26power

Might be worth including links to your website and Facebook page in your signature, if that isn’t considered to be to commercial?

Sorry to hear of your decision. I echo the comments of others thanking you for your posts and inspiration and look forward to your return to posting somewhere! Perhaps posting your images on Flickr would help increase the likelihood of images being retained, or give flexibility for where you post, in a future iteration? Having said that the predecessor of Flickr which seemed to be the main choice for posting photographs of real trains (can’t remember the site’s name) also disappeared! Your work is what I would like to see in the model railway magazines. Will there be an opportunity to see your wagons etc. in the flesh, so to speak, on a layout at exhibitions?

In no way am I an expert on Black Fives but I don’t think what you are referring to as a “feed” was a post LMS addition. As andytrains indicated, 44767 was unique. I think it’s naming is also a post preservation thing? The valve gear in particular being different from the normal type, as modelled by Hornby. Therefore probably not easily created from a Hornby “base” model. I do though seem to recall it’s a variation that Hornby have said they will cover with their new Black Five model. I wonder if anywhere there is a catalogue or tabulation of all the Black Five models Hornby have done to date? I understand they tooled up various options for boiler layout/fittings and also tenders, welded or riveted, but have no idea where you can source what variations they have produced. Perhaps you would need to post on the Hornby sub-forum to find more detailed information or more informed responses to this, as there would be a greater likelihood of your query being seen by more people on there than in this sub-forum. Hope this helps!

Good to get a write up on the amount of work that is required. One tiny comment - I’m never very clear if your captions are for the photo above the caption or for the picture below it. In this instance I think it is always below, as I think it should be! It is maybe partly you leaving a gap between the caption and the picture above that throws me As I say, only a tiny comment but perhaps helpful to you, given the amount of work put in to doing the blog.

“Socketing” is the word I should have used! Glad some of my thoughts of assistance. I had forgotten the baseboards were quite big and/or heavy.

Maybe you’ve already thought of this, but if the buildings are going to be removable then it would be worthwhile considering how to arrange them so that they go back in the right place each time they are removed. And do so easily. I think you might find that putting them in place and removing them will happen most when you are building them. Thereafter there wouldn’t seem an awful lot of need to remove them regularly? You might also need to think about how to fix them in place, e.g. if the layout is to be portable? For the “thin” goods shed wall I wonder if you could incorporate into the walls some brass rods that would fit into holes in the baseboard? Or long thin bolts if you need to secure them? Either would seem to be suitable for holding the bottom of the wall in the right place, at least in two dimensions. And the latter in three, if needed. Hope these thoughts help. Sorry to hear of the flooding. The graph you shared was informative! Don’t think I heard about it on UK TV or in my newspaper. Or perhaps I did and didn’t realise the severity of it.

Hi. What or where is your blog? Interested in what you have done to the tender flairs.

The face of the tension lock coupling doesn’t look to protrude much beyond the face of the buffers? Perhaps it’s the angle of the picture!

This link on the 6LDA blog has some nice pictures: https://6lda.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/blues-and-twos-and-1s-and-ok-some-greens/ 6LDA blog included in the ever so slight hope that one or two might choose to support its efforts to preserve 26 024 and 26 038!

See here: https://modelrail-scotland.co.uk/covid-19-information/ And/or the SEC website page linked from there: https://www.sec.co.uk/visitor-information/covid-19-customer-update

As others have said, the longer version looks better. Certainly to my eye, but that is partly basing it on comparison with the prototype picture. As it's presumably neither here nor there which size you build I would go for the longer one. Imagine the frustration if you had started building something and then a scale drawing turned up showing you were "out" in some dimension(s). Hope the above and the discussion and input from others helps!

Your approach and available space, by the sounds of it, might help with emphasising the sparseness of the rural setting. Different from a "busy" built up or urban area. And your trains get a bit more of a run! At least you are doing something constructive!

The horizontal roof ridge of the model goods shed looks shorter than the real one. On the real one it looks longer than the length where the roof is sloping down to the end wall. The height of the model goods shed looks greater than the real one, or perhaps more the relationship with the station building height. Somehow the station building looks proportionately taller in the real picture than the model one. But the goods shed height is dictated by the need to get rail vehicles in, so that cannot be any less than you have it, I don't think? Presumably, going by the road doors, the ground level needs to be built up in front of the good shed, so that could be misleading me. You're seeing it in the flesh so can judge far better. Probably one of those things you look at over a few days!

Nothing wrong with your layout being pretty much a scale representation of the real thing. It perhaps helps put the train size into context with surroundings. It’s just an alternative to a layout where, say the train emerges from the fiddle yard/off scene area and immediately enters a station and stops. Your current mock-ups look like a good start on making the actual buildings, so perhaps not time wasted. It might be more frustrating/annoying etc. to get the goods shed well on “properly” only to then think it’s too small. Or too big!

