JamesSpooner

6 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

On the subject of trackwork, I am opting for the OO-SF for better running performance over points, and it will be a mix of some C & L and some British Finescale ("Finetrax") turnout kits in 00-SF. Depends on how the range expands over time.

Could do with going on a Templot course!

Another consideration is the height of the trackwork when viewed. My trackwork will be reasonably high so that the gauge becomes a less of a dominant factor as not viewed so much from above.

To be honest, once you hit Templot (which I did on Elmham Market some years ago), it is immaterial whether you go 00FS or EM as any design that requires non standard points will need to be scratch built anyway.  I took the view that I wanted track and pointwork which flowed properly through the curves and, if I was going to do that, I might as well go the whole hog and do it in EM.

11 hours ago, Barclay said:

I couldn't agree more - please don't believe any naysayers who say this is difficult, if it was I wouldn't be doing it. Today you have the choice of building kits and scratchbuilding, but much of the modern RTR is very easily convertible - on the EMGS demo stand at Ally Pally, Nigel Burbridge took a Hornby J15 out of its box on Saturday morning, together with a set of Gibson conversion parts. After lunch it was running on the EM rolling road as sweetly as anything.

Thanks Stuart (also for a very enjoyable and satisfying day on the EMGS stand) and I can only echo your comments.  At a base level EM is not difficult and it is relatively easy to convert most RTR locos to the gauge.  Obviously one moves up the scale from there into kit building and then scratchbuilding.  But if you are moving up that ladder, then EM is absolutely as easy as ‘fs00’, because the builder is starting from bare bones and it is immaterial whether one is building in 00 or EM (I still maintain that P/S4 requires that extra bit of skill and time, although I know others will disagree).  Yes, overall it might take a bit more time than laying Peco streamline, but I have found it extremely satisfying and worth the effort.

Nigel

1 hour ago, Barclay said:

There is absolutely something very appealing about bringing old loco's/kits back to life, I seem to be a sucker for K's at the moment !

You certainly brought that coal tank back to life very effectively!
 

cheers

Nigel

20 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Good timing with coming back to 3D printing. FK3D have designed a GER 8ft Bogie and LNER 1st/3rd corridor seats -

 

 

 

 

 

And arrived today from Bill Bedford is some battery boxes to suit his Mousa 51ft underframe

 

 

For someone who was VERY sceptical about 3D printed parts I seem to have been thoroughly converted...

Richard,

Those GER bogies look good.  Where could I order some from?
 

best wishes

Nigel

33 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The attached photo turned up on the internet the other day and I have asked (and been given) permission to post it here by the photographer, Derek Buckett. He took the photo at Carlisle Upperby on 31st July 1966.

 

 

I was a bit intrigued by the arrangement of the compartments and windows at the end nearest the loco. Clearly now in Departmental use, it really doesn't look as if there would have been enough room for another compartment where the pair of windows are, just after the first compartment. So was it always like that? I wondered if it might have been a rarity from the Flying Scotsman set or suchlike, or has it just been altered from a more conventional carriage?

 

I am no expert on LNER or ex LNER carriages but it isn't an arrangement I am familiar with. I thought the assembled LNER enthusiasts might be able to identify the vehicle.

 

I am sure somebody on here will know.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

 

What is also strange, looking at this photo a little more closely, is the nearest third (?) compartment, which seems to be placed at the very end of the carriage, with no space for a vestibule.  If it was originally a corridor coach (as looks likely from the style), how was the vestibule fitted in?
 

Nigel

1 hour ago, Nickey Line said:

 

May I enquire where one might obtain such washers? These, I assume, would have square holes, perhaps etched?

The EM gauge society, through its trade officer, sells a range of washers to suit 2mm and 1/8” axles and I believe Alan Gibson sells a range of washers too.  As far as I am aware, neither have square holes…

cheers

Nigel

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did say "if" I wanted to build a 1957 ECML layout. I don't! It is far too mainstream for me. Pacifics and suchlike are OK but when you have seen the same ones modelled on the same trains as often as I have, I long for something different.

