Right Away

Hi Ray, conductor rail clearance is no problem; see quick iPhone photo.

Lack of chimney adornment to my mind is no bad thing. On receipt of any new model, I like many, begin the process of "weathering" by varying degrees to represent an authentic working example. Personally, a shiny, out of the box condition model, be it locomotive, coach or wagon, once on the track has more visual detraction than some minor imperfection. This is not to suggest weathering should compensate for inaccuracies in the manufacturing process. A good many people are perfectly happy with the condition of their models as purchased and would not wish to risk alterations of any kind. Having now seen a new Hornby model A1X in the flesh alongside my H, P, M7 and E4 classes, I am happy to note there is nothing that shouts "drastic improvement required". Sure, protective bars on the rear cab windows would have been nice, as would an optional spark arrestor for possible Hayling Island modellers; perhaps these details might be taken on board in the Dapols/Rails model. One speculates, would the new Hornby model have come under such close scrutiny followed by the furore fueled by the James May TV programme if there had never been the forthcoming Dapol/Rails version in the offing? For its price, the Hornby model has very few niggles and those that have been noted would probably been accepted as a costing factor. For people on a budget the Hornby model represents exceedingly good value. We can now look forward to the release of the Dapol/Rails locomotive which hopefully will bring some pleasant surprises, maybe even a reduction in price!

Apologies if this has been mentioned previously, but was there a similar debate of such magnitude over the release of the Adams Radial tank by two manufacturers a couple of years ago? I seriously doubt Hornby are intentionally attempting to "put down" Hattons or Rails; it is not in their interest. As mentioned previously, personal budgets will dictate which models will be selected from the choices available. I do feel that duplication of models is to some extent a "missed opportunity" for the modeller. With many new projects kept under wraps it is sometimes unavoidable, but it can appear that the outlay and investment might have been better utilised on an a hopefully individual project. In that situation, everyone wins

The platform will need to be of a length that will accommodate your chosen length of train and ideally allow a locomotive, once uncoupled to run forward and set back (run around) the coaches thus enabling it to work the return trip. The platform itself need not extend as far as the stop block but it is more aesthetically pleasing if it does. It's surprising how much additional space is required to enable this movement within the constraints of fouling points; i.e. not clouting a coach on the way around!

By heroes, I refer to those understanding, patient and encouraging individuals out there without whom many of us might struggle with our modelling achievements - our spouses and partners. Be they outwardly enthusiastic or just supportive and tolerant, we owe them a considerable debt, as we may seemingly for hours, lock ourselves away in our miniature environs.

Hi Peter I have attached a scanned photo from one of Michael Welch's excellent books (hope there's no copyright issue), which shows No32636 on a railtour on the old KESR metals carrying the later BR emblem. Scrutiny of the caption reads a day in 1958. Note that at this time she was a St Leonards (74E) engine.

Our A1X is very cuddly ..... and chilled!

Railmatch produce a "concrete" acrylic which is a good starting colour but requires grey primer beforehand. Finish with drybrushing complementary weathering shades.

If using "Superglue", opt for the Gel product as it is controllable; apply with point of cocktail stick or similar to the hangers.

I'm not much of a carpenter but the 4 road 00 traverser which I knocked up is of 9mm plywood construction, roughly 4' 6" (1370 mm) long. All rail spacings align with the "up" and "down" lines as they do when set for the 4 storage roads. Battens were fixed around the edges, apart of course, from the entry end. Foam strip affixed to the far end is a protection against late braking! Electrical feeds are standard 7/.02 "droppers" from each road, looped from one to t'other and finally to a strip connector at the far end where a flexible lead to the main bus allows movement. The traverser slides on some old lengths of N gauge track fixed transversely (one across each end and one across the centre); not very pretty but it reduces friction and it works.

Member 18B's post relating to loco weights prompted in me a response, however on reflection, I though it better to have it's own thread. It would be interesting to compare the cost differencial between main line diesel hydraulic and diesel electric locomotives, predominantly Type 4, Type 3 and Type 2 classes. The sums would include initial outlay and running/maintenance figures. For those of us who experienced the introduction of main line diesel traction as one of the results of the so-called "Modernisation Plan", this transition was beheld by many as the ultimate in railway traction in the late Fifties. Could it have been that the BR (WR) accountants were grossly misled when the merits of hydraulic transmissions were presented and decided upon. In what some might consider in hindsight, an almost indecent haste to rid their Region of the "old fashioned" traction, one wonders why the WR powers that were, were given such a free hand. An enormous burden to the taxpayer, the railway, with such desperate financial implications would appear in retrospect to have had little control over such matters. Many front rank steam engines, having incurred the expense of very recent heavy repairs were dispensed with in comparatively short time. The "Warships", "Westerns" , "Hymeks" and the North British Tyoe 2s, all of comparively short operational duration, have all given us enthusiasts a rich traction history over which to ponder (and model) and as such we would have been all the poorer had the never been introduced. Summing up, the United States had developed reliable electric transmissions for their railroads decades before.

I can close this thread as the issue has been resolved. Two tiny dabs of superglue on the tip of a cocktail stick were applied to the handrail knobs. Light pressure on the deflector to hold it against the handrails while the glue set. Result: A proper looking "Woolie".

Could any member advise on how to safely remove a smoke deflector on a Bachmann 00 "N" class 2-6-0. My reason for asking is that the right hand deflector on my model (No 31874) is slightly angled outwards and detracts from what is a significant trademark of the appearance of all Maunsell's moguls - the slightly inward leaning smoke deflectors. I would therefore like to remove the offending deflector and reposition it without damage. I would be grateful for any suggestions.

