Dave Holt

I agree, it's vital to fill in the gap between the firebox & ashpan and the frames for appearance. I also agree with your concern about the side view. There appears to be an excessive gap between the front of the lower firebox and the flange of the rear drivers. On a full size wide firebox loco (see Btitannias, Clans, modified Bulleids, etc.), this would only be a matter of inches whereas the model has close on half a wheel diameter. I suspect that if these loco's had actually been built, the boiler barrel would have been made shorter than on a Britannia (or perhaps the Hornby boiler is longer than scale?). I suppose you can hide this by either shortening the boiler - a big job (probably involving shortening the chassis), or extending the lower firebox sides forward to reduce the gap, or, alternatively, just live with it! How do the boiler and loco overall length compare with the published weight diagrams? Dave.

Robin, It's good to see further excellent progress. The small (loco) turntables are an interesting operational issue in combination with the operational doors (French windows, as someone put it). I know there are motorised wagons to replicate "fly shunting", but are you going to have self propelled wheel-sets going for turning??? I can't quite make out the steps which Kempenfelt mentions**, but in my (fairly extensive) experience of heavy engineering workshops, access to manned overhead cranes was always by scary looking vertical ladders rather than steps. Perhaps the Midland railway was more thoughtful in this respect - but I doubt it! Steps would normally only be provided where regular access - such as a mezanine floor - was required. Hopefully house re-painting won't be required for a while, so we've got you back modelling? I seem to spend all my spare time hospital visiting, so layout progress has virually stopped. Dave. ** Just spotted them in the Sentinel photo. Must say, the top landing looks about level with the crane track, so perhaps they were for crane access after all?

I presume from your question that the instuctions do not address this aspect? If not, have you tried contacting the manufacurer for advice on this? [i have no specific experience with this kit, but Backwood kits look generally well designed and thought out - I'd be surprised if motorisation/sequence of assembly has not been considered in the design.] Dave.

Yes, despite the large diameter boilers, the big BR standards are hard to power without the drive-train being visible - due to the daylight between the boiler and the top of the chassis. On my 9F (92037 - shown on latest Barrow Road blog), I achieved this by mounting the motor vertically in the firebox with an extended drive (High Level, in my case) to the 4th driving axle. Have you tried that sort of configuration for your 2-8-2? Good luck with the project. Dave.

Robin, I'll be there on Sunday (helping restore a real loco (35006) on Saturday). I'll make sure to say "Hello". Have a good week-end. Dave.

Don't normally bother with AGM's - but I'll definitely be there this year - I just can't wait to see this in the flesh! Do you need any visiting locos? Dave.

Very interesting project to create a "what-might-have-been". Good luck. With the cylinder/slide-bar assembly, are you going to fill the slot along the top bar and fabricate a motion bracket to brace the bars to the frames and support the lubricators? I find this improves the appearance of the Comet parts somewhat. Dave.

I can only agree with your bafflement. Experience so far with my first layout wiring is that it just eats wire! An experienced layout builder said he bought wire in 100 m reels but I thought I wouldn't need anything like that on my small branch terminus layout, so ordered 10 m coils - big mistake. I've only wired the smallest of 4 boards (5 including the fiddle yard) and already had to order further supplies. On the question of neatness, I've tried hard to be neat by running wires together in sort of trunk runs, bound with cable ties - you can see if I achieved this on my "Delph" blog. One drawback is that wires don't just run fron A to B but have to detour to follow others in the trunking, so this adds considerably to the amount of wire used. I'm also using multi-pole swithes for points to swith crossing and rail polarity and to provide some limited interlocking with signals and track power feeds. I hope these will prove more reliable than relying on the change-over contacts built into the point motors (Tortoise, in my case). Are you keeping records of which wires go where - wiring diagram or terminal lists, etc? Might help fault finding later. Good luck! Dave.

