Mr T

Being vague of shape is only part of the story with Mach2. It is a one man band setup by a chap called Didier in France. He produces models that no major manufacturer are generally likely to touch because he wants to, and appears not to give a damn what anyone thinks. I have met him a couple of times at ScaleModelWorld and he seems a nice guy. The kits are not easy, unless you are experienced. These are two of mine: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235107127-172nd-raf-armstrong-whitworth-argosy-c1-mach2-kit-finished/ https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235068681-172nd-avro-york-of-241-ocu-mach-2-kit/

Thanks everyone for the response. Part of the line of the railway is now a very decent foot and cycle path, which is part of walk I lead for a walking group. Most walkers are surprised it was ever a railway, until you point it out to them. My first nine years of life were spent near railway lines the GNR line to Colwick and the Midland line to Lincoln, and the next nine near the remains of Thornywood station on the Nottingham Suburban Railway PS Haigh Road Police Station is still open, although not to the public.

I haven't anything useful to add, but the pictures and discussion have been fascinating. Especially so as I live about 100 yards from the line of the old EWYUR in Rothwell. Our house is an old farmhouse that was built well before the railway came and obviously still around. I am interested in the history of the area, despite only living here since 1990. What is title of the book about the EWYUR mentioned?

There was a vacform BAC 111 in 1/72nd scale around about 35 years ago that still crops up second hand. Mach2 did an injection moulded Viscount, that might still be around As a Mach2 kit it has issues and not for the faint hearted.

I am mainly an aircraft modeller, but with about thirty or so wagon kits plus a good number of wagon and coach improvement and detailing under my belt. Wagonbashers advice is good, and he is spot on about trying something a bit easier. Some of the older Cambrian kits can be challenging in terms of fettling and making sure everything is square. My building has been of wagons used up to about 1962, and so not the more modern stuff. I have built the Salmon kit, it requires care as it quite long and you need to be sure it is true in all directions. Wagon building is fun and makes a change from a vacform or resin aircraft kit or one a 'short run' injection moulded kit

As I am primarily a builder of model aircraft, it strikes me the comments about Airfix are a little out of touch. Yes, Airfix went through a period of selling their back catalogue, which included some real clunkers. However, so did everyone else, and some still do, and model railway firms seem to be no different. Airfix are revamping their range and, the the basic kits for little Johnny are now mostly nearer offerings. the Vintage Classics range in part is an appeal to nostalgia. They do tell, if you look, the age of the kit. Retooling of transperiences for some kit has happened. In any case even with older models there is much pleasure to be gained from trying to build a model that will look OK next to a much more modern model. Over the last couple of years I upgraded a couple of 60 year old Frog models and a 55 year old Airfix kit with new interiors, exterior detail etc. To me it what modelling is all about, along with the short run, resins and vacforms I build.

I know this is off topic, but here is my Argosy, to show no silvering, even with home made decals https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235107127-172nd-raf-armstrong-whitworth-argosy-c1-mach2-kit-finished/

Received mine via Rails of Sheffield on Thursday. Nothing detached or broken, so I suppose I must be lucky. Apart from the odd errors in painting, they are quite nice models. I wonder if they sent for the less common Palbrick C because they might have plans for the underframe.

I am still surprised that people come out with this one. My main interest is aircraft modelling, and the gloss varnish, decal softeners, or even the use of a thinned varnish has been around since the mid 1970s at least. As an example, I recently finished a 1/72nd scale RAF Phantom and an Argosy. The former is covered with small stencils and the the latter had a lot of home made decals and no silvering on either of them. BTW if anyone think all 'Airfix' kits are easy, Google Mach2, which was the source of my Argosy kit.

The 'Colston Four' have no bearing at all on a case like this. The Bristol case was a criminal prosecution where a jury made a Not Guilty decision. It sets no legal precedent. Any challenge to the verdict would most likely look at the judges direction to the jury. Any legal action involving Hornby will be by civil ligation tried by a judge alone who will be looking at previous similar cases for guidance. I gave no idea what approach Studio Canal would take, it is too long ago now from making a living out of the law for me to get it right.

Having had a father who had large amounts of 'common sense' , but who was still injured in a workplace accident do to the accepted and pretty awful safety standards of days gone by, I find some of the comments in this thread interesting. Safety in any setting is a two way street, you have an obligation to look to your own safety, but others have an obligation to ensure that where you are working is not unsafe, even if it is just a notice). I suggest anyone who thinks 'common sense' is the answer to everything from H&S, driving to Covid needs to spend a week in A&E or a major trauma centre. The problem with contingent fee work is that it it requires the client to take out an insurance policy to cover a potential case and firms will only look at the work if they have a very high chance (used to be about 90% plus) of winning. Everyone is an idiot or scrounger until you are one who suffers a life changing incident when the world looks a very different place. As someone who started out as a lawyer, but spent most of my working life as a nurse and finished up teaching law to health professionals, this is an area I have given some thought to.

Definitely both Defiants, judging by the underwing roundels and Sky undersides, the film was probably taken sometime between mid August and end November 1940. By the end of August, Defiants were being withdrawn from day fighter use after the mauling both squadrons (264 and 141) had received that had demonstrated their vulnerability in fighter versus fighter combat. The whole clip was most interesting and thanks for posting.

Later MkI and the MkII are virtually identical, the main difference being a small blister on the MkII that covered the Coffman starter cartridge used by the Merlin XII and the propeller. Even within marks there can be noticeable differences due to changes during production runs. I am primarily a 1/72nd scale aircraft modeller and have a long term project to build all the major Spitfire/Seafire versions. I have finished twenty so far with about another twenty to go. 22,000 airframes built over a production run of nearly twelve years is a lot of Spitfires.

Given the many comments on points of accuracy of locos etc, it might be worth pointing that the Spitfire model included in the NHS set is a MkV, but the real MK356 is a MkIX. Visually they look different as the IX has a different different arrangement of underwing radiators as the Merlin 60 engines needed additional cooling for the two stage supercharger. The nose was longer and a four bladed propeller was fitted.

Thanks John for undertaking what appears to be fairly mammoth task. As everyone seems to gave a wishes for part, mine is the UIC suspension/axle box so I can get on and rebuild some Traffic Services tank wagons etc. Martin

The problem with trying to guess any colour from a pre war photograph is not knowing the film used. A lot of photographs then were taken with orthochromatic film which 'sees' colours differently to B&W film used postwar (mainly panchromatic) thus yellows come out as blacks and blues etc can appear lighter. Greens and greys can also appear to be similar colours

Regarding colour standards as has been commented BS381 (Colours For Specific Purposes) first appeared in 1931 and BS2660 is also of prewar origin and RAL also has it origin in standards laid down before WW2. Organisations have insisted on the use of colours matched to standards for some time. For example, Military aircraft paint schemes in WW2 were matched to colours laid down by MAP and paint manufacturers were expected to quite closely adhere to those colours, although weathering could alter them due to supply issues with the pigments used. In the 1950's the Israeli Air force specified surface finishes matched to RAL. Now those paints will have been manufactured matched to a standard, it might have not been to modern computerised standards, but would have been a reasonable match. On a model if it is known the paint standard used, it is not unreasonable to use that colour if there is no evidence it was supposed to be a different colour.