gr.king

That's a clever combination of body parts, even preserving the paintwork.

Excellent pictures Ollie, many thanks. I agree that the severely cropped weight, held by just the aft screw, might still do the job of holding the motor, better still, if there's space within the body for a thin brass strap over the rear of the weight, with its ends fixed by screws into new tapped holes in the sides of the main block. What's it for Gents? Well I'm tempted to see whether one of these units can be employed under the home-made body I already have for A2/2 Lord President with original shortened Mikado boiler and vee-front cab. That was made from a butchered A3 body, with new front portion and A4 type cab from resin. Had I made it with the Hornby chassis in mind, I would have simply included a long enough slot in the base to take that big weight, but it was created to suit a modified Bachmann A2 chassis and the whole of the front of the boiler is permanently filled with shot and resin, cast in situ... Apart from demonstrating the feasibility of using the Hornby chassis for the only types of resin A2 conversions that still make any sense now that Hornby offer the others RTR, an option that could just possibly still interest others, use of this chassis would save me one future job, as believe it or not, I still have only one completed Thompson Pacific chassis of my own which has to take turns under my A2/2 and A2/3 bodies! The possibility of an A2/1 is obviously there too, for those who fancy it. The rear frames of the chassis would have to be cropped a bit, and the A4 cab spliced into the A3 body a little further forward, or, if you have money to burn, convert the very expensive new Bachmann V2 body...

Indeed. Looking at what appears to be the end of a gear shaft protruding through the side of the main chassis block, above the middle wheel, I suspect the spur gears require no other means of retention, but the separate weight may still do the job of holding down the nose of the motor and thus keeping the worm in mesh. A new means of retention without the weight may be possible, but clear knowledge of what lies beneath would still be best.

Yes, I'm sure there are vastly worse nightmares than those about exam stress, teaching careers, un-built garages and so on.

The ideal thing, if that cast weight is also a necessity for gear/motor retention, would be to see a good image or two of what is revealed when the weight is removed. Has anybody been so adventurous as to remove the weight for any reason and taken any pictures? For the purpose I have in mind, such an A2/2 or A2/3 chassis would only be viable if there's scope if necessary for a simple alternative means of keeping the motor and gears in the correct location. It would be handy to be able to form some sort of impression before buying. If nothing more appears here, maybe I'll try an e-mail to nice Mr Kohler, who is ever-obliging if his presentation on TV is correct.

Why no pressure? He loves pressure.

After O-Levels, A-Levels, a BSc degree (all with good outcomes) and then professional registration exams (involving a second attempt in some sections), I still used to start to wake occasionally in the night, in the early months of the year, worrying desperately about whether I had done enough revision, until I was fully awake and realised that there were no exams to face in following Summer. I'm glad that tendency disappeared after two to three years. That should make it obvious why I chose not to attempt any qualifications at a higher level still...

The chassis unit for this range of models visibly includes a separate cast weight above the leading coupled wheels, also extending back over the part of the chassis structure which I presume houses the gear train. I haven't yet had the opportunity to handle one of these chassis, and I'm curious to know whether this separable weight also serves to locate / retain the gears and/or the front of the motor. Does anybody who has removed this weight for any reason know whether it is necessary to keep those other components in place please?

I was quite taken with these items for some reason, on the Leeds Model and Experimental Engineers' display stand. 3.5" gauge and 5" gauge I believe. Nice to see some South Western coaches that are not counterfeit RTR generics too.

Yes, you are quite right, and I wasn't complaining about the traders' own decisions not to attend - if all the usual ones were actually invited that is. I know that cost of attendance, as well as the time it takes up, is a problem for traders. It is also evident that this "new and unproven" combination event at Harrogate was organised rather late, at least as far as the model railway side of things is concerned, and clearly traders cannot all be expected to be available for extra shows if they already have regular bookings in their diaries.

I heard that there was supposed to be an additional dedicated bus service (vintage??) but the exceptional weather put paid to that. Fully expecting "captive audience" gross overpricing at most big-event catering facilities, I have long made a habit of going to the very little trouble involved in taking my own home-made sandwiches, fruit, choccy wafer and bottle of water. It doesn't hurt at all, and my wallet feels greatly relieved.

There were certainly some very impressive steam-powered BIG TOYS on show too.

I got there, after an unexplained half-hour delay in a stationary queue just after 7.30am on the A180 between Immingham and Barnetby . There was a lot of space for the public in the show - I wonder if many potential visitors were put off by yesterday's early morning weather? I hope the organisers's finances haven't been wrecked by low attendance, as I thought the combination of model engineering and model railways made it a good show, even if some of the usual model railway trade was lacking, as the model engineering trade suppliers seemed to me to be offering a much more impressive range of tools, metals, miniature nuts, bolts etc than is typical at model railway shows - and I suspect the quality and price options may have been greater too. At least I managed to pass on the item I had taken with me for A. N. Other.

Nice and warm in there by the look of the attire. Fully to Antipodean tastes?

It has been said before, by others, so repetition here is possibly un-necessary, but for my tastes, Bob Symes-Schutzmann's presentation, plus the general style and content, of the old BBC "Model World" programme was vastly more satisfactory than anything offered up in recent years for railway modellers, such as the utterly silly Model Railway Bake-off or Margate - a Muddled World.

For some, the method of choice may be determined by the range of skills / techniques they wish to use or are able to use, plus the perceived cost. The question of whether time is regarded as a cost, and whether the purchase of a kit is justified when an RTR model (possibly not worth much if sold on) is already in the modeller's possession, may influence the decision, giving justification to a method that others may see as being "the hard way".

