gr.king

I take the point, but if the principle of following real examples is taken to its ultimate conclusion, and only the most typical way of doing things is ever represented, then an imaginary location (or an imagined further development of a real location) with some rare or unique features cannot be portrayed.

No big banners then that I recall, but the typical long tables covered in blue boxes etc.

Rails have been doing model railway shows in the middle and eastern parts of England for many years, probably twenty or more.

Looks like my memory was half right and half fanciful. Could have been worse...

Memory suggests that images show the B3/3 still equipped with a GC style swinging front drawhook projecting through a horizontally elongated slot in the buffer beam, and possibly oval buffer heads too, so maybe a few more bits than the bogie and the rump of the frames were re-used.

I often use 1/8" bore plain brass tube as bearings, especially if I'm out of top hat bearings as I always keep tube for its many possible uses. No external flange to get in the way of anything, any bearing length I fancy, up to the whole width of the frames occasionally, with an oiling hole or slot somewhere.

No it doesn't - the whole idea being to celebrate the existence of each of the four main groups equally, not to run a show with a bias towards the LMS (no matter how much you might prefer red engines) and not to overlook the entities that did not become a part of any one of the groups. As a modellers' show, the relative sizes of the real groups are not in any case necessarily relevant. One could argue instead, unhelpfully, that the extent to which they have been modelled should be the deciding factor, but how would the extent to which each group has been modelled ever be accurately determined? How would models/layouts that never leave home, built by those who lead very private lives, be discovered / assessed / counted? I certainly would not support or attend a show that was going to be dominated by LMS modelling because the LMS was the largest group, nor would I want to see a bias towards conical boilers on dark green engines that all look more or less the same, and I wouldn't want the very small concerns ignored - they add to variety, and very much add interest if they represent something rarely modelled. If people want to argue about levels of representation relative to the real group sizes, that just adds to my belief that no suitable show is likely to take place.

EQUAL representation as nearly as possible for the four groups is what I had in mind. I see no fair justification for anything else.

As this is the grouping centenary year, it would be nice to have an exhibition (or several) specifically (and only?) catering for Big Four era modelling, with an even balance of representation of the four groups (plus the joint lines and minor concerns that remained independent). It almost certainly won't happen of course, probably too late to organise properly and not to the taste of the many who like to simply tip clone RTR models out of red or blue boxes onto Peco girder-way to portray the fifties and later. If it did happen of course, it might actually be of interest to the small specialist suppliers for model builders, traders who are increasingly reluctant to attend shows, since modellers of the earlier eras do perhaps have to build rather more for themselves.

I've spotted the links to the lists, in small type well-down the Model Rail Scotland home page now.

I might be in central Scotland around those dates, oddly enough. Which 50 layouts and which 120 traders have to be key questions though...

Is there any remote chance that thanks to WW2 and post-war austerity, repainting had been neglected for long enough for the box to still be in pre-1937ish LNER colours, maybe brown and cream?

And no matter how many pages of latter day calculations are churned out to specifically try to demonstrate that the City of Truro claim is likely to have been true, the fact remains that it was not properly measured and checked at the time, so it simply doesn't count...

Whether the un-authenticated GWR claim is or isn't true was not really the point. I was thinking solely about LNER loco design. It was the question of whether any loco using typical Robinson design features would have done the things that Gresley's locos eventually did, after long travel valves had been adopted, and whether any of the other distance and speed feats on the LNER would have been achieved if design progress had been delayed by even a very few years of Robinson's tenure of office as group CME. For instance, Gresley and Bulleid might have moved elsewhere in that time in order to further their own careers. Nobody can ever know.

The layout of the steam ports and passages in the first (only?) design of four-cylinder arrangement that was purely "Team Robinson" is of course now widely regarded as just as big a hindrance to performance as the grate / ashpan problems were. I wonder how much better the revised cylinder castings used in the later B7s were, and who had had a hand in the redesign. I understand that the B7s also had extra dampers to overcome some of the air supply problems for the grate, possibly suggesting that the penny had eventually dropped for somebody at Gorton, but as the B7s had smaller wheels than the 4-6-0 express locos, giving more space for a decent ashpan, was the extra damper really a "key" difference? The earlier very few B6s, also with small wheels, were highly regarded, and I'm not sure that the extra damper was present in those.

It may be relevant, if controversial, to ask whether London-Edinburgh non-stop, 100mph in the early thirties, and 126mph in 1938 would have been achieved had the design of "express" locos with Robinson's restricted grate areas, cramped ashpans and limited air supply to the grate continued, rather than Doncaster's wide grates over modest sized carrying wheels - although the latter was possibly over-done in some designs, and included in some which may not have needed it at all.

The former anniversary being clearly the more significant one yet receiving woefully little attention. It is 100 years for goodness sake...

You've evidently had plenty to do. I hope the end is in sight. Good luck.

Funnily enough, it crossed my mind earlier today that I hadn't noticed any new posts from you recently. Which side of the pond are you now? Happy New Year.

