RBE

Very nice finish on that 37 Lee. Absolutely cracking job, knock spots off the factory finish IMO and a great ambassadorial tribute to why we should all have a go at repainting!! I'm not one for buts, but, I would be braver with the weathering. Using only an airbrush when weathering doesnt do it for me I'm affraid, the airbrush is just one of the weathering tools at your disposal and is best applied for the airborne stuff such as exhaust and traffic film, there are many other ways that the dirt gets on there in real life rather than whistfully blown on by the wind. By using an airbrush for it all you miss so many chances to set the dirt onto the model and imply to the observer how the dirt got there that doesnt come across if its just blown on with an airbrush, it always looks like a bit of sleeper grime/trackdirt blown on with an airbrush. Saying that please, please don't let that take anything away from the great job you have done though, its a cracker. Cav

Looking great Arnie. I could do with some mk 2s as well so I hope I dont end up bidding against you as Im a bit of a cheapskate haha. I need intercity or blue ones really though so you can have the NSE ones! I really must do a scotrail 47 for Neale Bank! Cav

Very nice. Cav

Looking good Lee. I would very seriously look at cutting your own glazing for the front windows. Very fiddly but makes a hell of a difference. Took the liberty of attaching one of my old pics as a reminder showing cut glazing versus the standard bachy stuff. Cav

I built the pointwork on Outon Road phase 2 in situ and found it all went down very easily. The points on phase 1 were built onto a paper template which was taped down to a board the sleepers were glued to the paper template and the whole thing cut out and stuck down once complete. I had no sleeper bending whatsoever with those. I dont buy point kits though and do build mine with copperclad in strategic locations though which helps keep things straight I expect. Cav

Neale Bank. An upcoming WCML collaboration between myself and Neil Mason of this manor set in the late 80's early 90's between Motherwell and Carstairs. No progress yet but a nice plan! Link to the thread in my sig! Cav

I admit that I posted it as I didnt consider it 'show' quality, nothing to do with size. I felt that the seller was maybe trying to get a bit more for it by implying it was an ex exhibition regular. Cav

Which show was this? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/N-guage-show-layout-5ft-x-2ft-with-3-trains-/120981073525?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item1c2b08ae75 Cav

Really impressed with this. As a miserly sort myself I shall follow this with interest!! Cav

Nope shortening it pulls it back a bit relative to where it was but the mechanics is still wrong and when the pan is pushed down it still tries to tilt the head forward instead of backward to counter the direction that the top half of the pan is rotating. The wire has to attach below the pivot point of the head to reverse the action. The real pan has the 'wire' attache below the pivot point also to do just that, unlike the Bachmann head which sit above. The solution to make it work and look right is to extend the connector from the bottom of the head so that it passes below the pivot point and attache the wire there, I used the one to the side as a stopgap alternative which makes the head work correctly. Cav

Agreeable height is a debateable subject. My layout is sometimes said to be low, most often by the older generation, I like it low as I can reach over the backscene to uncouple stuff and the younger generation (whom we are trying to encourage a furture interest in the hobby) can see whats going on without their parents rushing them on because their arms are aching carrying them all the time so that they can see the trains. Cav

I really dont get annoyed at the first part as a model unweathered is a model unfinished in my opinion, the ebay explosion of weatherers(?) is to a degree, more annoying that people pay for them rather than paying me haha. TMC is a prime candidate as they are simple blow overs charged at much more than I do for a full job. Cav

90% of the people through the door wouldnt have a clue whether something was accurate or not. When I'm building stuff I have to research and dig out my old platform 5 spotting books etc to see what things were like and I lived in the time that I model and knew quite a lot back then. The years haven't locked that level of info into my brain so hence the research. I try to get things as right as I can but more for my satisfaction than what people at exhibitions say. Its unlikely that many people will be able to stand there and say "That loco shouldn't be on that stock because it was in that livery 2 months after that stock had this modification done" or whatever. If they can correctly say that then they need to have a sit down. I don't get involved in silly discussions just informative and relavent ones. I run a class 85 with a euro distribution 86 and no-one yet has made a murmor. As long as the layout has a rough timespan I don't see the problem. Cav

This rare and disirable item is so rare that there are at least 5 others available right now at around a tenner. http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=300576646503 Cav

What to have souless emus gliding past? hmm I'd sooner have Tapton Bridge. Its bad enough to be swamped with bombardier trash and class 66s all day long when Chesterfield used to be plagued with loco hauled services in the form of 45s, 47s and class 31s left right and centre, double headed 37s on steel and roadstone, 56s and 58s on coal, 47s on freightliners and 20s on ballast duty to name but a few. Chesterfield used to be a conjunction of many railway companies in the days of steam and what has it got now? The old LMS station (albeit rebuilt now) and tapton bridge to show for it. (Actually the old tunnel under the town is now used by the council as a storage lock up which is novel) Don't worry it won't be there if they electrify it as even if it high enough it will not meet the safety requirements to pass over and electrified line. Nice pic btw, legendary view of the railway, if it goes - sad days. Cav

