gr.king

Barriers right up against the layout? As much use as a chocolate fireguard. They offer no protection from finger-poking, clumsiness or theft!

I'm certainly not volunteering to do the job, but I do feel compelled to point out that hopper wagons somewhat more complex have been produced, in quantity, more cheaply, albeit in a number of parts, by simple, self-taught, home resin casting methods.

If you can't find a current source for that, you may want to have a look at the data for SG2000, supplied by MB Fibreglass. I switched to that last year, on grounds of cost, and so far it seems to me to be just as good as the Rampf Raku-Tool resin that I'd been using for several years. As I can now order rubber and resin from the same source, there's a saving not just on the product, but on delivery too, as just one delivery charge applies for the quantities that I get.

Are curved points or a Y really necessary? The large radius bullhead point can be flexed to produce a curved point, 9ft + 3ft radii approx being the limit before the skewed tie bar becomes a problem. It can also be flexed the other way to produce a Y. I imagine the medium radius point can also be persuaded to curve, possibly giving something more useful for a compact layout. Flexing of the large radius point doesn't even require any cutting of the moulded base, especially if the track is then fixed down, which I presume almost everybody expects to do with this sort of track.

Not sure if/when it "started", but my impression of "traditional" paints was always (at least until a few minutes ago) that matt undercoats were generally not to be regarded as fully weatherproof / waterproof / hard wearing unless top-coated with gloss or varnish, and that as more and more of the "good ingredients" were banned it became more and more important with either oil-based paints or the water based alternatives that were being marketed, to apply a proper full-gloss oil based top coat to give full protection. Manufacturers seem now to be claiming that some modern matt paints are fully waterproof, but I don't feel inclined to rely on those claims.

Handy to know that one person's memory seemed accurate at least. A point that crossed my mind was this. If (presumably) one of the reasons for applying paint was to prevent or limit corrosion, and if (typically) older paints were not properly waterproof unless they were of the gloss variety or were over-varnished, then was the bare red-oxide coat considered good enough for the job, or would it have been varnished too?

Would it be needlessly sceptical of me to take the view that the evidence for "red" depends both on Malcolm's understanding / recollection of what had been said to him, and on the knowledge / memory of the person who had said it? That does not of course mean that "red" it is wrong, although the evidence fails to prove that black is wrong.

I've seen it suggested in various places that Gorton tended to leave the top of the tender tank in its red oxide undercoats, but as Bill points out that wasn't necessarily the official way it was supposed to be done. I'm interested to know with what degree of certainty an old, faded, rubbed-down, repeatedly over-painted (in black?) reddish original coat of paint could be judged to be crimson lake rather than red oxide. If conclusive interpretation of that is not possible then it would seem that one could paint the top of the tender in black, crimson or red-oxide with equal chances of being right or wrong.

That grey part is nothing that I recognise. I have no idea what it might be or where it originated. I now make my main guard irons from a single strip of metal, bent to a goal-post shape, with the two uprights filed to guard-iron shape, the cross-bar drilled and screwed into a couple of small solid blocks behind the buffer beam. I wouldn't trust resin guard irons to survive use and handling.

I've noticed for quite some time that un-necessarily over-tightened screws are a common feature of all sorts of newly made items, often so tight that if screw removal is necessary, then the amount of force needed to grip the item in question, combined with the force that has to be applied in order to keep the screwdriver in the screw head as well as to turn it, runs a very high risk of breaking some part of the item. In some cases, the ex-factory screw can be seen to have already cracked the part through which it is screwed! Cross threading is not unknown either. I assume this is due either to factory use of power screwdrivers (robotised?) needlessly turned up to maximum torque, or to the employment of angry gorillas issued with screwdrivers featuring a tommy-bar for maximum leverage...

I've been comparing my DIY Lord President P2 conversion with images of the Hornby product. Mine may lack a few bolt heads, factory crispness of finish, sufficient turn-under of the valances around and just ahead of the cylinders, and may possibly be lacking two oil boxes on the right side of the running plate (not sure about those), but on the positive side there is no evidence of an imperfect joint between the parallel and tapered parts of the boiler, the start of the down-curve in the running plate is correctly present behind the cylinder steam pipe covers, the front valances show the faintly discernible edges of the bulge that accommodates the cylinders and they appear to do a better job of enclosing the upper parts of the pony truck wheels (maybe they are in a lower overall position?), the main guard irons are present, additionally all of the mud-hole door covers on the firebox sides are lined out. So I'm still happy to have made one for myself.

Now that you draw attention to that area, I see that the Hornby model has a flat running plate immediately behind the protruding cover for the steam pipe to the cylinders. That area should be part of the curve / slope too...