Is the track, land etc. a scale copy of the real thing? If so would seem sensible that the buildings are as well. Do I take it from the aerial picture with your drawing of the station building overlaid that your drawing, and therefore your mock up, of the station building “match” the size in the aerial photo? If so it would seem logical that the goods shed also matches. Perhaps in the first instance post a message with that aerial photo and a shot of the model that tries to replicate it, perhaps just the middle of your three pictures above, so they can be compared side by side, so to speak. Another option would be to do an alternative goods shed mock-up and try that in place and see which option you are happier with. Especially if you just leave it there for a while and get accustomed to it. In your first picture in your above message the goods shed in the distance looks small! Hope this makes some sense, and helps!

Would there perhaps be greater clearance between the shed building and the wash plant? To allow maintenance access to both perhaps? Maybe scope to slew that track to the left? Hope this helps.

Thanks to others. particularly 70000 Britannia Andy Haytor and MikeB, for moving the discussion on about whether or not exhibitors, traders etc. will be required to provide the same proof of Covid status as those paying to attend will. Unfortunately still no information on this from the AMRSS, although they now seem to appreciate the need for authoritive responses. I've looked at the current guidelines for event organisers at the link in the message below. This unfortunately doesn't seem to be clear about the requirements for the sort of situation that this exhibition provides, i.e. where exhibitors, traders and AMRSS volunteers can also be, effectively, regular attendees. I also couldn't see anything about such people being classed as "contractors", as was claimed. I assume that the SEC will be complying with the spirit of this statement at the start of the overview in this guidance (my highlighting): "This guidance explains how the COVID Certification Scheme works. It also provides guidance for premises and event organisers to help them operate a reasonable system for checking that individuals on their premises are either: fully vaccinated or have tested negative for COVID-19 virus in last 24 hours or are exempt" Obviously the AMRSS has no control over whether or not the SEC requires this of people working for it, e.g. security staff, ticket sellers, first aiders etc. I would though contend that the AMRSS could require this of exhibitors, traders and other volunteers, even if the SEC doesn't require this. As others indicated an exhibitor etc. when looking around the exhibition is then, effectively, no different from paying visitors. With regard to the statement provided on behalf of the AMRSS (linked below) I would make two comments: 1. What is or is not discussed on this forum is presumably for the moderators and owners of this forum to determine, not the AMRSS. If there is information provided by someone seemingly speaking on behalf of the AMRSS that raises queries, in this case that some effectively attending the event as visitors, e.g. exhibitors on a break, will not need to provide proof of vaccination, then that is something that seems to me to be appropriate to query on here; and 2. I hope that the AMRSS are now clearer that any responses about this sort of matter need to clearly indicated as an official statement from them Finally, with regard to the following message about acceptance of a negative lateral flow test, the AMRSS information doesn't yet reflect their acceptance. I'm sure it will soon. However, could I suggest that the link to the venue for the definitive requirements be the page for the SEC itself, i.e. this one: https://www.sec.co.uk/visitor-information/covid-19-customer-update not the current one, which is for the The OVO Hydro on the same campus. I appreciate that this is all effectively new and that the AMRSS are guinea pigs. However, on that basis I would it is in their interests to maximise the number of people paying to attend. If that means, for example, providing reassurance to those paying that those exhibiting etc. are required to demonstrate their Covid status in the same way as those paying then that seems a simple thing to be clear on. I'll await the further update on or about the 5th of February.

Digital magazine back numbers at 99p each. Scale modelling: https://emails.pocketmags.com/4Q80-MN3P-4MD31E-JDFE6-1/c.aspx Prototype transport: https://emails.pocketmags.com/4Q80-MN3P-4MD31E-JDFEC-1/c.aspx Haven't used myself so don't know if you get it forever? Hope links work and of interest.

Any such savings offset by increased transport costs though? Anyway, my point was really wishful thinking that they had done a Dolphin or a Sturgeon. These would perhaps have had wider appeal, because of their greater numbers and distribution. At leat I think so for the Dolphin (I did do a quick internet search on the Dolphin to try and find out how many were made or what their distribution was but without success). Nice as the Pilchard looks I doubt I’ll be getting one because of their limited distribution. The choice of prototypes by Oxford seems odd, but no doubt they know their market. However, I can see the Pilchard being chosen by both them and purchasers as something “different” or “cute”. Perhaps the length of the Dolphin or Sturgeon was potentially problematic? Just idle thoughts!

Maybe the box designer thought Oxford were making the similar LNER Dolphin, or BR Sturgeon?!

Seems odd that “contractors” don’t need a Covid passport? And therefore they could potentially be more likely to have Covid, and hence pass it on to visitors! Can’t the AMRSS require exhibitors/stewards/traders to have a Covid passport?

I think this is the right page to get a paper copy of your status sent to you, or to get your status “document” as a PDF which you can then print out: https://www.nhsinform.scot/covid-19-vaccine/after-your-vaccine/get-a-record-of-your-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-status Hope this helps.

Presumably you saw the post earlier in the thread (October 3rd, I think?) with some being loaded?

A 4mm version of this might be worth considering?