Mr Cervus

Oh, and reminded of this by features in the old RM...I picked up an October 1970 issue recently and there was an article by Don Towneley, obviously part of an irregular series I'd forgotten, about industrial steam. Does anyone know if there's any sort of index anywhere to what drawings were published in that series? Useful sources for the pugbashing thread, if I may bring the conversation back to that. I've little idea where to look for authoritative drawings for industrial types otherwise, and wouldn't want to work just from photos.

Thanks, yes, I saw the RM more often than MRC in those years, my memory does CJ Freezer and RM a disservice by thinking it was a heavier weight feature than RM tended to carry. But that is indeed why I'd know of it.

I seem to recall there was a line drawing of an NLR 4-4-0T (and indeed coaches) in an MRC in the early 1970s, described as 'a real Dickensian train for Christmas' so I imagine a December issue. Goodness knows why I remember that. Anyway probably the outside cylinder version.

If you'd seen me at work, you'd have said that of my skill set as well! Honestly it felt like I had made most of this three times. I suggest one might consider 'pugbashing' as cheaply-bought (relatively) experience that may also, almost as a by-product, yield a pleasing locomotive. if it seems a total loss, mainly it's a loss of one's time. I would never have had the nerve to treat a decent RTR model so brutally but it gave me the confidence to 'improve' (???) better models that were not quite what I wanted. You should see my carpet. Re: definitions... my rule of thumb is if it says on the box it's unsuitable for those under 5, it's bashable (= 'pug')... but if it says unsuitable for those under 14, it probably takes itself seriously as a model. Let that hare NOT start running again.

And the other view, from the footplate end.

Yes, it did hold the motor, conducted power to the brushes, and generally provided weight. I'll attach a couple of (poor) pictures to show what I did - a lot of bashing, not much pug, I think you'll agree. Much of this may be relevant only if one is using the old split chassis J72, I have no idea what the new one is like (though I trust the cab's not full of motor) and I'll be tempted to get one when this all stops working. My comments relate only to the old J72 chassis. Wheelbase is right but it's too long overall for a 330 (I imagine also true of new Bachmann J72 chassis?!), so I had to shorten in front and back. In the process of getting an empty cab, necessitating moving the motor, I had also to lose the rear bolt that holds the chassis halves together and contrive a new fixing, down between the rear wheeels I think; and to get light under the boiler, the reversed motor had to be mounted diagonally on a bed of plastic (!) and those bits of brass you see in the pictures sprung in place to form the electrical connection from pickups to motor. It looks horrible but runs better than I deserve. I don't profess to be an engineer and now you can all agree: I was aware of many shortcomings in the adaptation, digital photography mercilessly shows more, and only that lumpen bit of chassis under the footplate can be attributed the bashed origin... other faults are entirely my own. But I do appreciate the generous responses - thanks citizens!

Latecomer to this correspondence, and from a very tangential direction. So I must start by saying what a pleasingly spacious and well-crafted piece of modelling (and the period happens to be to my taste too). Less aware of it being the 'inglenook' design than of its general feel. Anyway, I hesitate to make a suggestion to someone who makes wagons so beautfully, but I was searching for 'slate load' and came upon your comment 'must make...' months back. In case it's of interest/amusement, here was my own attempt: madness lies in fixing individual slates, but an old desk diary with the pages slightly offset, glued together, and sawn into strips, then painted (ok, a different sort of madness) means one can stick them in blocks, at least, and hide someweight indide. I wonder how far this is from how slates actually looked (too young to have seen this)... clearly an apprentice slatecutter let loose to split duchesses for an undiscriminating customer... (apologies for that I did not bother to take a new picture without the horsebox)

Couple of other 'after' shots...

With some hesitation, my debut contribution to RMWeb... This may just about come within the rules (rules?) of Pug-bashing, but I think in the spirit. The running plate at least is from a Hornby Caley Pug; the rest of the body from a Bachmann Junior saddle tank, and the chassis from an old Bachmann split chassis J72. And then lots of razor saw. In the 'before' picture, showing recording everything I thought might be used, the in-practice unused 'Percy' has been redacted. All picked up cheaply at shows. With luck the prototype #LSWR330 is identifiable.