 

My interest is in secondary lines, in the pre-grouping period. I find it far more interesting and challenging to model the lines and periods that others don't. For every main line there were dozens of secondary routes and they often had shorter trains and smaller stations, making modelling them in a smaller space much more achievable. Pre-grouping expresses were often no more than 5 carriages long.

 

My layouts may be much less ambitious than some of the ECML epics that have been built but at least I can say that when we run them, there is nothing RTR in sight and that the layouts, from baseboards, to track, to buildings, signals, scenery and all the locos and stock have all been built either by me or by a friend if it is a joint project. I am not sure I could ever do that on a large layout, even if I had the room to do so.

 

I get to enjoy bigger layouts with my involvement with Narrow Road and Retford but I have no ambitions to go down that route myself.

 

If I did have a large space available, I would build something like St Enodoc. Several smaller stations to create a railway system rather than just a single large station. Having operated Buckingham with 3 stations (which is the most enjoyable layout I have ever run and I could never build something better to operate) and Narrow Road with 5 stations, that would be my ideal.    

Yes Tony, I am in sympathy with all of that.  I have been happily putting my through station secondary route layout together for about fifteen years now (and comparatively recently added a previously started branch terminus ‘plank’ to give extra interest to what would otherwise have been a ‘roundy roundy’) and have enjoyed creating something that is believable (in my eyes anyway) but I have been happy to pull together anything that fits into the overall design, whether it be RTR, kit built or scratch built, to complete the overall project.  It still isn’t finished but, by using these different methods I can see a way through to completion  and that helps keep me going at it.  Mind you, modelling in EM means nothing actually gets into the picture without some work, even if it is just regauging and weathering…

Nigel

18 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I always try to not consider that just because somebody else doesn't follow the hobby the way that I choose to, that I must be doing it the right way and they must be wrong.

 

At least two of my "finescale" modelling friends also have large collections of Hornby Dublo (and other vintage makes) and they form a separate hobby to their model making activities. 

 

I knew a chap who had probably the biggest collection of Matchbox productions that has ever existed. For him, it was all about the hunt to find the missing items in his collection, or to find one in better condition than the one he already had.

 

Then, as he reached the age of 70, he went for two or three years without being able to add anything. He had reached the point where his collection was, as far as he could tell, complete. So the thrill of the hunt was no longer there and he sold it all, over two weekends of auctions.

 

To listen to him talk about his searches and adventures in seeking out rare items allowed me to really understand that side of the hobby.

 

It isn't for me but I don't see it as anything other than another branch of the model hobby.

 

If a "proper" modeller had taken a rare Matchbox vehicle and repainted it into a different livery, perhaps replacing the wheels with better ones, he wouldn't have minded. It just made his ever rarer!

A friend of my father collected a number of early Dinky toys, including some rare die cast boats they made.  All were beautifully presented in a glass showcase.  Imagine his consternation when he came down one morning and several prize possessions had collapsed in a heap because the mazak was unstable….  I guess that just made the remaining ones even rarer and more valuable?
 

Nigel

19 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The things childhood memories are made of! I just about remember the first transmissions of HHG2TG, R4 on a Thurs? 6.30pm?

There is a whole generation reading this thread and googling C90 as we speak.....😜

I did the same and I think I still have the tapes (as well as something to play them on!)

Nigel

Tony,

This is quoted as a photo of Manston apparently when new and the wrinkles are quite clearly apparent in it.  I know Bulleid was a comparatively early exponent of welding and even in the 1970’s BREL was building wrinkles into its Mk3 coach sides, due to welding distortion, so maybe there was an element of that in addition to the hand formed sheets?
 

best wishes

Nigel
 

On the matter of offerings to the great god carpet, I saw a short video clip recently of a jeweller at a workbench and he was wearing an apron, the bottom of which was attached to the workbench.  Obviously, it’s not a good idea to get up and walk away, but I guess it is a useful way of saving and recycling precious metals.  I was thinking that a Velcro base to an apron, with the other side of Velcro stuck to the workbench might reduce the offerings being made to the aforementioned great god…

Nigel

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I have a question, and I have really no idea as to the answer. 