Not much progress with the layout - although I have now fixed the coal drop retaining walls and deck support pillars to the base-board. Last Saturday I helped (?) friend Dave Clarke and the regular team (Simon & Jim) with his Amlwch branch layout at the Derby show - as fiddle yard operator - I didn't trust myself to operate out front! The normal green/blue era diesel service was was disrupted from time to time by a typical Delph Donkey formation, consisting of Fowler 2-6-2 class 3 tank loco, number 40056, with an ex-LMS Period II open third non-driving trailer and ex-LNWR M15 driving trailer. Steam era trains to Amlwch were more generally Ivatt class 2 tanks with non-corridor push-pull coaches, I think - at least towards the end. Nevertheless, the Donkey train looked perfectly at home and it was nice to see it run on a finished layout. Loco needs finishing and the coaches weathering. Must do something about the acceleration inertia/starting voltage though - the controller could be set to full and the loco didn't move for about 10 seconds and then smoothly accelerated. Took a bit of judgement to stop in the right place too. Perhaps deceleration inertia is not such a good idea on terminal layouts! The following photos show the train simmering at the buffer stops following arrival (being a Fowler class 3, it was probably having to get it's breath back!!!) and also approaching the station area. 40056 at the buffer stops. Approaching the station. Thanks for the invite, Dave. I really enjoyed myself and I hope folks enjoyed the Donkey ride!

Not quite sure what you mean by "....shunting in and out. Is that allowed?" As a rule, locomotives would not be permitted to enter the shed, so other, spare wagons would be attached to the loco, if necessary, to reach into the shed to postion vehicles inside or to collect those to be removed. Hope this helps. David.

Robin, Sorry I can't answer your question specifically because I don't know much about wheel-drops, but in general, I imagin that most of the mechanism would be below ground level, so maybe there isn't a huge difference in visual appearance between electric and hydraulic power? A company where I used to work had a large hydraulic press (ex-Swindon Works boiler shop, I believe) which was powered from a weight loaded accumulator cylinder located outside the building. There was an electric (originally steam) driven pump set, which pumped water to a large vertical cylinder, which raised the ram inside. On the top of the ram, and surrounding the cylinder, was a large, cylindrical weight which rose slowly as the pumps worked but enabled a much larger flow of high pressure water to the press when needed. The accumulator recovered during rest periods. I don't know if something similar, but perhaps on a smaller scale, was used for hydraulic wheel drops. Good luck with your research - and the whole project, of course!! Dave.

Glad to have helped. Regarding the NG curves, it might be useful to draw your tightest curve out full size and temporarily lay some track over it and test the relevant stock. Not sure about NG track, but in P4 circles (excuse pun), flexible track is widely considered to result in under-gauge track if curved too tightly. On my layout (Delph), there is some quite tight, reverse curved pointwork (which is both gauge widened and fully check railed) into a private siding. Several people questioned whether P4 locos would negotiate it so I tested some of my locos out on a length of flexi-track laid to the same radius - just to make sure! (Luckily it was OK, even with my WD 2-8-0!) Regards, Dave.

Yes, I agree with james - it looks an interesting project. I'm not so sure about your arrangement for the NG line along the front of the layout. I presume the two quay-side sidings would be used for freight of some sort? In this case, it looks like the only access to these sidings is through the engine shed. I'm not convinced that even NG railways would find this an acceptable and operable arrangement. You could reduce the shed to just the front road - so as to still provide the scenic block and have the rear track passing behind and then emerging into view as it heads towards the quay. The other consideration is will the NG stock all negotiate the rather tight looking 180 degree bend in the fiddle yard. It might require significant gauge widening which will prevent use of flexible track. Good luck with the project.

Larry, Tried the india rubber suggestion, but that just seemed to make things worse - luckily it was on a not-so-visible area. I then tried very gentle application of a glass fibre brush and that did remove some of the black and created a slight vertical streaking. The pillars are still quite dark and dirty looking, but I think I'll quit before I ruin somenthing. Anyway, I'm not so sure that rain was all that cleansing in the 1950's before the clean air act, what with every house and all the mills/factories belching smoke plus the coal dust from the drops themselves. Dave.

Dave, The first 2 photos look rather blurred - in fact, it could be both EM and P4 at the same time - although I know it isn't! Happy modelling, Dave.

Have made a bit of progress with the coal drops, recently. The stone retaining walls and brick support pillars have been painted and are almost ready to be fixed in position. I've also added the deck to the top of the structure - hand rails still to go and also some support beams and other bits underneath the deck. First set of photos show the parts painted in as-built condition. The pillars are brick with ashlar stone bearing pad inserts. These all look a bit garish but were later toned down to a sootly/coal black. Think I might have overplayed the engineering blue bricks on the corners of the pillars i the paint swatch on the tin lid looked much more like the colour on a photo I took of the real thing, before it was demolished. The walls and pillars were then heavily weathered using a process kindly suggested by Peter Leyland, as used on the marvellous building he's built for the layout. Basically, the base colour is allowed to dry really thoroughly, then the whole surface is painted matt black and this is wiped off before it has dryed. Unfortunately, the photos have come out a bit dark, but give some idea of how they look. Maybe a hint of green moss round the steps, later? Cheers, Dave.

