toboldlygo

4mm Timber Tracks kit  

16 hours ago, Mikkel said:

That was a feast of GWR structures. I assume they are built for a client. Hopefully we'll get to see them on a layout at some point. 

 

(PS: haven't forgotten your stable block pics, just haven't got around to finishing that post!).

All built (or being built) for a client and they will be seen on his layout at some point  

2 hours ago, railroadbill said:

Looking forward to next instalment, especially how you do the handrails.

All I'll say on the Handrails is Great Little Ships  

27 minutes ago, jonhall said:

Gaarrrggghh, HMCS Bluebell took up dry dock all over my workbench much of last year - I bought a slightly started original Matchbox kit from the Bluebell railway swapmeet for the princely sum of £15, it had lost the stand, and had the portholes glued in (badly) and the four quarters of the hull glued together.

 

I bashed out the portholes and eventually replaced them with laser cut acrylic

Filled the bottom of the hull with resin then de-keeled the hull - its not often you go at a plastic kit with a surform!

Deck mostly de-planked, and plate scribed

all the ventilators were thinned at the exposed edges

the funnel had a plasticard wrap with the correct rivets

all the handrails were whitemetal and thread

gun emplacements had anti-slip flooring ribs.

the nameboards were laser cut Mahogany veneer.

the whaler boats all gained inner hull framing

By the time I'd finished it had cost me £100 in parts, and I had no space at all - I had to sell it in the end because it took too much space - alas I seem to have not taken 'finished' photos 

 

Nice work there

3 hours ago, Hroth said:

Is the tank destroyer a British vehicle for destroying tanks, or a vehicle for destroying British Tanks?

Confused folk are worried... 

 

Do the boat, do the BOAT!!!

I like BOATS!!!

 

 

It's a Tank Destroyer that's British, but is actually an American design with British 17 pounder barrel - just to muddy the confused waters, even more than Tamiya already have 

Do the boat?  Wait and see  

2 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

No one is insulting you, you are merely wrong. Hawkers also made aircraft batteries, was there any connection? 

 

JB (45year FAA veteran)

I worked on Harrier's and Hawks, plus various other aircraft including the FAA Historic Flight at Yeovilton and a Sea Harrier that's in the museum there. 

Worth noting too that were part's common to Sea Harrier FRS1, where the drawings for the parts were first used on the Typhoon then re-issued for the Firebrand, Sea Fury, etc.

3 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

Utter tosh- Firebrand was a Blackburn design not a Hawker product. No connection with the Typhoon design process.

 

However the Sea Fury was a Hawker product.

 

JB

 

 

No it's not utter-tosh, don't forget that during WW2, multiple manufacturers were building parts of aircraft for other manufacturers. So design proposals would have been shared around. The Firebrand does look re-markedly like a Hawker aircraft.

I worked for Hawkers - so don't insult me!

37 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

The Scimitar did not actually 'carry' the WE177, it was merely 'capable of' such was the level of confidence. The list of 'duff' aircraft procured post-war is not limited to Supermarine. The 'Firebrand' went straight from production to reserve deployment and the Gloster Javelin as a Fighter All Weather was something of an embarassment. 

 

Apart from the Canberra Lightning, Harrier and Bucc 2 were there any truly successful post-war smaller British military aircraft? 

 

*The Hunter was not successful until the mk4

 

JB

The Firebrand was basically a Navalized version of the Typhoon fitted with the engine in the Sea Fury.

Well I'd count the Sea Fury as a success - it was the last hurrah for piston engine fighter (and a MIG killer with numerous versions sold overseas), the Sea Hawk, the Hawk, the Jet Provost (Strikemaster as it was overseas), the Vampire, Venom, the Meteor, the Hunter (the US* where scared of the UK aircraft industry and interfered, much like they did with the TSR2 and corrupt UK officials helped in that interfering).

I know a lot more, but I'm still bound by the Official Secrets Act, so I can't disclose certain things. Lets just say Wikipedia isn't 100% accurate

8 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Apart from the Spitfire, Supermarine's fighters were a pretty rubbish lot. The RAF and FAA seem to have had very few 'duds' post-war, and almost all of them came from Supermarine. 

I don't blame the Manufacturer, it was very much a transition era from prop to jet and the Government at the time didn't seem to have a clue what they were doing (as it was on the Railways to be honest), so requirements & specifications were ever changing to what they wanted - especially from a carrier-borne aircraft and the manufacturers couldn't keep up. Ironically the Spitfire outlasted a number of it's replacements in Service..

41 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

Sorry .... wrong link

 

 

I had a colleague at Dunsfold, who as an Apprentice was involved in the tests..

13 hours ago, Barry O said:

That bit at the front. Is eithe  toe plate or a Glaciis plate. 

Baz

 

More use to Train and Aircraft terminology than Armour - so that's my excuse .

