The Siphon G, by Accurascale - From Milk To Mail!

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

As my Siphons have been sat in Hattons trunk for a while I've only just received them this afternoon.

I haven't read the previous comments, but I assume I'm not the only not to have got the EM/P4 brake yokes in the detail pack?

Butchering has commenced 🫣.

 

Mike.

[Islesy]

3 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

I assume I'm not the only not to have got the EM/P4 brake yokes in the detail pack?

There were none Mike. We’ve never stated that there would be, or that they would be EM/P4 ready.

But good luck, it’s an easy enough conversion - I’ve done it myself to several EPs just to check if there are any pitfalls.

 

All the best,

Paul

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, Islesy said:

There were none Mike. We’ve never stated that there would be, or that they would be EM/P4 ready.

But good luck, it’s an easy enough conversion - I’ve done it myself to several EPs just to check if there are any pitfalls.

 

All the best,

Paul

 

Oh yes, everything is do-able!

 

 

Mike.

[nigel newling]

Well done Mike. To save me the bother of searching, what brake yoke etches did you use, please?

For a model of this excellence, I do think Accurascale could have supplied alternative yokes in their detail pack. After all, they did go to some lengths to make conversion of their Deltic easy.

Nigel

[Enterprisingwestern]

15 minutes ago, nigel newling said:

Well done Mike. To save me the bother of searching, what brake yoke etches did you use, please?

For a model of this excellence, I do think Accurascale could have supplied alternative yokes in their detail pack. After all, they did go to some lengths to make conversion of their Deltic easy.

Nigel

 

They are item # 3541 from the EMGS stores, the old D&S brake yokes, I assume they are still available as I now need a couple more packets!

 

A dynamo belt is an another admission to such a finely detailed underframe, most of which you won't see under normal operating circumstances.

 

As to your second point, yes, baton dropped IMHO, simplicity of conversion seems to have faded into the background with the passage of time, still, it gives us a chance to do some real modelling!

Also, it would have been nice to have been kept informed of Paul's modifications to the wider gauges instead of keeping under his hat?

 

Mike.

[Jub45565]

37 minutes ago, nigel newling said:

Well done Mike. To save me the bother of searching, what brake yoke etches did you use, please?

For a model of this excellence, I do think Accurascale could have supplied alternative yokes in their detail pack. After all, they did go to some lengths to make conversion of their Deltic easy.

Nigel

 

Alongside the EMGS, there are two options from Wizard which should do the job:

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/mt230/

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/c51/

 

I don't have C51, but do have a pack of mt230 and will try and make time later to offer it up.

[Enterprisingwestern]

4 minutes ago, Jub45565 said:

 

Alongside the EMGS, there are two options from Wizard which should do the job:

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/mt230/

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/c51/

 

I don't have C51, but do have a pack of mt230 and will try and make time later to offer it up.

 

Pedantically, they are shallower wagon yokes I think, no doubt someone will mark my card, but at the end of the day better than nothing, although mounting them could be a tad more complicated, the EMGS/D&S variety lining up nicely for a simple fix.

 

Mike.

[Jub45565]

3 hours ago, Jub45565 said:

 

... (I) do have a pack of mt230 and will try and make time later to offer it up.

 

As promised:

 

Complete bogie as initially removed from the siphon:

 

 

Bits removed:

 

 

Remaining frame, with brass pinpoint bearings as delivered

 

 

With Ultrascale wheels dropped in (standard 26mm axles), and the yokes from MT230 (former Mainly Trains etch, now available from Wizard Models)

 

 

Comparison of the etched yoke to the plastic original

 

[John Isherwood]

4 hours ago, nigel newling said:

Well done Mike. To save me the bother of searching, what brake yoke etches did you use, please?

For a model of this excellence, I do think Accurascale could have supplied alternative yokes in their detail pack. After all, they did go to some lengths to make conversion of their Deltic easy.

Nigel

 

Realistically, what percentage of any supplied P4 / EM yokes would be used?

 

This is the problem for manufacturers who try to push up standards - there will always be a small minority who are dissatisfied, and demand that their particular niche is catered for.

 

If you can be bothered with all the other hassle of using a non-standard track gauge, surely minor adjustments to brakegear are hardly a serious imposition?

 

CJI.