I think that everyone who has 'nit picked' on this has given a constructive solution. My comments were certainly aimed that way suggesting choosing a number in the 031 to 055 range which better suited the current details. To me the modded roof grill detail was a strange choice as the class served for a much longer period in a much more varied life without them than with. If its a question of compromising detail for tool costs then surely choosing the most long lived detail would make more sense. Cav

Thats just crazy talk. Of course the Dapol one knocks the rest out of the water but thats not the point we are making. Are we meant to ignore any errors and say its perfect when it isnt. Ive said its a great loco and it is firmly where my money would go if I was modelling N but its just plain silly to say its not incorrect. Cav

I agree Jim, I'm not sure the windows look too small but they feel too high up on the body with the roof profile not quite right as I suggested in my first post. I understand the economics of what you can do for a mass market but what I question is why do them as a romanian version when most of the details match an early doncaster machine (31 to 55) more closely? The only thing different to the doncaster loco (56031 to 56055) that the Dapol has is the cabside slightly rounded quarterlight. Everything else (save the modded roof grille at the No2 end which is a later post privatisation mod in any case) is as per the early doncaster machine yet its released as a romanian one. To make it a proper romanian loco (56001 to 56030) you would have to change the main side grille mesh and add a bufferbeam cowl. The fronts weren't any flatter on the first doncaster locos (upto 56055), the cab shape change was after 56056 and on the later crewe built locos. To be honest I dont think its a lot of work to make either build (the post 56055 is a different animal). An alternative square mesh etch and a bit of extra plastic down the side of the bufferbeam (the doncaster locos upto 55 had the lip as per the Dapol model in any case but with oval buffers, locos over 55 had no lip or cowl and a larger horn grille and flat top nose) to make the rommy and a quick lick with a file to the inner corners of the cap quarterlight for an early donny if the rad is particularly noticable in N at normal none macro viewing. Job done. Granted the later locos are a bit different but the differences in the first 30 to the 31 to 55 locos are so small that doing the alternative details to make them right is minor to say the least. I just don't get why it is released as a rommy when it already is a cracking early Donny! Cav

The 83 is looking rather nice now, I always liked the old intercity liveried one myself. I'm not really over the moon about the trix 81 tbh but thats more and issue with the trix model for me rather than the work you have done. I am quite tempted to do a modified Bachmann 85 to create one if I can justify one on my layout which is now a much better starting point. I also must agree with Jim on painting tail lights black not red. I've been doing that since I was 15 and looks far more convincing than red paint. Regards

Its not because its too long its because it goes to the top sid of the head pivot. To sort it out it needs to be fixed below the pivot point. Cav

I dont want to be critical (again!?) but also the bodyside grille mesh is incorrect for a rommy 56. It should be square pattern not diamond as fitted to all the british built machines. I must comment that this body with the cabside windows tweaked would be perfect for an early british built loco which is a shame it has been released as a rommy really. The pic below shows the grille mesh on 013 albeit in blue at the time. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5808969884/ But as I have said I think this is a cracking model and if I did N would be placing an order now!! Cav

This is million times better than previous efforts in this scale and to be highly praised I think, however on a critical note the cab roofs which were awful on grafars effort still don't quite seem to be the right shape to me. Maybe in the flesh and under a less cruel close up they look fine. Also buffer beam cowl should be present on the romanian machines not just the lip as per the first british batch built. Cav

Yeah I was thinking of doing my surplus 4mm scale 66 in loadhaul to pop on ebay. Might do it triple grey loadhaul as a change but my mind isn't made up. The one on the pic is a G scale commission I did a while back. Cav

I'm sure all is well with your cess's. I was of course as you pointed our referring to modern practices with ducting etc. It's much easier to pop all that kind of stuff in prior to ballasting work. Even cess's(or kinda none ballasted, squashed into the ground, dirt areas) between the ballast and walls/lineside boundaries I like to put in before ballast but after walls etc as it is a simple matter of order from lowest up. Stuff that sticks into the ground ie walls signals ducting etc(mostly including track sleepers too), groundy stuff ie cess dirt, gravel, soil etc, ballast, stuff growing on top ie grass weeds etc. Just the way I do it no disrespect intended to anyone elses methods. Its the end result that counts. Thought I add my track pic again from Outon Road below just for fun. Cav

This looks good on anything. Done as a commision a while back some might remember. Cav