gr.king

While you have the pristine finials to hand as masters, what about making a rubber mould so you can cast resin replacements at will, perhaps casting in a metal rod as a spine to resist future breakages?

If anyone were sufficiently bothered, it wouldn't be a massive effort to make one new thin inner-end for the Toad D in plasticard and use that to produce a silicone rubber mould in which oodles of copies could be cast in resin. A simple flat glazing piece could then be stuck inside. No, that's not the sound of me volunteering.

Reply now received by PM, thanks.

If anybody is still monitoring this topic, what has happened about the layout's invitation to the 2023 Normanton and Pontefract show, as mentioned above please? The list of confirmed layouts for that show, now shown in the entry on this website, contains no reference to Blakey Rigg.

Sorry, yes, a poor choice of words earlier. I could join a specialist society, but I still wouldn't alter my standards to conform with theirs, if (as is likely) they were not the same as those that I have evolved. The point of course is this: Why should standards only count as finescale if they have been set by others? One-off standards set by the individual may be finer than, or coarser than a set of standards agreed by a group. I can't quote my acceptable track and wheel dimension limits down to 0.01mm and I'm not sure I could specify even to 0.1mm but my standards work and they are finer than most RTR offerings, especially older ones. In the analysis of whether they are finescale or not, it doesn't actually matter who created the standards and how many followers they have.

Well my OO track standards are certainly finer than anything that has ever been produced by Hornby, Bachmann or as part of the once (and still?) ubiquitous Peco Code 100 in any of its manifestations (complete with girder rails and ridiculously small crowded sleepers), but I'm certain that none of my code 75 rail track with reasonable sleepering conforms to any standard published by any self-appointed specialist society or standards bureau. My track gauge and (various) wheel standards have evolved and been adjusted as necessary to get satisfactory running by means of the minimal or least difficult alterations at any given stage. My stock is largely well-above what were once the accepted standards for RTR models. If that does not amount to finescale modelling, what is it? It hardly puts me in the coarse scale league. Added 3.20pm: See later post for further development / clarification of the point I was trying to make.

Your liver may think that you're doing it the right way.

Of more relevance these days than the long-discontinued Sharman wheels and the exotica of Ultrascale, especially for a relatively inexperienced builder who may not be seeking ultimate fidelity, the Scalelink option should not be overlooked. Plastic centred but self-quartering, direct fit on Romford / Markits axles, less tolerant of repeated rough removal and refitting than a Markits wheel would be, and not liked by some because they are generic with no flare to the ends of the spokes where they meet the rims, BUT, almost certainly cheaper than Markits even if no longer the bargain they once were. Dearer than Gibsons certainly, but very easy to order last time I had to try - no test of "personal idiosyncrasies tolerance" involved.

20+ years ago, just because it was an MS&L/GC item, I built the original Metcalfe kit, even carefully cutting out the black printed dummy "spaces" in the support frame for the roof overhang and colour-matching all of the exposed edges. I also remember having to put a brick-paper patch over an exposed white card area, even though I had assembled exactly as per the instuctions! I had nowhere to put the model so I "loaned" it (or so I thought) for use on a club layout until something better was made. A few weeks later I found that another member had altered and extended the model in my absence, so I never bothered asking for it back! I now have one of the upgraded kits, un-built, bought about four years ago, and it may get used as the initial, temporary representation of the station building on a new project of my own. Nobody else will get chance to alter this one...

And Metcalfe rather obligingly do a simple card kit for station buildings typical of those on the proper MS&L lines through S.Yorks and N. Lincs, for the convenience of those who can't/won't build anything better or who initially need a space-holder while they build a better version.

At that temperature, are you re-melting both solders and creating a new alloy with minimal joint-forming ability? Maybe try soldering at less than 179C, after cleaning off the parts and re-tinning as before.

No ornate painting/lining required if two existing decorated bodies are united end-to end. Careful trimming of the roof overhang and any other protruding details on the inner ends prior to joining would do the job. Little in the way of time, facilities or even dexterity really required too.

Or if you are inclined to make at least the minimum of effort to make something, you could build a simple floor with solebars and footboards (try three layers of 1mm plastikard with Z section strip along the edges), add buffers, basic trussing (wire and split pins), choice of either gas tanks or dyno and battery boxes, a brake cylinder and V-hangers, fit a couple of Fox bogies (kit built or other) and unite two short bodies of choice neatly... You don't have to ask somebody else to provide everything you want.

The various supporting societies for particular "builder rather than RTR buyer" modelling scales perhaps now ought to consider co-operating (no matter how insular some of them may seem to be) to organise a reasonable number of regional multi-scale specialist shows aimed at the serious model builder and therefore likely to be viable for specialist traders otherwise reluctant to attend "general" shows for the "can't-build / / don't have time / won't try" majority. Compared to a single society show, held only once per year (if a volunteer organising group can actually be found) and (for some, almost inevitably) located at the extreme opposite end of the country, such things could be an advantage. It may be an effective short-term strategy for specialist traders to simply deal with telephone, postal and internet orders from home, but will the reduced ability of the potential buyer to see that the trader exists, and to see / examine his wares lead to dwindling sales? Not a problem for traders nearing retirement , not owing money, and not expecting to be able to sell their businesses, but certainly a matter of concern for anybody wanting his business to sustain him long-term.

