gr.king

I've been away for a week, so I'm possibly a little late in posting this, but there's something about most "as received" GCR loco kits that I cannot tolerate for my own use, and it isn't just the old white metal ones that display the fault as I've seen it on J11 models made from an etched kit too. The edges of the cab roof are totally wrongly portrayed! Robinson's cab roofs barely projected at all beyond the cab side, if they projected at all, and the rain strip was NOT on the outer edge, it was set well-in. The top corner of the spectacle plate was also slightly rounded. So many models are put together with the roof edge sticking out, the grossly excessive roof thickness showing, the rain strip right on the edge, and the spectacle plate with a sharp top corner, looking much more like something designed by Stroudley, Drummond, Pickersgill, Urie or various others. I altered the roof edges on all of the white metal GC kits that I built. Fortunately, the error is not perpetuated in the G-Train 4-6-0 etched kits, nor in Bachmann's RTR models.

For a split second it looked to me as if you'd hung that panel in the lounge. Then I thought "don't be silly", and then I saw the rest of the image...

It has been mentioned that the good Bachmann J11 has no J11/3 counterpart. I am sure that the early advertising for Bachmann's J11 included references to a proposal for what was evidently supposed to be a J11/3, but I am equally sure that the advertising that I read referred very clumsily to just a low-chimney and/or low dome version, quite ignoring the fact that the pitch of the boiler has to be higher for a J11/3, the cab front is consequently altered, and the front covers for the piston valves show. I presume a proper model would require a complete new body and not just some different fittings. If Bachmann really did not understand all of the differences at that time, perhaps it is best that no "J11/3" version was ever offered...

Why on earth the Telegraph sees recent years' TV coverage as a failed saviour (via a silly bake-off style, rushed, dumbed down version of modelling, or a look at what various "celebrities" have in the way of a trainset / model railway interests) I really do not know. I thought the "bake-off" did nothing to show and encourage sensible pursuit of the hobby. A proper look at what some of the best modellers (famous or probably otherwise) can achieve in normal circumstances, and how they achieve it, might do more to stir the interest of the kind of person who would also try to take modelling reasonably seriously.

No matter how well organised the "team" and the layout might be for assembling and dismantling the layout, I cannot see a case for trying to take even a moderately large layout to a one day show if it also features a sufficient amount of quality, unusual, hand made stock to provide interesting trains/operations for the discerning viewer, as all that stock also has to be set out and then put away again carefully. For me, that makes one day shows almost exclusively the province of small layouts which are generally of little/no interest to me. Big commercial shows the future? I hope not, and feel I'm unlikely to go to many/any if that is the case. Not attractive to exhibitors either if "big firm" (organiser and/or venue) involvement results in loads of forms to be read, completed and signed plus a 1001 rules and regulations to be followed. The picture advertising the new show in April says almost everything I need to know to confirm my already-settled decision to stay at home. RTR plastic models of modern "box on wheels" locos with over-bright twinkly lights and a train load of shipping containers on awful track. Just having the biggest ever OO layout because you want to show that you can afford it doesn't make it good. Time that would be taken to get 140miles there and 140 back, the venue itself, and the cost of travel / parking / admission, did nothing to encourage me anyway.

I can't bring to mind the loco type, but I feel I've read of another British example of an actually-built four cylinder loco with only two shared valve chests, requiring four piston valve heads on each spindle, possibly combining one pair of inside and one pair of outside admission cylinders. Had Baldwin's persuaded the GCR to take up the offer of their 2-10-2 scheme circa 1913, the only drawing I know of strongly suggests just two sets of valves between the frames for the intended four cylinders, all four being outside the frames working as yoked pairs on just two huge crossheads...

I realised shortly after posting my original comment that I should have made clear that I was referring to locos having only inside cylinders, rather than four-cylinders, the outside cranks therefore being purely for the coupling rods.

Likewise, I assume, Raven's NER 4-8-0T hump shunters, his 4-6-2T mineral locos, and the T3/Q7 0-8-0s. On the matter of crank positions, I was interested to read somewhere, possibly in a Tuplin book, that for an inside cylinder loco the orientation of the cranks for the outside rods was found to give least trouble with balance and stress if it matched the adjacent inside crank, in contrast to the instinctive approach of some engineers who had placed the outside cranks at 180 deg to the adjacent inside ones.

A good reminder to always wipe the threads on the container and in the cap thoroughly clean after pouring out any fast-cast resin "part B", and to then keep the container upright. Even then, the last traces will go crusty and stick the cap after a few days, but it won't be quite such a battle to remove it. Luckily, the stuff I use comes in plastic containers whose moulded caps have big ridges on them. Very handy when one has to resort to nut-crackers, mole grips or the vice to grip the cap...

Not that the appearance of certain railway modellers leads one to believe that they go short of ale...