Within the realms of the Baldwin product, or are we including the Midland-only Schenectady / ALCO type too?

Nah, pure pre-group GNR surely? Or is that unfair to the successors of Matthias Baldwin?

Thanks Tony, Hornby's commercial logic regarding the provision of only the most "A2/3 like" A2/2 variants is obviously sound enough, especially given the mass pre-occupation with modelling of the late 50s / early 60s. I mentioned a while back that a buyer of my resin parts was planning to attempt an earlier version of the A2/2 using the new Hornby mechanism, but as I still haven't heard any news of his progress and some versions of the A2/3 are now offered at much reduced prices, I thought I should at least have a superficial look at what might be involved. After comparing the first A2/2 body that I made (by adaptation of the Margate tender-drive era A3 body with A4 cab and resin bits up front) against on-line images of the new Hornby mechanism, I suspect the only alterations that would be needed are a longer slot than I originally created in the base of the body, and a couple of new screw-mounting points. For the time being though, a full practical trial of this possibility is not high on my to-do list. My focus is now firmly on the 1930s, with layout construction rather than rolling stock the current priority.

Those were the days when that magazine attempted to show and encourage quality hand-made modelling, and was therefore well worth buying, most of the time. Much better than a big red banner on the cover and ultra basic articles on topics such as "how to use glue, for beginners" - presumably beginners who never even did any cutting and gluing in their pre-school years. I suppose such things save me the expense of buying it though... By the way, I don't think Bachmann/Hornby have covered all of the ECML Pacifics bar the A2/1 and A1/1 class. There's no RTR option for the A2/2s with original cut-down Mikado boilers, nor, if modelling-period blinkers are removed completely, is there an RTR Raven Pacific.

Mid-way between the coupled wheels, on each side of the chassis, small enough to be in-board of the sweep of the rods, a small right-angle bracket is added, with a plain scew-hole in the portion that projects out (in the horizontal plane) from the frames. Just above the level of the running plate if possible, or higher if it has to be, a similar right angle bracket or a simple block is fitted within the splashers, immediately above the first bracket. There's normally enough room even with separate splashers, as there's usually at least a shallow link between the splashers to accommodate the coupling rods. I either solder a nut to the top bracket, or tap if I've used a block. Machine screws driven in from below, but not tightened fully, leave the four-coupled unit free to see-saw slightly. The screw holes in the brackets on the frames obviously need to be the minimum size to clear the threads of the machine screws. If they are too large the four-coupled unit has too much freedom to crab or waddle. The portion of the frames ahead of the leading coupled wheels is completely separate from this unit, and fixed firmly to the body. Unless you have track like a WW1 battlefield, the rocking of neither the four coupled drive unit nor the leading bogie is likely to be enough to result in flanges fouling frames or splashers. The method may not be applicable if you have very tight track curves. It depends on whether a slot across the full width of the frames will allow the bogie pin to move far enough to the side. You might consider this set up as half-way to compensation, although you can take it all the way if necessary by allowing one axle in each four-wheeled portion to rock on a centre-pivot, but for a OO loco that might find itself running on "universal" track with large gaps at the frogs / crossings it can be an advantage to keep the axles rigidly mounted within each four wheeled truck so that "fine" wheels cannot drop into the crossing gaps. In the image I've now added below, the underside of one of my D7 models, you should be able to see the bright heads of the "pivot" screws for the drive unit, between the coupled wheels and inside the line of the rods, on each side. In this case they screw up into a block (also inside the line of the rods) in the low section of the splashers alongside the firebox. The bogie slide slot and screw are also visible, plus the connections to extra pick-ups in the tender. The front, riding on the loco drawbar, could be arranged to bear either on the body or the rear of the chassis, the former putting even weight on both coupled axles, the latter maximising weight on the rear.

It may be thought to be a faff to arrange in some cases, but the approach I now prefer for the building of 4-4-0s, especially those with large leading wheels and flat running plates, avoids that fouling problem and guarantees no nodding of a heavy front. I let the front of the body ride on the bogie (pin in slot to allow the bogie to move sideways as well as turn/rock) and the rear of the body is mounted so as to be free to rock on the tranverse mid-line of the four-coupled drive unit. The front of the tender can if necessary still be arrange to ride on the drawbar at the rear of the loco to give more adhesive weight which is equally loaded onto the two coupled wheel sets.

Generally true for those who want the same product as everybody else, straight out of the box, but for those of us willing and able to do some work, there's the alternative strategy of waiting to see whether the prices of the un-popular left-over versions eventually tumble, with a view to re-finishing or re-building them as different / better versions. It's a risk of course, as is every course of action, but it can pay off.

Thanks Paul - were those the only ones surviving in service in any of the years after 1922?

I regret that the resin V2 body I used to produce is no longer available. The prospect (and the very eventual reality) of a more-nearly correct Bachmann body persuaded me that once demand for the resin item dwindled from initially encouraging levels, and the original mould ceased to be useable, that it would not be a good use of my time and money to renew the mould. I did renew the mould for the cab / firebox section for the A4 to W1 conversion, barely a fortnight before Hornby announced their RTR W1 and extinguished any prospect of further demand for that. They also announced the A2/2 and A2/3 models at about the same time, rendering most of my provision for conversions to produce those locos obsolete, and for good measure announced new versions of the P2 too, eliminating an alternative use for the same etched valve gear and rendering my P2 "nose" moulds almost redundant. To be honest though, I had been starting to find the production of most of those parts somewhat boringly repetitive.