Just a couple of quick further thoughts: While Begbies Traynor are doing their bit, don't forget simple basic stuff like reading the meters at any commercial premises that you lease and making sure that you keep proof that the utility companies have been notified that the tenancy has ended and that the account (in the relevant name) is closed. Don't rely on a landlord to be honest... For those small traders with the luxury of not being in a crisis, I would suggest that another liability to look out for, and to avoid if possible at a much earlier stage, is a property lease that doesn't simply name the landlord and the company (as tenant) but which also names the company proprietors as "parties" to the lease. That's a cynical tactic to give the (often big, well-off) landlord a claim against hard-pressed individuals in event of default, in disregard of the small trader's limited company status.

The whole point of major exhibitions is much reduced if there are no suppliers of a truly comprehensive range of materials, tools and parts for serious working-model builders. Those who organise large shows on a commercial basis, and who would like to see them continue, might want to consider measures to ensure that suitable suppliers survive and attend shows, if necessary by offering preferential stand-rent terms, investment, or other practical / cost assistance to the relevant firms to bolster them.

At least as proprietors, you appear to have had the good sense to trade as a limited company. I hope you have also managed to avoid signing any personal guarantees for any current bank overdrafts, loans, or debts to suppliers. Personal experience of Begbies Traynor suggests that they do a good job, but (just a thought) you might want to make doubly sure that they discover, settle and close off any of the firm's accounts that have accidentally been created (or left) in previous (or incorrect) versions of the Eileen's or Russan names. You don't want the debt-collecting hounds of Hell coming after you, long after the company has been officially liquidated and its affairs wound up. I hope you can look forward to a peaceful, enjoyable and financially tolerable retirement.

Lovely broad gauge rebuild of the Atlantic Frank, and thank you for showing it on Dewsbury Central which I haven't seen for three or four years now. The further developments are a pleasure to see. My perception of the background noise level at some exhibitions, even when not at their busiest, suggests to me that rather a lot of mechanism noise, never mind just the whine of later Portescaps, would simply go un-noticed. The additional noise from layouts with multiple un-necessary sound effects almost guarantees it now...

In the same way I now have two visible solder-filled joints (from some years ago) in the cab roof of an ex-GNR D2, and similar on the widened rear of a tender tank.

Here's where practical application / experience trumps sceptical theory. For 20+ years I have used 25 watt irons wired through two different models of standard household lighting-dimmer switch ( both dimmers from B & Q, bought years apart) both for 73C solder for white metal and for 145C solder on etched parts, cleaning the bit when switching solders of course. I haven't had to use a light bulb or other ballast resistor in order to get the power reduction by the dimmer switch to work. I established the typical best settings on the dimmer dial by trial and error. I do not dispute that the temperature recovery time of the iron is longer after soldering a joint than it perhaps would be with a posh proprietary temperature-controlled outfit, and the ability to continue to supply heat at the pre-set temperature into a larger joint isn't present of course, but that hasn't stopped me from getting results. I don't seem to have electrocuted myself or others, blown any fuses, or burned the house down either, in fact I'm sure I haven't done any of those things. That's not because I have a nanny-state prescribed piece of paper to say that I was electrically competent on the particular day of an official test, it's because I listened when mains electricity was covered in 1970s secondary school physics lessons up to A-Level, I have since continued to watch and listen to those who demonstrate things like correct plug-wiring, and I still apply care and common sense.

I think York, Spalding and the NEC (at least) have previously had the "benefit" of a layout that was fairly certain not to be in working order when it was taken to those events.

You are right Jol. Three cheers for all the "tame" and not completely "green" family members, friends, and other sole traders who, as casual but sometimes essential helpers, can certainly ease, rather than increase, the burden of the owner of a very small business.

I'm not diabetic but I detest thoroughly sugary cakes. In some commercial offerings, even the so called sponge is almost entirely air and sugar, no substance at all to it. A certain well advertised "Mr" makes particularly unhealthy and revolting "insubstantial" cakes in my opinion. Bring on the cheese and walnut loaf...

As a (thankfully) past part-owner of a real-world business, I'm afraid that even if I were a hard pressed one-man-band the one thing I would now never again do is to employ anybody to help me. By the time you have trained an employee to be a conscientious real asset to the business, the law gives them all sorts of rights and you have almost no rights at all, just a load of costs and duties. As short-term engagement of untrained or not-fully-trained workers may not reliably help the business, remaining solo and of limited size seems to me the only option.

While it is not based on an area or a period that is of major interest to me, I would have had a look at the seemingly well known Crewlisle, which I've never seen in the flesh, just to satisfy curiosity - had it been there. Is anybody "in the know" and at liberty to tell us why it was not there?