If a model of probable combination of parts of two early Patrick Stirling GNR tenders is widely mis-advertised as a "Sturrock" tender, is it any surprise to find an O2 mis-described as an O1?

I couldn't agree more Tony. My blood boils every time I hear some ignoramus uttering "very unique" or "so unique". Unique is unique - full stop. I totally despair at the antics of the BBC these days too, with announcers who cannot arrange grammatically correct phrases, cannot pronounce words properly, and who seem barely aware of the difference between adjectives and adverbs, if indeed they know that the latter exist! And when I arrive somewhere as part of a group, I'm not too shy to rebuke any host (or host's employee) who dares to "greet" us with the detestable "hi guys", especially if the group includes women. Women are not "guys" in any possible sense, nor am I, as I'm English not American, my name isn't Guy, and I'm not a catholic traitor trying to blow up King James I !!!!

Hello Tony, as it is now 20th December, I reckon it's not too early to send Christmas greetings from the LBT. At least I won't forget to do it if I do it now...

A good point, although I think that even the least expensive item would only be a "maybe", even if something I want were actually on the list. Hence I cannot vote for any of the options. The answer to the question of "what would I actually buy" depends entirely on whether the model is accurate, in the right scale and whether it is of sound, traditional, "serviceable/repairable at home" construction, also offered for an affordably low price. I am not now prepared to buy anything that follows the current trend for ridiculously high price (even though outsourced) and bizarre, complex construction, possibly with quality in doubt too.

Why the apparent proposal for a model of the Midland-only Schenectady Mogul, when the Baldwin Mogul offers far more sales potential via the production of additional GNR and MS&LR/GCR versions? Or does somebody not know the that there are two very distinct types?

Has just half of the screw head broken off, still proud of the boss? If so, you may just about be able to grip the remaining half with flat nosed pliers and unwind it.

I wondered for a moment if you might offer Tony what he'd paid for it 😉. If I had any need or use for another restaurant car, certain knowledge of the surface finish on the model, and felt that I have time in the foreseeable future to finish off the model in teak, I might have made a rival offer...

Depending on the thoroughness of shopping of an older vehicle, might the teak finish in fact be largely left alone if deemed "good enough" in those post war years of genuine austerity? It's not difficult to imagine circumstances dictating an "essential repairs only" policy, no matter what the official rule was.

Working slowly and carefully, I managed to drill the buffer stocks without breakage on the printed Barnums I finished off last year. I'm particularly interested to see whether both of the curved sides of newer matchboard counterparts genuinely appear free of steps / layers when thinly painted and seen in close-up under strong oblique light. That will show whether they are truly good enough for a subtle teak finish without a load of pre-paint preparation. Isn't the convenient assumption that so many teak vehicles became plain brown after 1948 a bit questionable?

I can't say that it really concerns me, as I have no intention of using a Portescap coreless motor, but if I really wanted to mate one to a worm drive then knowing the vulnerability of the bearings I'd be asking myself if I could contrive some simple sort of supplementary means of resisting end thrust, a firmly supported washer either (i.e. each) end of the worm gear for instance.

Apologies for the delayed response, I' was away over the weekend. When I found these images I was surprised to find that they date from 13 years ago... The tender is also a former Bachmann or Replica item, with separate cuts and shuts to the tank and the frame to produce the low-front 3500 gallon variant that Loch Long initially had, others in the class built slightly later getting the revised high-front version. I can't remember whether I had already changed the coupled wheels before taking these pictures. Keen observation will probably provide the answer.

Wrong slidebars, crossheads etc on the K1 chassis though. I used a Bachmann K3 chassis, with the right sort of outside motion, re-wheeled with Hornby L1 wheels, when I produced a K4 by carefully combining a modified B17 boiler with the rest of a K3. The spares that I needed were relatively cheap to buy in the days when East Kent Models were still "big" in the spares business.

I was so relieved to get out of the optical "profession", before I'd served my full sentence too, all courtesy of the arrival of the pandemic and the initial measures that the government brought in. It was no longer the kind of true profession to which I once aspired, and was in my view dying on its feet owing to massive costs of new technology, refusal by all governments over many years to fund NHS sight tests properly, cut-throat competition from almost any unqualified Tom, Dick or Harry who fancied making a quick profit from sales of glasses without carrying any service costs, and had a huge amount of over-regulation as a result of the previous "sharp" or downright despicable behaviour of certain people who were either in the profession or who were controlling employees in the profession.

Nice to meet you at last too Chas, albeit only briefly on this occasion.

Thanks for those thoughts. Some further clarification may be needed. Do you speak as one of those who actually uses, or plans to use, or who could be persuaded to use the so called GNR / LNER versions of these coaches? If not, while you may well be correct (as I implied when I suggested that my original questions might be a waste of time), then the answers that really count may come from those who do actually wish to use RTR coaches to represent GNR vehicles.