Indeed, I can see that not enough trouble has been taken at the design and manufacture stage to make a perfectly flush, invisible joint between the tapered front-half of the boiler cladding and the parallel rear part. There's a visible step at the transition! Is it some sort of plug-in joint, and Is any unpainted plastic showing?

Looks like Hornby have now adopted the sensible idea of putting the fall plate on a pivot, as I started doing years ago, instead of gluing two flimsy and highly-snappable fixed lugs into the rear of the footplate. I'll continue very happily with the models of Lord President and Earl Marischal that I produced for myself when Hornby first issued Cock o'the North. They have given very good service, especially after I swapped the motor in one of them for a cheaply acquired example of the better motor that Hornby used in the best LNER Pacifics, and apart from the perceived value of my time they must have cost me very considerably less than Hornby now charge for their models. It is quite true that a proper model of Earl Marischal with extra smoke deflectors cannot be produced merely by adding the deflectors to the "as built" version. The RCTS book confirms that the front of the original casing was cut back by approximately a foot when the extra deflectors were fitted. Further research might also reveal exactly what the resultant front upper-edge profile was...

Flattish, surely? Just like the various flattish floors on which it has had to stand... Not of course that long rigid locos have ever been known to launch themselves into the six-foot when crossing humped board-joints on track curves.

If trying to manipulate the shape of typical fast-cast resin castings, I always warm them up until they feel pliable first. Running hot water over them from a hot tap is often enough. It has not usually been necessary in my experience to stand them in very hot / boiling water in order to achieve the necessary softening, and you probably don't want them heated so much that become floppy and too hot to handle... You may have to bend the softened casting more than the amount that appears necessary to achieve the final shape, but it is safest to try just the obviously necessary amount of bending first. You can re-heat the casting and bend it some more if you find the need, and the final cooling / setting can be hastened by quenching in cold water.

I'm not so sure. In my case, I was "taught" metalwork for a couple of terms at the age of thirteen. Everything was "taught" by a teacher who simply issued instructions and spouted unfamiliar terms without any proper explanation of the underlying science. It also seemed to me that he had taken to disliking me from an early stage, and had no time at all for those who didn't already know various things or those who didn't master certain techniques straight away and who might need further help and encouragement. Even when I was sure that I was doing exactly what I had been told to do, there was frequently criticism. As a result, I felt that I learned (or properly understood) very little, and was only too happy when the time came to switch to woodwork, which I took to like a duck to water and stuck with to O level at 16. None of that seems to have stopped me from learning later, from other more amenable sources, how to make models in metal and how to deal with various automotive repairs without constant reliance on professionals.

Looks a neat job Richard 👍

I suppose that might at least give a reason for those of who "can do" and who will "have a go" to feel a little smug? The hand made model can still give great satisfaction to its maker and to the few discerning observers, even if it has no perceived financial value among many of the skill-shy.

But not severe enough problems to require one of those pre-printed & laminated apology notices seen on a layout at York, possibly in 2019?

Two previous EM Shows in Wakefield, and the now defunct Scalefour North events before those, have all given me thorough satisfaction, even as a dyed-in-the-wool OO modeller, so I'm looking forward to getting there tomorrow.

You're quite right about most of the valve gear on my two K2s and on one now owned by Graham Nicholas also being too chunky, and it's a direct consequence of using RTR mechanisms and trying at the time to produce a stud of K2s (and other suitable locos) as quickly and cheaply as possible for Grantham's shows. In adapting the Bachmann split-axle V3 mechanisms (which are also old-school model design now) I did at least make the added parts of the tall motion bracket and the replacement double slidebars reasonably slim, since they had to be made and it seemed as easy to make them look right as it would have been to make them noticaebly too thick.

Would you say that the proportions of the etched valve gear put it firmly in an earlier period of kit design, even if not quite Hornby-Dublo standard? The parts of the motion bracket that will ultimately be visible, and all of the rods look as if their appearances would benefit greatly from a lot of slimming down.

More often than not, but I haven't found it correct on every single occasion. I've found that addition of white spirit to gloopy Humbrol enamel, in a separate mixing container for just the amount you want to use, tends to overcome the slow drying problem, as well as producing free flowing paint. Not so good if you were hoping to cover a contrasting colour completely in one horrible thick coat, but is that really any problem? Hang on to those precious tins of old Humbrol for as long as they contain anything viable.

A good point. What is logical and obvious to the installer, based on his impression of the way that section of the layout should/will operate, isn't always obvious, logical and convenient to any (other) operator or operators.