Regularity

Unmade, or unmakeable? ;)

As I have said, you don’t have to have a fixed axle, and there are some advantages, too, such as being able to drop the axle boxes, wheels, axles and gearbox as single units without disturbing the quartering: useful for maintenance and painting, and also smoother running as the body does not move in accordance with the fixed axle. It can be slightly more fiddly to get the first axle square, but a simple jig made from a block of wood with axle-diameter holes drilled at precisely the correct centres, with axle material inserted, can help here if you don’t wish to buy one of these chassis assembly jigs. Hate to say it, but I did recommend this path. Having a fixed axle is useful as a reference for setting the other other axles using the coupling rods as a jig, but only - and only if - the fixed axle is dead square to the longitudinal axis of the frames. Mike Sharman recommended fixed axles in his book on flexichas, but did demonstrate how to have a moving axle as well, and as he said, the book was subtitled as a way to build chassis, not the way. Iain Rice popularised the fixed axle, along with (I believe) Rod Nero’s original Perseverance Kits.

That’s the same logic as Putin is using, that the “right things” (and I say “right” on purpose, rather than “correct”) are subservient to the rule of law, as propounded by Ilyin. In Russia’s case, that has arguably been the Muscovite ethos all along, under the Tzars and then the USSR, with a brief pause when Gorbachev tried to make the USSR admissible to the “rich nations club”, and Yeltsin the same for Russia. Although the UK was not the first organised institution/nation/empire to establish the rule of law, the very concept of no one being above the (rule of) law was first established (in modern times at least in the west) in 1215, with Magna Carta. I know it was later repealed, then reinstated, but the point was made.

Well, he does have established form on that score…

Yes. I heard about that in more detail 20+ years later, from a colleague who had been and RAFP on duty at the time right where and when it was going mad. Me? I knew nothing about it, IIRC I was walking back down a fog-laden London Road in Leicester, having been to a gig at the students’ union. Happy days…?

I quite understand!

As a planet, we have been living with that possibility since there were large enough stockpiles of such weapons to destroy us, but certainly I grew up with it being there all the time, to the extent that most of us at school hoped we would be close enough to the epicentre of any blast to be instantly vapouriest rather than having to deal with the aftermath. If you mean a currently increased possibility, then I think that might be true, but only in that we have an increased threat raising from “Nobody would be so stupid” to “Nobody would be that stupid, would they?” It’s not in anyone’s interest, and it remains an outside possibility provided the “West” presents a united front without any possibilities for Putin to misread differences as a gap in the armour and provided we keep up with everything short of sending troops into Ukraine. At some point, China will realise that the rest of the world is more important to its trade than Russia, and will start to apply pressure. India will most likely remain aloof from something it doesn’t want to get involved in, and that will leave Russia with very few friends. As long as it remains clear that we are always prepared to talk, provided he stops fighting, then Putin will ultimately be the architect of his own downfall. The worst thing we can do is panic about an extremely unlikely but very damaging event, and let it distract us from our resolve to stand firm with Ukraine, and to let this interfere with the very serious problems we have domestically where loud voices from the right of the spectrum are interpreted as “popular opinion”.

If I may put that another, which might answer the question: How could anybody be so incompetent as to give this important role (especially for “Global Britain”) to someone that thick? You can replace “incompetent” with “insecure”, if you wish.

The irony being that it was the UK which kicked off the ECHR, and its biggest supporter was WS Churchill. I had always believed that the saving grace of first past the post elections was that it meant we elected people who got on with doing the right thing, but alas!

Mornington Crescent!

What was it printed on and with? (Machine and resin.)

Suggests it’s the same motor in all cases, with higher volts equalling higher rpm.

You augment/replace either colour with Matt leather (62) to get a more weathered appearance, and indeed use the Metalcote gunmetal (27004) for a more “sooty” look on things like the cab roof: a bit of burnishing with a clean dry brush brings out a few shiny bits nicely.

Aye: different coals for different uses.

That was quick!

Hence this:

Cut two holes, and box the fiddle yard in with waterproof material…?

I wonder how many people will get that reference to the supposedly “better” behaviour of an earlier generation?

Quite possibly: the 280 rpm has stuck in my mind for over 40 years after an article in MRC. Quite why that number, I don’t know! Still, it is pleasing to know that at least one person on here bothered to read my post and check it. Happy to be corrected.

It was a major export traffic, and Kings Lynn was a very well established trading partner with the Hanseatic league going back centuries. There was a lot of Baltic timber imported through Lynn, with coal going out, quite possibly making money in both directions. A few hundred years ago, it was the East Midlands and East Anglia that were the most populous and wealthiest parts of the country, which is why the East Midlands dialect came to dominate modern English.

MRJ 46. Guy Williams fitted a square piece of metal in place to show the front of the axlebox. It was soldered to the outside cosmetic frames, and had an oversize hole in it for the axle (you don’t need much movement for compensation to work, unless your track is awful, in which case fix the track) which was invisible behind the outside crank. Old kits used to have a slot in the outside “axlebox” with the outside frames being attached to the body. Not what I would do as I prefer to be able to drop all wheel sets out of the frames, so as not to disturb the quartering, but every way of doing this has positives as well as negatives - cross posting: I would do it as per Martin Finney, possibly with those as the working axle boxes and the inside frames being cosmetic (because lining up 4 axleboxes on a single axle would be a pain in the butt, although typically only the driven, crank axle had internal axleboxes, the others being outside only).

I briefly misread that as a P1 and a P2…

I use whatever I can lay my hands on, but the London Road Models brass bearings used to be a favourite. As you have a lathe, you could make your own. As for the beam, something like this:

I would say that until the age of 13, so had I!