gr.king

I didn't realise I had you on tenterhooks. An article in March 2017 Backtrack attributes the origin of the steam tender to one Monsieur Verpilleux, whose design was built for the St. Etienne to Lyons Railway in 1843.

It's a debatable point, but if all of the necessary information is already in print, but in a variety of different places, there is always a risk that a new publication that seeks to put all of the information in one place may actually cause confusion if any errors sneak past the proof-reading and editing process. A disagreement between two "authoritative" works on the same subject simply creates another problem for the fastidious modeller to solve. I remember lessons in technical drawing (with actual pencil, paper, straight edge and square) in my 'teens. It was always considered to be correct that no dimension should be marked on a drawing if that dimension could be determined by adding or subtracting dimensions that were already marked, as any unintentional disagreement between figures would make nonsense of the whole thing.

Being a myope, I could much more easily just remove my glasses and stand back from the layout, seeing none of the features distinctly.

For a supposed pre-group scene, I'm afraid the late 20th century Peco caricature of track, with FB rail and loads of short skinny sleepers, kills the illusion completely for me, although I can see that attention has been paid to selection of reasonable commercially available items to represent other features.

You may be able to solve the wheel size and ride height problem for the tender, eliminate the need for extended axles, and get a better result by looking at the possibility of building an inside-bearing inner frame. You could do that from scratch, but fold-up etched frames are for instance available as one alternative. Trimming to fit and creation of a means of detachable fitting will need to be addressed.

Still impressive, but after viewing again, this time listening too, I question two points: Style of smokebox door - too modern for the Sturrock / Stirling eras? Did Sacré of the MS&LR really come up with the original steam tender idea? According to a long article I read on the history of articulated locos and booster devices, neither Sturrock nor Sacré were the very first to equip a loco with a steam driven tender.

Thoroughly impressive miniature engineering, although I wonder if the real things ever attained that sort of blurred rod-twiddling speed? I'm not sure I'd want to be nearby if one did! No doubt 50 or so loaded coal wagons behind the tender would calm it down a bit.

Bravely volunteered Chas! You're excited too? A job for life (yours or the society's) I imagine. In the current volunteer dearth, there can't be much likelihood that your candidacy will be opposed, or fail to gain approval, or indeed that you'll ever be ousted unless you make a terrible mess and influential enemies.

I didn't look closely enough when I commented earlier. Rather than using those external brass strips, I made the internal flat strips that you have there differently. Mine are pieces of tin plate, cut from a can, folded over on themselves (leaving the protruding folded end slightly rounded rather than folded flat) so that when screwed down the projecting folded end exerts some natural downward pressure. They provide both the alignment and the electrical contact.

Mode of alignment and electrical connection looks similar to something I've employed for about 20 years at home. Seems to have worked well enough.

The right of reply is, as you suggest, just as essential as the right to express an opinion or belief, even if others might have hurt feelings. My experience of bean counters / accountants is that they are of course useful, as are many business tools, so long as those using the services of an accountant understand what is actually meant by the figures that the accountant produces, as well as understanding the data from which those figures were prepared, and the rules (sometimes arbitrary tax laws) that had to be followed in preparing the figures. Taking figures in accounts as "gospel" can be highly misleading if they are not really understood, and putting accountants effectively in full control of a business can be disastrous if the accountants do not understand fully, and cater for, the various subtle ways in which the business makes its money and attracts customers. Some activities that appear to cost money rather than make money may actually be to the overall benefit of the business.

It would be a great shame if the only people left feeling safe to comment on here were those who restrict themselves to humourless, politically "correct" (says who?), blandly inoffensive remarks.

Ordered by phone, to avoid any hitches with on-line two-step card verification, mid afternoon Wednesday (day before yesterday), had a nice conversation about the state of the model railway trade too, items delivered by post by 9.30am today. I was also offered the alternative of collecting the items, post free, from a nearby show this weekend if I happened to be going, but that's not the case. Costs not at all unreasonable compared to the spiralling prices in the RTR sector. Happy customer!

Whilst it is very clearly being built to a commendably high standard with maximum possible authenticity, the number of years since Doncaster 1970 was conceived and started, plus the number of years it will probably still take before it becomes even a reasonably complete/convincing working model would be entirely beyond my patience/interest/attention span. Credit is due to those who can tolerate such a long gestation period.

