uax6

For plastic axleboxes, is the answer a soldering iron? Put the brass bearing in the start of the axlebox hole, and then push home with the tip of the hot iron.... Andy G

Google produced this: http://www.replicarailways.co.uk/menusep4/menuchass Andy G

Ah the old PBX group! Normally in advertising they would put the first number only, with something like '5 lines' in brackets. The final selector doing the hunting over the group, but I'm not sure that the PBX hunting would work if you dialled anything other than the 1st line. I'll have to check this, I've not got true PBX groups set up on my UAX12 at the minute, only the outgoing junctions, and I don't know if I've got the PBX pins in them! Andy G

Anyway back to models: Does anyone know where Frank Roomes' 7mm 10800 is now please? Heres a picture of it on another thread: A lovely loco, and I remember it ran like a swiss watch (like all of Franks locos did).. Andy G

I don't think its as easy as saying that the Paxman engines were rubbish. The install in 10800 suffered from having bad plumbing attached to it (I have read that somewhere, but can't recall where now!), including poorly sized rads. The 15 and 16's used a similar engine, which then showed up issues with the cylinder heads (alloy), which I believe got changed to iron over time. The Claytons (17) were based on the engines used in the diesel-electric railcar based on the Watford electric bogies on LMS P1 all steel brake thirds. In this use the alloy heads on the engines didn't show any issue, and when BR ordered the engines for the 17's they insisted they were the same as the ones in the railcar, even though Paxman's had wanted to supply iron heads, which they ended up doing anyway! The HST's were going new into the unknown, and it was discovered that the rad size was too small to dissipate the heat that the engines produced, but once that was sorted they settled down to be reliable... Andy G

The Tightlocks were always interesting with bird strikes, the 365's down here always seemed to strike the birds with theirs, which of course then required some poor unfortunate to pick the remains out, so that they could couple up... Interestingly the 365 tightlocks could couple with 317's, but you couldn't run them in service coupled up (although at least once the 365 had passengers with a 317 in the lead...), so the incompatablity has been going on for years.. Pete Townsend recalls that when he was in charge of Topshed at KX, the buckeyes on the LM Royal Train were noted to be at a different height to the ones on the rear of the A4's, this being discovered at KX just before departure time. After they had tried a couple of times and got the couplers wedged, they just managed to get them apart and sling the emergency coupling on before right away... The driver later discovered that he had a rag over the brake gauge to remind him to do a brake test.... which he had forgotten about.... Andy G

Phil, from what I can see the MRC drawings are the same drawings that were used in Jenks LMS coaches book..... Andy G

Wasn't that also applied to North Sea Gas? Andy G

Sadly it was the only one that I could get a good view of and I know it was a home board, but all of the pictures of the route with signals in show that they are square topped sighting boards with a heavy rectangular head and long hoods. I suppose you could lop the top of the sighting board of the Eckon one off square with the top of head... Andy G

Looks like you are right sir, see the photo linked to above. Andy G

Mike, I've done a quick google of the woodhead line, and its quite interesting in that it looks like it was equipped with colour-lights with flat top sighting boards and tapered hoods. I'm not an expert here, but they look a bit like my Metro-vick Hernia that I have in the garden (so called as it is so bleeding heavy!), but with 'pig's ears' on the side so that the drive (if stood at it would be able to see the main aspect still), but I wonder if they would be fitted on distants (mine has the castings for them, but they are not fitted). More interestingly the two aspect ones at Woodhead, are actually three aspect heads with the centre aspect blacked off! Presumably this was to allow power-box working to be installed later? That would make an interesting signal make. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/woodhead/woodhead(john_green6.1982)old6.jpg Theres a good back view of one there as well.. Andy G

I've just picked up an old brass made LMS 10000, and its running gear is a Dublo Deltic. The profiles of the wheels are somewhat basic, so I was wondering if there is a suitable replacement available to bring them up to modern standards? I've tried looking around places like Ultrascale, but the doesn't seem to be anything available for the Dublo diesels. Am I going to have to look to use Romford coach wheels (if they are the right diameter that is!)? Andy G

The signals all look good, except that Eckon! Do you have a photo of the proper one Mike? And Richard, its about time you got the paint brush out on those posts! Andy G

I converted some ex- GPO exchange florries some time back. These had the lovely fat tubes in them (which seem to have been un-obtainable for many years now), so I bought some LED tubes for them. As the starters were wired internally I took the option of removing the ballast from the circuit (as its no longer required with the tubes I bought), so it took a bit longer then by just swapping the tubes over. Interestingly the energy saving per tube isn't much, about 12W from memory, but it does add up. They are a bit brighter, so I can now see the colours of the wiring on the racks! I guess theres going to be a huge amount of battens heading to the skip now, which is daft as they can just have the tubes changed over... Andy G

In that first photo, I'm hazarding a guess that its a normal traffic brake at the rear (theres no evidence of the plough ends by the footboards) so that would confirm that Sharks weren't used as such... But, as you say it was a long time ago, and finding photos of the rear of trains would be a challenge! Andy G

Burn them..... they are GW after all.... Andy G

Sorry to go back a page, but that is a cracking rake of wagons sir! But I'm wondering if the idea of a shark at the rear is appropriate? As a brake vehicle I believe that they weren't usually classed as for that use (well round here on the Eastern anyway!) as the wheelbase was so short the Guards objected to travelling in them! So you would probably need a real van behind it. The last time a heard of a shark running around here (About 9 years ago) it was being used to house a shunter to supervise a propelling move from King's Lynn to Middleton Towers sand loading point, while the loop at there was out of action. DB would only authorise it to run at 20mph because of the wheelbase, which somewhat increased the journey time from New England at Peterborough to King's Lynn! I bet it was the last time it was used, and its probably been scrapped now! Andy G

Edited out again.... Grr! Andy G Heavily edited to try and keep a job!

Just think, it could be worse, Harry could start singing.... Andy G

Edited to remove things that might loose me my job! Andy G

It is the fuel tank, and according to Andrew Briddon Locos webpage (and weekendrails.co.uk) the filler is recessed into the top of this tank, where it rots out, letting rainwater into the tank..... Andy G

You need to find something on the kit that is easy to measure in the real world, bricks tend to be one than cane be easily measured. Do you have a link to the kit, it might be easier to see what the kit is like. Andy G

Having just spoken to Hattons, it looks like the LMS full brake is due Feb '23, but I was told that they <might> arrive sooner.... Andy G

To make it look thinner on the end, you could introduce another bit of beading on the end of the roof, as often you will find that there is a true carriage end, then the end of the roof itself (sticking out), but between the two there is a bead, which helps to pull the canvas taught. So on the end above add a thinner 'step' on the end, and then a thicker end of roof onto the slab that is shown. Andy G

Whats the overall width over the ducket? It looks like it could do with being a bit wider to allow a proper window on the door end. Also, is it a close coupled set? The buffer shanks look very short. Andy G