[McC]

We do provide drop-in wheel sets for the Deltic and Class 37, as those models will have a long enough life and volume of reruns to justify making the wheels and providing them. We also make provisions where sensible for other gauges in all of our stock, but in this case, an additional tool would have been needed to make the additional parts to include, which would never be justified, as even with the 37 wheel sets, the volume sold is an order of just under 1% (both P4 and EM combined) of the total number of Class 37's sold. 

 

Not in any way to suggest we're not always making models with one eye on p4/em and have excellent relationships with the respective bodies, and where we can including alternative parts, etc, but in terms of commercial reality, it's unfair to ask the 99% to pay for the 1% if it comes to a crunch.

Edited August 19, 2023 by McC

[Jub45565]

As Mike said - its a great starting point for those of us in the finer gauges, and a good opportunity to mix this with some actual modelling - so no complaints here.

 

I do find John's comment funny though - I'm not disagreeing with the fact we are a small minority, but calling it (either P4 or EM) a non-standard track gauge is comical.

[Islesy]

7 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

it would have been nice to have been kept informed of Paul's modifications to the wider gauges instead of keeping under his hat?

Are you not in the WhatsApp Group chat then Mike? Most remiss of me...

[melmerby]

Having had my 2 siphons for a few weeks not I have noticed some things that could be improved.

1, Spring hangers - Why are they not attached to the bogie frame? As they are, they are extremely fragile and easily bent or knocked off.

 

One siphon is now missing 3, 2 are in the box for safe keeping, the third is lost.

I intend to drop a spot of super glue where the trunnion (?) sits alongside the bogie frame to make them more robust.

 

2, Steps - Most of mine were a little askew, unfortunately a tweak with small pliers immediately removes the black paint. Should be easily remedied.

 

3, Corridor connection, one came off as I opened the plastic shell, seems that they just push in. I thought they would be glued.

 

Anyone else found the same?

Edited September 2, 2023 by melmerby

[John Isherwood]

On 18/08/2023 at 14:59, Jub45565 said:

As Mike said - its a great starting point for those of us in the finer gauges, and a good opportunity to mix this with some actual modelling - so no complaints here.

 

I do find John's comment funny though - I'm not disagreeing with the fact we are a small minority, but calling it (either P4 or EM) a non-standard track gauge is comical.

 

Comical or not - from the perspective of manufacturers of MODEL railways, that's exactly what EM and P4 are.

 

Whilst some wish it had never happened, 16.5mm. gauge, 4mm. / 1ft. scale is far too well established as the most popular UK railway modelling scale.

 

Any concessions to other gauges for 4mm. scale RTR will always be nominal, and subject to nil or negligible additional cost.

 

CJI.

Edited September 2, 2023 by cctransuk

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Whilst some wish it had never happened, 16.5mm. gauge, 4mm. / 1ft. scale is far too well established as the most popular UK railway modelling scale.

 

Sad but irreversably true.  We missed an opportunity in the 70s, when Lima introduced a range of British H0 at a time when Hornby dominated the RTR market overwhelmingly and had a poor reputation among 'proper modellers', whatever you define those to be, us, basically.  Had Airfix and Mainline joined in, we could have a very different scene today, but it never happened.  I can fully understand the thinking behind Airfix and Mainline choosing 00 as a modelling standard, and do not hold them responsible for British H0's failure to make it into mainstream RTR, but this was probably the last chance of a serious difference being made.  We're stuck with it now, though there is no practical engineering reason why correct gauge RTR cannot be made (I accept that wheel/rail profiles would prevent adoption of P4 standards), either as British H0 or to 4mm with scale track.  It would be a brave manufacturer that attempted it, though, irrespective of how much we cheered him/her on, and even braver investors and banks to fund it.  And investors/banks are not known for their bravery...

 

I don't like it but I can live with it; current 4mm RTR to 00 standards is pretty good, but I might be more troubled by it if I were to be viewing my layout in a less 'across the tracks' manner.  Looking along the tracks, the incorrect gauge is horribly apparent, even with Continental sleeper spacing creating a wider gauge illusion.  Head- or tail-on views are similarly compromised, as the buffers should be in line with the rails, which are clearly too narrow in gauge, not that I'm suggesting moving the buffers inwards, that would be even worse!