Robin, Nothing, yet. I'm waiting for the big lottery win, or sponsorship from Pete Waterman, or similar! Dave.

Rob, Further excellent progress but you will have to be extra careful not to lean on the weakened areas till you can get additional support in place. Once the full pit depth has been achieved and the bottom of the pits is in place, I presume you can support the underside of the pit bottoms to give a good area of support, leaving the turn-table area free for operation? For track over the pits, will you be using functional bridge chairs glued direct to the board surface? I used this arrangement for the trak over the coal drops on Delph and it worked well using Plasticweld solvent, or similar. The joints seem strong enough for normal useage, but I wouldn't risk giving them a hard whack! The pits on the four outside roads, alongside the shed, are a bit of a surprise; although it's no different to pits outside a straight road shed, I suppose. Regarding the pits in the workshop area, how does the track reach these, as they are a right-angles to most of the other tracks? Some sort of kick-back from the extended pit road? Cheers, Dave.

Sounds like an idael application for laser etching, a la Barrow Road shed? Bit expensive, though, I gather. Dave.

Yes, Larry! Actually it makes no difference to my layout because it's wired for cab control and can be switched between DCC and DC. I agree it looks complicated, but that's not helped because the control panel is at the opposite end of the layout to the main track feeds and most of the points and signals - so most of the wires you can see just pass right along this board and on to the next. There's also two sockets in the fascia, one for a DCC controller and on for a DC controller, which also doesn't help. Dave.

It's been a while since the last entry, so I thought I'd just give a brief up-date. Not very much that's photogenic, but steady progress has been made with the electrics on the first board section. Most recently, I've been assembling the jumper cables and connectors which will link this board to those either side. Besides the two cables at the ends of this board (B3 in my notation), I've wired the mating plug connectors and jumpers for the adjacent boards (B2 - with the station throat pointwork and B4 with the station and the control panel ). It's quite laborious work and requires great care to ensure the correct wires go from the plug/socket pins to the appropriate tack on the base board. A check with a multi-meter appeared OK, so hopefully, everything is in its correct place. Photos show the completed B3/B2 jumper wired to the tag strips and illustrating the storage clips which keep the jumper cable safely stowed for transport. Now to the other end! Dave. Jumpers at the other end now also attached. Too many wires for a single (37 pin) plug, so two x 25 pin connectors used here - one socket and one plug on this board to prevent connecting the wrong ones together. Not all the pins used on one as there are not 50 wires! That's the electrics done on board No.3 except for fitting one Alex Jackson uncoupling magnet. Dave.

Geoff, Thanks for this. I wasn't aware MSE did such things. I'll make some enquiries because I'm not keen to have to make my own! Cheers, Dave.

Robin, I can only agree with the previous comments. These photos give a good idea just what a fantastic layout this is going to be. Looking forward to June and September already! Dave.

David, The completed valve gear looks very good indeed. As you say, much of it will be hidden from full view once the body is on but, in my opinion, locos with high pitched boilers and, in this case, large frame openeing, definitely need some representation of the inside gear to give glimpse of what's inside and fill in the side-on profile. Well worth the effort, I think. Many otherwise fine looking models are spoilt by a gaping void between the frames with perhaps just a compensation rocking beam on view. Best wishes with the remainder of the model. Perhaps we'll get chance to admire your efforts in the metal, so to speak, at some future Scalefour Society do? Dave.

Larry, Quite right. The BR standard tank is based on a DJH kit. Unfortunately, the kit results in the loco being 2 mm too short (all in the cab/bunker section), so I have stretched it by widening the cab door opening to give the correct length. This is not strictly accurate but is better than nothing. The chassis is Comet with added details. The pony trucks are Brassmasters with the rear one modified to represent the swing-link side control. The injector pipe work was fun! Thanks also for the kind comments on the layout. Just hope I can live up to expectations! Cheers, Dave.