Also I've only built 3 tanks (now) in over 40 years of model making (I'm not counting @gwrrob's Cromwell or my RC 1/16th Scale Challenger 2 in that (I must get the upgrades fitted on that))  

11 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Hopefully you will tackle the dreadful Scimitar at some point, one of the worst post-war platforms procured by FAA. It held the uneviable record for man hours per flying hour as well as a tragically high accident rate. It constantly leaked fuel and only found favour as a tanker (replaced by NA39) before well deserved retirement

to FRU.

 

JB

So dangerous in fact they armed it with a nuclear bomb 

If someone does a decent 1/72nd kit, I might tackle it one-day 

2 hours ago, 2mm Dabbler said:

Pretty rare I'll agree. The Heinkel 178 and Caproni Campini N.1 (both experimental) were also tail draggers as were Messerschmitt 262 prototypes V1 to V4. The Attacker and the Yak 15 are, to my knowledge, the only operational military jets with this type of undercarriage, both having origins in propeller driven aircraft (Yak 9 for the 15). The Yak 15 was developed in to the 17 which had tricycle undercarriage.

Technically the U2 could be considered a tail-dragger, as could the Yak-28 - though they have bicycle type undercarriage.

15 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

Some more lighter weathering [717] added to the edges and it has company with an old Mainline bogie bolster.

 

I know where that Macaw's coming...

4 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

If these are vehicle carrying wagons, would the wear & tear be more visible as longitudinal track/tyre marks?

I'll take care of that  

47 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

You need to do a video to match our mate Nigel's. Toboldlygo's Modelling Bench has a ring to it.

Me on video...

Erm...

At least I have better nails than Nige!

1 hour ago, stayhi128 said:

Rgarding the butresses, You cannot fail to miss them and certainly if you were modelling Didcot, then you would expect to see them there. But this kit is of a generic GW coaling stage and not specific to any particular location.

I agree, looking at Didcot and at this build, there's similarities - but it's like comparing a Series 1 Jaguar XJ to the X308 XJ8.

Having seen the track plans - buttresses will cause fit issues on the layout.

12 hours ago, Simond said:

Don’t want to throw a spanner in the works here, but this kit has a couple of problems - the floor on which the tracks run should be a foot or so below the floor on which the coal trucks are manoeuvred - and it is also on a slope - a shallow ramp extends through the stage and onto the full wagon storage siding beyond.  I discovered the height difference on a visit to Didcot.  I was pleased to amend my (7mm) one as this lowered the rather extreme ramp that my layout required, if you have more room, you may not need to do so.

 

the other deficiency is that there are MASSIVE buttresses at the back, and inside, to hold up the water tank.  I didn’t model these, but may do so in the future.  If you can’t see the back, they may not be obvious on your model.

 

Theres a small plan that shows these in the GW sheds book.

 

sorry to bear ill news

simon

I'll clear something up this is a commission for a client. So throwing spanners is ill advised.

My client's layout hasn't been built yet, the rear won't be visible, I'm aware of the buttresses. I know he's not particulary worried about the accuracy of the interior either.

13 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

It's 8 15 . That's the time that it's always been. We've got your message on the radio, condition's normal and we're coming home.

I'll have her finished by then

Another good source of lead is when you buy a new tyre and have it balanced. They come on self adhesive strips in some places and might be worth asking.

If tyres are fitted correctly they shouldn't need balancing - remember the red dot

From a chum who had some going spare, as far as I can remember. I've kept loads of small off-cuts from many years ago in a box, which I dip into every so often when I need to add some weight to a loco.

I hope it didn't come off a Church Roof lol

One of the traders who attends Railwells always has lead sheet in stock, so I buy a couple to tide me over until the next time.

 

Nice work, CK - you deserve a smoothly-running 14xx after all this.

That rang a bell as to where I seen it Barry, thanks -Eileens Emporium btw.

I don't need it for loco's as yet (though I do have a Comet Manor Chassis to build for a Client at some point), but I have a number aircraft kits that need a lot of weight to keep the nose wheel down and I rather use lead for it than Blu-Tac.

Might sound a daft question, but were do you get your lead sheet from?

Already an improvement on the original crap chassis

The wooden cradle is my Modified Bulleid nameplate removal jig - so it's been re-utilized for so many other loco and plane jobs over the years.

I think the clamps came from Aldi or Lidl (my late Father brought them for me many years ago)

Vallejo Model Air doesn't need thinning, but once opened it does need a bit of thinners - if it starts to spit when airbrushed.

The way the spars and wings are engineered means a very nice tight fit (so glue isn't required if you wish to store the plane)

The MR3 is the Frog kit moldings, reconditioned by Revell  - according to some modelers the fuselage is on the short side. However it's worth noting the fuselage on the MR.3 is very different to the MR.2/AEW.2.

I think 50 Shades of BR Green, would be more apt - as there are so many variations in OO Gauge around