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Head- or tail-on views are similarly compromised, as the buffers should be in line with the rails, which are clearly too narrow in gauge, not that I'm suggesting moving the buffers inwards, that would be even worse!

Buffer centres are wider than track gauge on the big railway 😉

[The Johnster]

Not as much as they are in 00, though!  But yes, I should have said ‘more in line with the rails’. 

 

[Dunsignalling]

OO is what it is, and UK-outline r-t-r HO just is never going to happen. If it had any legs at all, there would be kits to be had. Any that might exist, would seem to be a well-kept secret. 

 

Those whose desire for a true/better scale gauge ratio have long been able to convert to P4/EM respectively, backed up by all the mass-market and cottage industry provision that has grown up out of OO. Despite the clearly improved appearance on offer most of us stick with OO, either for practical reasons (usually lack of space), because the compromises inherent in OO just don't bother us enough to make the effort, or simple inertia.

 

Lima was the opportunity for commercial British HO, and it didn't take-off. Now there's a new kid on the block offering HO-level arithmetical accuracy, albeit with similar visual compromises that are necessary to make it work. 

 

For British HO ever to have had a commercial future it needed to happen when Lima jumped in, but also to get the biggest player in the field behind it. There is a single, simple reason why Hornby didn't and never will pick it up. Offering UK-outline models in two  scales on the same gauge track would create too much confusion for the more casual customers who constitute such an important percentage of their market.  If you need a second they had, not so long before, baled out of TT-3 despite that offering a space advantage that HO wouldn't, to any significant degree.

 

Nobody else had (or has) the clout needed to make r-t-r British HO "stick", and today's much more diversified industry makes it highly unlikely that AS or anyone else will try it in future.

 

While Hornby has felt the need to diversify into another scale, they decided that TT:120 is the way to go. Despite initial scepticism on my part, I think they have made the better choice. 

 

So long as it succeeds, Hornby's adoption of TT:120 has (IMHO) laid any notion of r-t-r British HO to rest for good.

 

John 

 

Sorry, I've just realised how far off-topic this is, but I didn't start it! 😇

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Dunsignalling
Apology!

[VIA185]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

OO is what it is, and UK-outline r-t-r HO just is never going to happen. If it had any legs at all, there would be kits to be had. Any that might exist, would seem to be a well-kept secret. 

 

Those whose desire for a true/better scale gauge ratio have long been able to convert to P4/EM respectively, backed up by all the mass-market and cottage industry provision that has grown up out of OO. Despite the clearly improved appearance on offer most of us stick with OO, either for practical reasons (usually lack of space), because the compromises inherent in OO just don't bother us enough to make the effort, or simple inertia.

 

Lima was the opportunity for commercial British HO, and it didn't take-off. Now there's a new kid on the block offering HO-level arithmetical accuracy, albeit with similar visual compromises that are necessary to make it work. 

 

For British HO ever to have had a commercial future it needed to happen when Lima jumped in, but also to get the biggest player in the field behind it. There is a single, simple reason why Hornby didn't and never will pick it up. Offering UK-outline models in two  scales on the same gauge track would create too much confusion for the more casual customers who constitute such an important percentage of their market.  If you need a second they had, not so long before, baled out of TT-3 despite that offering a space advantage that HO wouldn't, to any significant degree.

 

Nobody else had (or has) the clout needed to make r-t-r British HO "stick", and today's much more diversified industry makes it highly unlikely that AS or anyone else will try it in future.

 

While Hornby has felt the need to diversify into another scale, they decided that TT:120 is the way to go. Despite initial scepticism on my part, I think they have made the better choice. 

 

So long as it succeeds, Hornby's adoption of TT:120 has (IMHO) laid any notion of r-t-r British HO to rest for good.

 

John 

 

Sorry, I've just realised how far off-topic this is, but I didn't start it! 😇

 

Continuing OT, I have an etched kit of a 'Skye bogie' 4-4-0 - I forget the manufacturer's name - but I never built it because it appears to be a 50% reduction of an 'O' scale original (so 'HO' scale) but sold as a 'OO' model. (CJL)

[The Johnster]

16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Those whose desire for a true/better scale gauge ratio have long been able to convert to P4/EM respectively, backed up by all the mass-market and cottage industry provision that has grown up out of OO. Despite the clearly improved appearance on offer most of us stick with OO, either for practical reasons (usually lack of space), because the compromises inherent in OO just don't bother us enough to make the effort, or simple inertia.

