Buhar

That's clearer, 2nd from the left is the 8A MJT?

One is from a Slaters kit, one Mousa with replacement MJT Ellis 10A axleboxes and springs, two Mousa as intended with the earlier 8A axleboxes. Which is which? Ok, I'll play. From the left:- Mousa, Mousa (both as per Bill), Slaters, then Mousa plus MJT. The planking on what I think are the Mousa models barely seems to show. I can't make out the axleboxes at all so in guessing on the 8A boxes I've gone by ride height which seems a twitch lower. Within the tolerances of older springs I would imagine.

I raised this query within the G&SWR Association (www.gswra.org). ian@stenochs wrote:- As far as I know the large G&SW lettering was in widespread use from 1900 but may have been introduced a bit earlier although I have no evidence to a date. Prior to the large lettering ownership was on a cast iron number plate along with the wagon number. After the painted lettering on the wagon sides appeared the cast number/company continued to be fitted and continued in use right up to the takeover by the LMS. Some covered vans had the number also painted on the end quite high up. Brake vans too had their numbers right up on the end eaves panel of the veranda. I don’t think the number was on wagon ends, at least I have never seen a photo of one so adorned. ​Stuart Rankin commented:- 1895 seems plausible date for new wagons being built. James Manson had by that time built new passenger and goods locos and coaching so it was turn of goods stock. Absence of dated records and dates on photos is a problem in this field. Before 1895 if that is the date they seemed shy of insignia. Hope this helps. Were you aware that Stirling 0-4-2s worked through to Birmingham from Kilmarnock around the turn of the century, usually returning those much sought-after D299s.

.and about £11.00 a metre, just for the chairs.

Gird up your loins to be disabused of that notion in the next few weeks. Nits will be picked, features dissected and a good number of people will have a gripe or two.

Surely not so, Stephen. With wagon turntables all over the place and a simple rule - towards London equals dumb - you'd soon have it sorted. Wagons will only turn round on a triangle or a wagon turntable. The former would probably be less common and as it would be either a full train or substantial cut of wagons, would still keep the dumb to sprung plan in place.

Duchess of Birmingham!

I would suggest braking the trucks rather than trying to cram more lead in. A bit of foam bearing down on an axle would do it, or a length of sprongy something.

That'll do me. Peco, at one stage, were hoping for a late spring release and DCC concepts, despite the appearance of a head start, seem some way off yet. Clearly mass-producing an acceptable OO bullhead point is not easy.

One train load I've seen mentioned in Glasgow was back-fill for worked-out quarries, probably building waste. As towns grew, the areas where local stone had been quarried became desirable for housing, factories or parks. This probably applied anywhere where stone was the principal building material and also maybe where sand or gravel was extracted (although these were often low-lying and so maybe not so useful). It's the perfect job for a simple open, I think the Midland had such a vehicle.

Votes invited on the correct shade of red for LMR pacifics.

I have a recollection of reading that in the pre-grouping era there was a higher tariff (or maybe even a ban) on imported timber that was 9ft or longer and so 8'11" would be fine.

With Mainline and Bachmann you have a straight throatplate and sloping one; for additional variation, which is the essence of the class, I think you need a domeless one amongst them and maybe a variation on the smokebox saddle too. Plus there's the Stanier 3.5K tender, I don't know if Fowler ones were still attached in BR days. Lovely engines.

Lubricators for the cylinders. Globe was one type.

I think it was Iain Rice who said that if a modeller had a workbench the size of a billiard table, they'd still end up with only a few square inches of clear space in front of them.

I have a copy of an old RM with a drawing for an 8T high sided goods and mineral wagon built by the Midland for the SECR in 1898. Was this a D299? It fits with the dates of production of the first iteration?

Hi Martin, It's not very clear as it wasn't the subject of the video but have a look at this from Liverpool Lime Street (7:30 in) A query about the activity was answered as follows:-

The clock calendar function on your PC/Laptop (click bottom right on the taskbar) can be used to find the day for dates in the past (mine wound back to 1950 before I stopped).

I picked up the term "large" in conversation with someone who I judge knows more about small industrials than me, I can't for the life of me remember who, though. As others have noted, the cab is extended to end flush with the rear buffer-beam and there are small rear side panels, the running plate is raised and the cylinders more inclined. I don't know if the boiler was pitched higher or not as a result. Unfortunately, the G&SWR Association doesn't have plans for that line's Peckett. Many companies made variations to designs without creating a new class designation, some much more significant than the amendments Peckett made to the W4, for example the wheelbase and myriad boiler configurations on the LMS Class 5 or the fitting of Lentz gear on the Crab. Mind you, the LNER created a new subdivision of a class if someone cleaned the spectacle glass!

It's a very gentle solvent, it creates the same kind of welded joint (and will create fingerprints if spread too widely) as those others but is helpful in not inducing warping in laminates. You could use it for butt joints and the like, but it would need a jig or clamps as it takes a while to work. You don't need to apply more because it's gentle, you just need to be patient. It smells nice too.

I'm sorry I couldn't remember your name and I'd binned the DVD.

On a recent free BRM DVD Hornby's researcher talks about how the early W4 was chosen, how they estimated sales from experience with the Sentinel and their future plans. He answered quite a few of the comments here and he also said that the production run was enlarged on the basis of pre-orders but still sold out. Hornby are expecting a good few years out of the Peckett in different liveries and with minor changes to configurations, but not to the extent of producing the large W4 (eg the G&SWR version).

Knuckles is very open and frequently criticises Shapeways for their high prices, over which he has no control. He's certainly not out to buy a Porsche on the back of SCC. I think he's now got his own 3D printer, but whether that will be a high enough spec for selling bits, I don't know.

Hi Iain, You seem to be looking at a foundation that can be dismantled (or assembled) a limited number of times rather than something that is fully portable. I like the L-girder idea, there are a lot of point and presumably signal mechanisms to work round and this system is flexible for that. As you want to get going, you could build boards on their own to an accurate cutting plan, maybe including the irregular shapes Graham suggests, with a view to assembling them solidly in place when the time comes. This would probably help with under-baseboard work too. Lime Street has a jigsaw of boards and a few pages back in their thread John has a plan of how they all fit together. You could decide to sacrifice a point or two if it ever came to taking it apart and so lay those over joints.

Hello - yes!