My "Hall" has an 8 pin socket in the locomotive. However, something like a Zimo MX622 hard wired in your loco is worth consideration. Regarding the missing drawbar and what looks like other piece(s); Bachmann spares may be able to help. Failing that, fabricating your own would not be too difficult (you could benefit from choosing your own cab to tender spacing). Plasticard strip or similar could come into play in aligning the drawbar height at both ends.

Would any member know why BR did not remove the handrails from all the 7Ps in relation to a visibility issue brought to light following a derailment of 70026 in 1955. It would appear that all WR allocated engines and some examples from other regions were altered but not all members of the class.T Theexpenditure, having been sanctioned in the interests of safety would surely have warranted attention to the entire class.

Attached is a photo of the drawbar on "Swithland Hall"; the tender has no electrical connection. As 34C has said, the single hole fits over the pin beneath the cab, accessed by loosening/ removing the two cross head screws. Hope this is of use.

Excellent news; just discovered the site operational today. We are so fortunate in that David's daughters have continued to keep his thoroughly informational and entertaining achievements active for us all to enjoy. What lovely people and so considerate.

Perhaps we should consider what we actually get for our money these days; extremely realistic models. Having said everyone has their budgets.

Incredible weathering!

Thank you everyone. I used the airbrush for gloss varnish over the grey, applied the transfers and left for 24 hours then lifted the carrier film with masking tape followed by a waft of matt varnish to fix. Most successful. I did initially view the job with a degree of trepidation as I'd never used transfers with acrylic paint before and felt somewhat challenged - how silly?

There would appear to be something slightly amiss with the Hornby pricing structure when the Lord Nelson class and the WC Pacific "Bideford" are compared. The former, is being sold at what might be considered a reasonable price for a newly tooled, large steam locomotive. By comparison, the even higher price of the latter, utilising existing tooling is disproportionate for what is essentially just a different, albeit useful combination of unrebuilt engine and modified 4,500 gallon tender. A speedometer drive is all that's been added. Not everybody's cup of tea, but for those devotees, there are a few "niceties" and improvements which might have vindicated the high cost to some degree, of this latest version of a West Country in its final guise. These could possibly have been - thinner smoke deflectors cylinder drain pipes factory fitted brake rigging (as opposed to owner fitting) omission of whistle cover, clack valve cover plus other "inspection" remedies - these were all noticeably prevalent on many engines in their later years Appreciated the last listed "omissions" would not appeal to those who prefer pristine models but I feel their "inclusion" would have given a significant variance to an existing stud of WC/BBs. This version will sell to the Bulleid fraternity, but to command the price being asked, it could and should have been a much improved model.

Should we be grateful for so much information that abounds today that enables such critical comparison of our models to the real thing? My many memories of these little locomotives which always seemed to be so busy in our area appears to be well vindicated in this version by Hornby. Granted, there is always room for improvement but at what cost? Today's 4mm models when seen through my 1940s eyes at what might be considered "normal" viewing distances are generally most acceptable. Deviations/omissions of detail in this scale have to be glaringly obvious to warrant criticism to the point of which I would hesitate to purchase. However, the coupling rod pins do stand out badly, appearing to be from an earlier generation of model building and their use is inexcusable. Having said that, I feel certain their appearance can be toned down with weathering and I would not reject the model on these grounds. For those of us who do not utilise scale couplings and freely run with the alternatives, it might not be too difficult to accept the minor compromises when it comes to very minute detail.

I intend to respray just ONE wagon which will ultimately receive quite heavy weathering but the Lifecolor "Unfitted Grey " is of a matt finish. It has been repeatedly advised to only apply transfers/decals to a gloss painted surfaces to avoid the minute "pockets" prevalent in matt paints. I'd prefer to avoid applying gloss varnish before applying the transfers as this together with a fixing coat of matt varnish may detract from the moulded detail. Would any member know of a viable DIY "workaround" to enable the fixing of the transfers. I've heard white vinegar being used somewhere in the process.

Much has been written by many over the years of the performance by various types of traction and motive power in Britain; the performance logs having been compiled from not only the cab but also a myriad of passenger coaches. As a point of interest, I was curious to know of the comfort and especially the riding qualities of British locomotive hauled passenger coaching stock up to the development of the BR Mk1, which itself was to quickly prove unpopular in this respect until the eventual replacement of bogies. As a child in the 50's, the family trips and odd holiday to North Wales , Essex or the West Country suggest I rode in many different coaches, but like most lads it was what was on the front that mattered. Many years later, I can still remember being soaked by "Queen's Westminster Rifleman" as water was taken at speed on the way to Crewe where we changed trains. As far as what I was riding in - it had seats, a corridor and windows! Designs from the CMEs of the pre-Grouping raIlways and the Big Four will all have had their advocates and it would be interesting to know of the merits or otherwise of the many different coaches. So as not to digress, can any members recollect their travels on past forms of coaching stock with emphasis on the riding and general comfort.

Looking through an article recently of the ex LSWR route, my attention was drawn to photographs of Poole, Dorset and the curvature through the station. I mused at the concept of providing a check rail in 4mm scale but shuddered at the thought of the complexity of flange widths, clearances etc and came to the conclusion that this is clearly one for the Finescale modeller. To include check rails wth any degree of realism would essentially mean starting from scratch and would be very difficult to add to an existing line, and that's before the conversion of all wheels. I wouldn't think that model trackwork manufactures would consider track with a "double rail" one side as commercially viable, and therefore must ask the question - is a check rail a detail too far? Given that for reasons of space (or lack of) many of us have to compromise on reality when it comes to rail curvature, the inclusion of a check rail, if at all possible, would only be practically viable on more generous curves. Aside from all this, on the prototypical front, would any member know the minimum radius of a curve on a main running line when a continuous check rail becomes necessary? I would assume many variables come into play; location, line speed, cant, gradient and therefore a generalised answer may not be possible.