 

Not quite, John.  There must be many like myself that are irritated with the gauge compromise and it's non-prototypical appearance, but lack the skillsets (or perhaps the time and space) necessary to move to P4 or EM.  These are finescale gauges, with finescale track, rail/wheel profile, and the need for scale radius curvature.  My own space considerations preclude my being able to have the railway I want in any finescale format.  I can't make my own trackwork, struggle with all but the simplest chassis assemblies, and am a wobbly solderer, in awe of those inspirational modellers that can work in finescale formats, but never able to emulate them.  And I know this, because I've tried.  And failed.  Never been able to touch my toes without bending my knees or learn Welsh, either...

 

My intention in modelling is to recreate prototypical (for my chosen area and period) operations with track, locos, stock, buildings, and scenery as realistic as practicable, but it must work, reliably, and be able to fit into the space I have for it, which means compromise.  I must perforce therefore settle for 00 standards (a task made easier by the very high standard of current 00 RTR), but I don't have to be completely happy with them!  Even if I bothered with better standards enough, I couldn't successfully built a layout beyond my ability.  I'm good at inertia, I'll admit, though I prefer to call it energy conservation.

 

Finescale is not the same thing as RTR Brit-outline 3.5mm/foot models built to coarse standards similar to those in use for 00, for general use on setrack.  But the likes of me are a minority interest in the hobby, and we will never get an RTR H0 scale format for UK-outline models, for the reasons you suggest.  The bus was missed with Lima.

 

16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

There is a single, simple reason why Hornby didn't and never will pick it up. Offering UK-outline models in two  scales on the same gauge track would create too much confusion for the more casual customers who constitute such an important percentage of their market.

16 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

So long as it succeeds, Hornby's adoption of TT:120 has (IMHO) laid any notion of r-t-r British HO to rest for good.

 

It could perhaps be arugued that the 'casual' customers, who are as you say Hornby's core market, don't really care that much about scale and would be quite happy to run mixed scales on the same gauge of track, and that the main reason they don't is coupling incompatibility.  They want a train set.  Back in the day, a lot of my mates were quite happy to run Triang 'Transcontinental' stuff along with Brit outline, sometimes mixing it in the same train, and some of those with HD sets were not averse to mixing it with a bit of Acho.  Then along came Playcraft...  To many 'casual' customers, a train running on a train set is a train running on a train set, and that's enough; who am I to criticise them.

 

I agree that the move to TT 120 has laid the notion of RTR Brit H0 to it's grave but you'd have to admit it didn't take much laying; it was already five foot eleven of the six feet under anyway!

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Not quite, John.  There must be many like myself that are irritated with the gauge compromise and it's non-prototypical appearance, but lack the skillsets (or perhaps the time and space) necessary to move to P4 or EM.  These are finescale gauges, with finescale track, rail/wheel profile, and the need for scale radius curvature.  My own space considerations preclude my being able to have the railway I want in any finescale format.  I can't make my own trackwork, struggle with all but the simplest chassis assemblies, and am a wobbly solderer, in awe of those inspirational modellers that can work in finescale formats, but never able to emulate them.  And I know this, because I've tried.  And failed.  Never been able to touch my toes without bending my knees or learn Welsh, either...

 

My intention in modelling is to recreate prototypical (for my chosen area and period) operations with track, locos, stock, buildings, and scenery as realistic as practicable, but it must work, reliably, and be able to fit into the space I have for it, which means compromise.  I must perforce therefore settle for 00 standards (a task made easier by the very high standard of current 00 RTR), but I don't have to be completely happy with them!  Even if I bothered with better standards enough, I couldn't successfully built a layout beyond my ability.  I'm good at inertia, I'll admit, though I prefer to call it energy conservation.

 

Finescale is not the same thing as RTR Brit-outline 3.5mm/foot models built to coarse standards similar to those in use for 00, for general use on setrack.  But the likes of me are a minority interest in the hobby, and we will never get an RTR H0 scale format for UK-outline models, for the reasons you suggest.  The bus was missed with Lima.

