacturers do for obvious reasons.If they choose something already made before but in need of an update, likely candidates are an 8F or a D49,something new may be a K4 or Gordon Highlander,which would please the SECR fans too.An older style pannier tank would go down well too,2021 anybody?

But please no Bulleid Pacifics/Patriots/57XX/A3 etc,there are decent enough models out there,let's have something new 

Oh dear.....an I or a K class is likely to release the moths from the wallet...

24 minutes ago, Covkid said:

But that is the whole point isn't it.  There are so many un RTR released models to go at, particularly now that pregrouping seems more of a thing. From memory the only RTR LNWR locos are the Super D and the coal tank. Prince of Wales, Precursor, George V, Claughton, and that is just passenger locos. Who built the largest ever class of steam locos ? ......

I'd have a DX goods but I suspect I'm in a minority as they barely made it to the 1930s

22 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
8104 was a constant performer on the Vale of Neath line during the 1950’s .Seen most mornings on my way to school.  It will be interesting to see if Dapol get this one right ! 

The fact that there is no sample photo of the 81XX suggests to me that the wheels will be the correct diameter and this variant is still awaiting a completed sample 

Can I have one of these please to go with the Chaldrons.

Failing that,how about a Midland 2F, the one with the round top firebox, not the deformed Belpaire version!

55 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Do you think the Manors are asking, 'are we there yet?'

 

No, impatience is bad manors 

On 24/07/2023 at 19:05, cctransuk said:

 

I always felt that, by comparison with other model tank wagons, the Peco product didn't quite convince - for the sole reason of the end radius.

 

CJI.

Looking at it,I think the lack of rivets on the model is what makes the ends look  slightly out compared to the prototype photo

As others have said, the body still stands up pretty well.I'd rather see new prototypes that haven't been done before,or those that are old and unsatisfactory by today's standards ...and yes a 3P tank or a MR 2F would be nice....

But my point is ,every update of what is in essence a perfectly good model,just pushes the 'never beens' further down the line, and stretches the pockets of the customers even further 

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'd keep it that way if I were you.

There's probably been a Scott, but unlikely to have had a Walter! (Although I'm sure Love Island has had its share of Wallies!)

Unless things have changed since I lived there,it's a bit of a wasteland for model shops.

Kemp Models closed in the late 1980s and there's not been a specialist model railway shop since.

There's one in Eastbourne I recall,in the other direction there's Gaugemaster near Arundel

10 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I seem to remember someone made a very good job of one kit, by replacing or modifying solebar etch. I have in the past failed a couple of times building them as designed (fold up) mainly owing to no account taken of the slight enlargement bending the parts takes

 

Good luck as often they are quite unique prototypes, be aware of the castings, as been told they may not be prototypically accurate, just the correct size or there abouts, but that's rivet counting and knowing the prototype in detail, past my pay grade !!! 

This may be of interest to anyone contemplating having a go! Unfortunately some of the photos disappeared in the great crash

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Whilst other aspects match, no topfeed here. Right sort of area though. Number's wrong in title.

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p449149946/ee60153e5

 

 

Jason

This shows what a minefield these GWR engines are as I found a picture yesterday of 3262 in the early 1930s WITH a top feed..the GW were very inconsiderate to future historians with all this swapping of boilers!

I would make a semi- educated guess to it being 3262 ex St Ives. This engine had the 'eyebrow' windows, top feed and the small Dean 2500(?) gallon tender as seen in the photo. The name would fit in with the reasons for removing some names (because the GWR obviously reckoned it's passengers were too stupid to differentiate) There's a couple of pics on the web,this loco was rebuilt into Dukedog 3215,the only example with this style of window, and pictures of this are a bit easier to come by

2 hours ago, John-Miles said:

This photo is my K's 2F. It's probably 50 years old, rigid chassis, one piece coupling rod, K's wheels and I thought it had a Triang motor but on closer inspection it's a K's. Not that detailed, no fall plate for instance but for its time it was ok but not nearly as sophisticated as the subject of this thread. Built to EM standards and it still works well but oddly no coal in the tender!! I'm not sure why it is loading upside down. I did edit the image so it was  the other way up but it still loaded the wrong way up.

Seems obvious to me that there's no coal in the tender because it fell out when you ran the loco upside down! 

Was it on Jenny Kirk's railway from the Hornby program ?

1 minute ago, wainwright1 said:

Hi Jamieb.

Thanks for that. Having looked closely I think that you are right, it does appear to have come form a scam source.

 

Now that leaves one problem. It means that there is a breech somewhere in either Rails or DPDs systems for someone to be aware that I have been sent a parcel.

 

All the best

 

Ray

It could be something amiss with the DPD system, but most probably just an unfortunately timed coincidence.

I get these quite often from different sources,this morning an Evri delivery driver apparently missed me at 4am!

2 hours ago, FarrMan said:

According to GWR Engines Vol 2 (page 121), 'One point not generally known, is that these big 2-8-0's (i.e. the 4700 class) in common with the other 8 coupled classes of the GWR, had thinner flanges on the two inner pairs of driving wheels, and also, to allow a modicum of side play, the coupling rods had spherical seatings at the joints in the rods.'

 

Lloyd

So in theory,could you use P4 wheels for the inner pairs?

Be careful with these messages from DPD and others.Many are scams to get money from you ,you can often tell by how they address you on the text.Only genuine ones will have your real name ,scams may just say Dear Customer or similar