If it is open season for reviews of 2022 railway modelling, I'll toss in my two penn'orth here too, if I may: On the face of it, my achievements have not been nearly so numerous as those of some, although a lot of work went into some of them. Unfortunately, the year got off on a very sour note as I had to refuse to take part in Doncaster show after realising that the organisers were not going to take Covid prevention measures nearly seriously enough, despite previous assurances. I'd been looking forward to making "my nearest major show", in the home town (now City) of the former GNR & LNER works, a fitting finale to my involvement with the Grantham layout, but not at reckless risk to my health and that of others. Continuing work in safety, at home, I completed the livery of the GNR Stirling 174 Class goods engine that I had built largely from home made resin parts and plasticard in the latter part of 2021, and the re-paint into LNER livery of the white metal V4 that I had bought in BR black about 3 years earlier. I then moved on to the creation of master parts, moulds, castings and a couple of finished models of LNER D7 class 4-4-0 locos (former MS&LR / GCR Class 2 or 2A). It turned out that photographs studied carefully demonstrated the need for rather a lot of red lining on the "appealingly simple" black livery that I had expected to apply... Once those were done I decided that it was time to clean, tidy and test my long-neglected loft layout so that I could set out and run some of my accumulation of stock that had mostly been living in travel-to-show boxes for several years. Further involvement with any suitable show layouts seemed to be extremely unlikely in the short to medium term. I was at least able to start attending shows as a guest once again, commencing with the local Immingham show in mid-May, when the general Covid risk had eased off considerably. I also decided to make a renewed start, in earnest, on a potentially portable additional section of the layout, first planned over twenty years ago and abortively "started" in 2018. I had barely begun when I had the opportunity to acquire a two 3D printed GCR Barnum coaches from Alan Rose and Martin Kirby. They looked as if they needed little more than a coat of paint, glazing, and handrails to finish them off. Alan seemed keen for me to get on with them and to report my experiences, so I did, although in the end I did rather more work than I had expected in order to get the quality of result that I wanted. Anyway, they did at last, in combination with a pair I built a long time ago from Jidenco kits, provide me with my only all-GCR "set" (so far) of corridor coaches. Work continues on the layout extension of course, and will do for quite some time I expect... A pleasant half-day at the EM show in Wakefield in late August (hobbling around on what, in clear hindsight, was a recently broken toe) gave me further encouragement, as did a visit (in monsoon conditions) to Leeds show in October for a good look at Mike Edge's developing Wentworth Junction layout. Much gossip ensued, as it also did when I visited the reliably good Spalding show in early November. As the year drew towards a close I was demonstrating resin casting at the Warley NEC event. A fairly enjoyable experience despite M42 and NEC traffic and the lingering effects of a respiratory virus of some sort that had already been my constant companion for a full month. Just before Christmas, in the frosty spell, I paid a visit to Clive Mortimore's "Sheffield Exchange" too. Another enjoyable afternoon. Happy New Year - let's hope anyway. P.S. Even after all that waffle, I now realise that I've failed to mention an excellent afternoon in September, with Alan Rose, Martin Kirby, Alan's 1930s Spalding layout, and a good Sunday dinner provided to add to the pleasure!

I'm with you on that first point John, in the practical rather than theoretical and pedantic world, though others will differ on that, at great and tedious length given the opportunity. Not something to take up space here. Mercifully, the resins and mould rubber that I use have virtually no odour. Each to his own, of course. Happy New Year to all, if we're given a chance that is.

You're probably right about the perceived difficulty of creating masters John, although for private use the quiet duplication of unaltered, or virtually unaltered commercial parts can be considered, especially when no longer made by the original manufacturer, and/or where that manufacturer no longer exists and nobody has shown any interest in resurrecting the business, but let's not get into discussion of strict interpretation of copyright laws here. There's always the possibility too of using a substantially altered commercial part as a master. If alterations go far enough, it may be fair to claim that only the general shape (if that) of the original part is being used, and in that sense it is no different from using a conveniently shaped piece of raw material.

I'm baffled by the prevailing current fixed-mindset that sees expensive etching or expensive 3D printing, both being technology dependent, as the default solutions to parts requirements. Cheap, low tech, do-at-home resin casting seems to be totally absent from, or ignored by, the thinking processes of so many. Never mind, I don't object to keeping the advantages to myself.

I like easy questions: I had no need to shorten the central running plate to move the rear S-curve for my A2/2 because the body is an extensive conversion of a Hornby A3 body of the tender-drive generation, its rear S-curve in 4mm scale indistinguishable from the P2 & early A2/2 version with correct relationship to the firebox lower front. Splashers had to go of course, as did the cab and a wedge of firebox to make way for an A4 type cab. I don't yet know of anybody who has done the job based on the recent Hornby later A2/2, but I did supply somebody with the necessary parts a while ago and I live in hope of hearing / seeing what progress he has made. I believe his plan was to use only the Hornby A2/2 chassis, and an A3 body as I did.

For that matter, you could simply rub / file down the back of one of the ends supplied in the kit, then use that as the mould master...