 

 

It could perhaps be arugued that the 'casual' customers, who are as you say Hornby's core market, don't really care that much about scale and would be quite happy to run mixed scales on the same gauge of track, and that the main reason they don't is coupling incompatibility.  They want a train set.  Back in the day, a lot of my mates were quite happy to run Triang 'Transcontinental' stuff along with Brit outline, sometimes mixing it in the same train, and some of those with HD sets were not averse to mixing it with a bit of Acho.  Then along came Playcraft...  To many 'casual' customers, a train running on a train set is a train running on a train set, and that's enough; who am I to criticise them.

 

I agree that the move to TT 120 has laid the notion of RTR Brit H0 to it's grave but you'd have to admit it didn't take much laying; it was already five foot eleven of the six feet under anyway!

But r-t-r HO has just as many compromises as OO, just different ones. 

 

OO locos are (usually) the right width over their cylinders with the wheels moved inward by just under 1.2mm on each side (yes, that's all) to make room for the valve gear and provide the necessary side-play to go round train set curves.

 

HO r-t-r faces the same challenges, but fits everything else around the wheels, which are gauged "true to scale". Most continental and US steam locos are wide enough over cylinders to fudge the rest, but UK prototypes aren't, with the result that the cylinders must be kicked outward to create the required "elbow room". The same must inevitably apply to TT:120 though, as with HO, introducing other discrepancies can help disguise things.

 

In theory, both HO and TT:120 should look better than OO, but, to me, only US-outline does, the rest just appear "differently wrong". I'd go EM if I had the room, if only because I don't think P4 would tolerate any baseboards I'm capable of making to underpin it! 

 

However, for the exclusively diesel/electric modeller who wants to run long trains, HO should be a no-brainer, but nobody's going to to steam in one scale and diesels in another, it's been overtaken by events (TT:120) and EM/P4 will tolerate tighter (though not "train set") curves if you take steam locos out of the equation. 

 

I freely admit mixing Tri-ang UK and Transcontinental stock in my youth, the snow plough being a particular favourite. I turned eleven in the depths of the 1962/3 "big freeze" and requested one for my birthday!

 

However, the physical sizing was a reasonable match and, in any case, "that was then, this is now". 

 

With hindsight, Tri-ang / Hornby had many (perfectly valid) reasons for not diluting their UK outline "status quo" in OO. Lima HO frankly wasn't good enough to carve out a sufficient following of itself, but their OO was, simply because we could begin by adding one loco to what we already had, and which would "fit in" visually. .

 

A couple other mainland European  brands conducted potentially promising, if limited and somewhat compromised, dabbles into UK outline, but it became clear that not enough UK customers were willing to stump up Continental prices.

 

It's easy, also, to forget that Heljan originally intended their UK presence to be HO, with an initial offering of Class 37s in four liveries. Production was conditional on expressions of interest for 750 of each (I had my name down for one), which weren't forthcoming, and they made a OO 47 instead. The rest is history!

 

John

Edited September 3, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

59 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

but it became clear that not enough UK customers were willing to stump up Continental prices.

 

 

A big drawback I'd agree.  We're British, dammit Carruthers, and we want a Pullman service for a parliamentary fare.  Being pretty much of an age with me (I also turned 11 in the cold winter of '63), you'll remember the moans in magazine reviews about the quality of Continental RTR stuff over British, even (actually, especially) in N.  But the prices were consistent with the better detail and running.  Many UK modellers turned to the Continental scene in search of quality models supported by their trade, and it was well into the 70s before UK outline RTR began to catch up. 

 

But even back in the day, 'Continental good British bad' was an oversimplification.  In fact there were plenty of Continental budget manufacturers that were not doing much better than Triang Hornby, like Jouef, Lima, Roco, or Piko; poor detail, moulded on, steamroller flanges, stamped motion, overthick coach sides, hideous couplings, the lot.  Lima dropped H0 Brit-outline of just that quality on us, just as our own RTR scene was trying a bit harder with Airfix and Mainline.  Unlucky timing, but the lesson they learned was that we were more discerning than our previous RTR output suggested, and we were fed up with it!  Lima responded, successfully, with stuff a bit better than their initial efforts (not much, in the case of their steam outline, but the mk1s and 117 dmu weren't bad for the time).  By the late 80s and the 90s they were turning out pretty good diesels, but all this was in 4mm 00.