I meant to ask this a few days ago. Did that "XO3 / XO4 replacement" motor come with a pre-fitted Triang-type worm gear and does it really mesh perfectly with the Dublo pinion? If so, that must be a very rare example of Hornby-Dublo and Rovex-Triang using a common standard!

I don't see modification of the track, to a form that I wanted it to take in the first place, as "compromising" it in any way. On the contrary, I've improved it, especially as I now have self isolating points, perfect for the long-standing normal methods of analogue operation, instead of permanently live sidings that demand a section break and another switch.

Interesting that you find that. Based on similar earlier reports, I decided to do the necessary work to avoid trouble before laying and ballasting my points. I've changed the gaps and the wiring to get the old conventional electrofrog arrangement, the long, polarity-switched crossing section now extending about three timbers towards the toe from the actual crossing. I wasn't sure that any of my locos had wide enough wheel treads, fat enough flanges, or sufficient over-throw of flangeless wheels on curves to be at risk of causing shorts, but I certainly did not want to find that I had a problem once all the track was firmly fixed in placed, wired up and ballasted. Others (possibly with a "lucky" range of locos and limited variations in track geometry?) say they've had no trouble with wheel-induced shorts whatsoever and seem to find my precautions rather surprisingly thorough and pessimistic, if not indeed the actions of a lunatic. I do not regret doing the extra work, for peace of mind.

I'd have suggested the same myself somewhat sooner than now, but had not been at my best Saturday onwards owing to some sort of ear infection. Improving significantly now though. The very unequal wheelbase was one clue pointing to H-D, and I do recall the late owner of one of our no-longer-present model shops describing an "XO4 like" motor used in some of the Dublo models, including some versions of the Castle and 8F if memory is not lying to me.

Does that mean that the manufacturing rights (for all scales) are still with DJH, who would therefore be at liberty at some future date to sell the rights to another, or to make more kits if so inclined? Have they merely rid themselves of the task of (slowly?) selling just the existing OO stock?

Oddly enough, I could never remember times tables when being pressed to learn them, before the age of 11 at junior school. Only during my early/mid teens did matters improve, as I got interested in the less mundane aspects of maths, getting grade A at A level in due course, and now I can usually come up with most of the multiples up to 12x12 either from memory, or by only a moment's thought, having taught myself quick ways of mentally working out exact or approximate answers to awkward sums, subtractions, multiples and a certain amount of division too.

Point taken, and in that case, apology offered. The trouble of course is that the omission of an e is more than a simple spelling error if it turns the meaning of the word into something that is quite different, and some people quite clearly don't know that silicon and silicone are vastly different substances, confusing mis-pronunciation of those two words also being common. Either the mis-spelling or the pronunciation can sometimes leave one wondering what on earth the intended meaning was. A totally different name for the polymers formed by silicon would have been more sensible, but we're stuck with the existing one.

I don't think you'd make viable mould from the non-metallic element silicon. Apart from an e, there's a world of difference between the element, and one of its potentially very suitable, flexible, silicone polymers.

For a stronger repair to the broken droplink on that cast brittle muck-metal crosshead, how about filing the remains of the cast link off the crosshead, gently drilling two tiny holes side by side into the crosshead where the link used to be, allowing the two ends of a short U-shaped piece of brass or n/s wire to be superglued securely into those close-fitting holes. Bend the rest of the U-shape downwards and solder on to it a decent n/s drop link. There must be plenty of oddments of etched valve gear in your spares boxes. Rivet or pin-and solder the new drop link to the existing union link. Too fiddly and too much faff?

I've curved the bullhead large radius points, creating both (approximate equivalent) 9ft/3ft radius curved points and a Y. Simply not a problem. No need to cut the bases anywhere if the point is being fixed down to hold its shape. More extreme curving would result in the tie-bar becoming skewed so much as to bind against the adjacent timbers. I've also re-gapped and re-wired them to get "traditional" proper electrofrog, with long polarity-switched crossings and no scope for short circuits from flange-backs or wide treads. Additionally, I cut off the silly "bent timber" (and others) at the divergent end of the point to improve realism and allow closer spacing of parallel tracks. Some suitable methods are illustrated (by others, not me) in the Peco Bullhead topic on this very website, and probably elsewhere too .

I realised later last evening that I'd meant to mention that the evidence of the cab roof should not show at the front either.