 

On some of the Coronation drawings, a 'casing' is shown, completely covering all the underframe detail (with the exception of the dynamo). It's a kind of  'bath' shape, but with a flat base and 'tamba' ends, which fits between the skirts, but is shorter by at least a foot at both ends than the skirts. 

 

Having pored over all the photographs I have, it's impossible to tell if it exists or not. 

 

On all the models I've seen, the underframe detail is all there, but hidden by the skirts in normal viewing conditions. Turn a car upside down, and there it is - no 'bath-like' box hiding everything underneath. 

 

My question? Were such things ever fitted on the real things? 

 

My thanks in anticipation. 

Tony, I’ve been Googling a bit and it looks at though the LNER official photographer took a number of photos of the Coronation carriages under construction.  The images are held by the NRM and some are available commercially.  If your friends are sufficiently interested, it might be worthwhile asking the NRM whether it holds any further images of the trains under construction, which it could make available. Best wishes Nigel

Tony,

Although an Eastern man myself, living in Surrey I do mix with Southern people and through the NW Surrey EM group know of several layouts covering the LSWR main line. Swaynton is owned by one member of that group (and will be exhibited at Ally Pally), Semley is a superb P4 depiction and I think I saw a model of Brookwood in 00 in the RM a month or two back.  They are out there and one should also bear in mind the South Western main line was much shorter than the ECML…

best wishes Nigel

Would that be because Sir Launcelot was withdrawn in April 1959?

Andy, I’m guessing it is a Southern 4-6-0 tender loco with an eight wheeled tender, to be converted to EM for Swaynton’s appearance at Ally Pally.  On the basis it is an RTR conversion, I’m guessing something like a Hornby King Arthur?
 

cheers

Nigel

Tony, it’s funny how sometimes different threads in different places coincide but in the Great Eastern Railway Society email thread there has just been reference to ex Coronation BTO-TO twins working in a York, Lowestoft (Central), Yarmouth Vauxhall service from 1949.  There is reference back to an article on the subject in a recent GE Journal and that has a photo of such a twin set (1738 and 1737) at Norwich Thorpe. The photo does show roof boards but I’m not sure whether those coaches were from the spare set or one of the dedicated ones.

best

Nigel

Like everyone else I seem to have drawn a blank on photos of models made by Robbo Ormiston Chant.  The nearest I could get was a copy of an article published in the MRC in February 1972, which had some demonstrative photos, but I am pretty certain the photo of the Wills D1 tank is straight from the Wills catalogue (unless, of course, he was building kits in the 1960’s for Wills?), so no further forward, I’m afraid.

Nigel

Mentions of Robbo Ormiston Chant got me Googling a bit, as I also remember his articles and letters as a youngster.  It seems he was a member of the Manchester MRS who passed away in 1994.  There are references to him being the kit builder for a model shop in Deansgate; one thread has a piece from a contributor who apparently bought a Jamieson Jubilee built by him.  Enough time spent trawling the net; back to wagon building…

Nigel

Hi Martin,

I think one of the great things about our hobby is that we have the freedom do go about building out our projects as we personally think fit or enjoy.  On my BR East Anglian 1950’s layout, I put together a core of RTR carriage sets to get myself going, then built out using a range of different kits, to get to the full complement of my requirements.  I am now in the process of building some more kits to replace those RTR carriages either that I am not comfortable with, or which don’t strictly meet my requirements.  But that was just my personal way of tackling the matter and I’m sure there are many other equally valid ways of approaching it. Enjoy!
 

Nigel

Yes, I would agree with that comment. The thought of a quad or quint set would fill me with dread! I did complete twin art earlier this year, based on an Isinglass kit but that was at about the limit of my enjoyment factor.  Below is a photo of it leaving Elmham Market behind a modified Bachman Ivatt, converted to EM and with a Darlington chimney as befits the Cambridge allocated locos.

I can only echo what others have said with regard to running.  The standard and quality of running on LB on Thursday was something we should all take note of and aim for, if only because it adds to the pleasure of the operating session by removing much of the frustration.  To see four trains (regularly changed by Tony) going round so consistently smoothly and reliably was a joy to behold.  Thank you Tony for a very enjoyable day.