 

59 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

It's easy, also, to forget that Heljan originally intended their UK presence to be HO, with an initial offering of Class 37s in four liveries. Production was conditional on expressions of interest for 750 of each (I had my name down for one), which weren't forthcoming, and they made a OO 47 instead. The rest is history

 

So easy, indeed, that I had forgotten this, if I ever knew it.  Another chance missed, but the ship had probably sailed after Lima went 00 really...

 

All old ground, though.  We're stuck with the compromise unless we are skilled enough and have space to indulge finescale fantasies, or rich enough to afford them built for us (just wait until my Lotto comes up, half the professional modellers in the country will be booked solid for a good year or so).

Edited September 3, 2023 by The Johnster

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

A big drawback I'd agree.  We're British, dammit Carruthers, and we want a Pullman service for a parliamentary fare.  Being pretty much of an age with me (I also turned 11 in the cold winter of '63), you'll remember the moans in magazine reviews about the quality of Continental RTR stuff over British, even (actually, especially) in N.  But the prices were consistent with the better detail and running.  Many UK modellers turned to the Continental scene in search of quality models supported by their trade, and it was well into the 70s before UK outline RTR began to catch up. 

 

But even back in the day, 'Continental good British bad' was an oversimplification.  In fact there were plenty of Continental budget manufacturers that were not doing much better than Triang Hornby, like Jouef, Lima, Roco, or Piko; poor detail, moulded on, steamroller flanges, stamped motion, overthick coach sides, hideous couplings, the lot.  Lima dropped H0 Brit-outline of just that quality on us, just as our own RTR scene was trying a bit harder with Airfix and Mainline.  Unlucky timing, but the lesson they learned was that we were more discerning than our previous RTR output suggested, and we were fed up with it!  Lima responded, successfully, with stuff a bit better than their initial efforts (not much, in the case of their steam outline, but the mk1s and 117 dmu weren't bad for the time).  By the late 80s and the 90s they were turning out pretty good diesels, but all this was in 4mm 00.

 

 

So easy, indeed, that I had forgotten this, if I ever knew it.  Another chance missed, but the ship had probably sailed after Lima went 00 really...

 

All old ground, though.  We're stuck with the compromise unless we are skilled enough and have space to indulge finescale fantasies, or rich enough to afford them built for us (just wait until my Lotto comes up, half the professional modellers in the country will be booked solid for a good year or so).

Whatever the numbers said, the cheap end of Continental HO didn't look any "more accurate"  than Tri-ang, with their smaller diameter wheels, if anything, making the steamroller treads and deep flanges even more evident. Just like many N gauge and TT:120 models do.

 

Greater accuracy in any scale imposes greater "discipline", and dead-scale HO (P87) carries the same demands as P4. The "arithmetical correctness" of HO at r-t-r level wouldn't win me over because, for UK prototypes, it could never look more than "differently wrong" to OO when compared with the finer 4mm gauges. I feel the same way about Hornby's TT:120 FWIW. 

 

I have, over many years, concluded that, for those of us with limited space at our disposal, "OO sets you free", and any "problem" we have with it might lie as much between our ears as between the rails. With finer modern wheels, the discrepancy has become much less obvious, especially if using Code 75 track. Thoughtful layout  design can eliminate viewpoints that draw attention to it, too.

 

Had I not come to relish the freedom of layout design that OO being "off" gives me, and stop beating myself up over the wheels being "tucked under" by just over a millimetre on each side, I'd have had to go EM or switch to American HO (which looks "accurate" more of the time) decades ago. 

 

John

Edited September 4, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Not Jeremy]

Did anyone ever make a model of a Siphon in HO scale I wonder?

 

When I say “anyone” I mean an actual modeller rather than a manufacturer.

 

Gerry Beale’s extended review of the Accurascale siphon appears in the latest MRJ, number 298, which is out now. It reveals it to be an astonishingly good model, the particular type that Gerry has from Accurascale is the diagram O59 post casualty train conversion.

 

In related news, at Wild Swan we are now working through the final edits on John Lewis’s new Siphons book, which will be coming out this year. I am aiming to have it out for the Warley NEC show.

[Islesy]

49 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

In related news, at Wild Swan we are now working through the final edits on John Lewis’s new Siphons book, which will be coming out this year. I am aiming to have it out for the Warley NEC show.

I look forward to getting a copy @Not Jeremy - never stop researching!