John Isherwood

Are you saying that the factories have more than one standard of production - along the lines of : - 1) Pretty much perfect 2) Acceptable 3) Slap-dash 4) Cr@p ? CJI.

All models are "assembled down to a price" - the price agreed between the manufacturer and the client. CJI.

Before you go to all that hassle, try some of the garden fleece fabric - it's very cheap and does the job very effectively. You can just drape it over the layout because it's ultra-light. CJI.

....... and I am pleased for you. My concern stemmed from the fact that, in my experience, turned frame bearings can be extremely variable in tolerance, and I feared for the security of the wheel / axle joint. CJI.

There is a bit of a difference between "a little easing with a broach" and the interference fit required for secure wheel fixing. CJI.

..... and the response - "Oh, really?" (in a couldn't-care-less, what a sad-o tone of voice).😉 CJI.

If you don't know, surely it doesn't matter!?! CJI.

I await the outcome with interest. At this point, I would merely observe that bearings are intended to move on axles; wheels are intended NOT to move on axles. For a secure fixing of wheel to axle, I would not start with a fitting intended to allow movement. John Isherwood.

I'm afraid that you do Adrian Swain a posthumous disservice. If Adrian was known here for anything above all else, it was for his encyclopaedic knowledge of all things railway, and for his (intolerant?) criticism of the slightest deviation from the prototype of any model - RTR or kit. As a self-confessed latecomer to the era of limited RTR and small supplier whitemetal kits, it might be wise to tread lightly, and carefully, before expressing an opinion on a very well respected researcher / designer / producer. ...... where angels fear to tread, etc. John Isherwood.

Dave, I really don't see the need for a dog-in-the-manger attitude. I questioned your use of "ruined", and pointed out the pitfalls of the alternative that you suggested. All in the spirit of legitimate debate, I thought - there was no intention to ruffle feathers. Best left there? CJI.

I don't do the lottery - sorry. However, I do know that, in order for the visible tension-lock to be attached to the fixing behind the bufferbeam, it would be necessary to have (a) significant connection(s) below the bufferbeam. Comprising, as it must, two closely connected reverse bends, it (they) would be either unacceptably weak, or visually intrusive. Accepting that the tension-lock itself is unsightly, adding (a) sustantial connecting bracket(s) just adds insult to injury. Since I use the Hornby Dublo / Peco Simplex coupling, I am well-versed in custom coupling fixings. Until recently, this involved creating cut-outs in deep bufferbeams, including cast ones. Nowadays, I solder the coupler-heads to brass strip, in order to fit the modified couplers into the NEM pockets. Those of us who choose to use other than the (British) industry standard coupler do so in the knowledge that extra work will be involved. Nonetheless, the absence of facilities for our self-imposed choice of coupling does not "ruin" todays excellent RTR models. It was your use of that latter gross overstatement that prompted me to post in this thread. CJI.

So, for the minority who use scale couplings to be saved an easy modification, the majority must have an even more visually intrusive tension-lock. Moreover, the clearance between the rails and an under-bufferbeam coupling bracket would be minimal / non-existent on such a low / deep bufferbeam subject. If you want prototypical couplings, a minor hole-filling mod is not unreasonable. CJI.

Considering the extent of the locomotive surgery that you continually undertake, surely filling a couple of rectangular holes can be done in your sleep? How else are the needs of the majority, who do use tension-locks, to be met? The chain-coupling brigade will always be in the minority. CJI.

What is going on at KRM ?!? I have just received an email, thanking me for my order, dated June 11th 2021, for DHP1!! Can matters get any more chaotic? CJI.

You overlook the fact that this project was funded by the purchasers, who had put their money up to finance production. Did KRM ask those investors if they were "happy to accept the Fell project with the known issues"? No - presumably because they knew what the answer would be! Manufacturers can make whatever production decisions they wish - IF they are funding the project with their own money. Regrettably, KRM seem to have a lax appreciation of their responsibilities towards those who entrust them with their money. Not a scenario that inspires confidence in current and future projects. I have invested in DHP1, and genuinely hope to be pleased with my model when it is delivered. My recent experience with 10100 makes me apprehensive, however. CJI.

The HL chassis kit is excellent - a little intricate, but works very well indeed. Mine is mounted underneath a Dapol RTR body. I now have another to do - this time the Radstock version with a cutdown cab. John Isherwood.

If the axleboxes offend thy eye - and they certainly are the wrong ones for 45106 as depicted in your photo - it would be the work of moments to file them flat and glue on some slices of styrene rod, or punched circles of styrene sheet. CJI.

You have confirmed what I have always suspected - that the 'rules' of conservation / preservation are very much subject to the whims / prejudices of the curator at that time 'in charge' of the artifact. Any mechanical device has been constructed to undertake a specific function, and it is in its intended operation that the viewer can best appreciate its function and construction. Static mechanical devices tell the viewer very little at all. Any public presentation of machinery will demonstrate that the crowd gathers around the operating exhibits, whilst the static items will merely attract passing, curious but not particularly engaged attention. I can see no reason whatsoever, beyond cost, for NOT maintaining preserved mechanical equipment in operational condition. After all, no-one thought twice about repairing / replacing components during their working lives! CJI.

I've never really thought of St. Paul's as a highly stressed pressure vessel. 😉 CJI.

I couldn't agree more - but how does that square with the fact that some preserved locos cannot be restored to operation because, so we are told, it is vital to retain them in as-withdrawn condition. There would appear to be two, utterly opposed, schools of thought within the (railway) museum community. CJI.

Different axleboxes on the early Peaks : - Copyright unknown This suggests that they were not initially painted yellow / red - perhaps that's why they look oversized to some eyes? (My TMC D13 has arrived and, having been tested satisfactorily, is put away until Christmas). John Isherwood.

Ohh - there's a surprise!! Is there no end to their lack of customer service / professionalism? CJI.

One might almost think that someone had 3D scanned the HO model .........? CJI.

That looks to be a straight scale-down of the old Liliput HO model. CJI.

Received notification that my TMC D13 is with Royal Mail. CJI.