John Isherwood

Did John produce the etched ICI? I am acquainted with him, so I could check if he has any left. Regards, John Isherwood.

Paul, The question is no sooner posed than answered - thank you. So - diamond-framed bogies it is; are Ratio or Cambrian ones more suitable? Regards, John.

Paul, I have ordered the first book - I guessed that it would be more relevant. I think that my wagons will be backdated to ICI 1961 condition - I will need to source the ICI raised letters; (etching, laser-cut?); but, until the book arrives, I'm not sure whether I'll need to fit new diamond-frame bogies. (I hope not - I like the plate-framed ones). John Isherwood.

.... which are available from Ratio and Cambrian. Regards, John Isherwood.

Thanks for that - I have just splashed out on a rake of six; not sure if they will be backdated to ICI or John Summers wagons. Does anyone know if etched ICI letters are available? John Isherwood.

Another question - when were the diamond frame bogies changed for the plate-framed ones on the ICI wagons? John Isherwood.

There appear to be two relevant books by Paul Harrison : - An Illustrated History of the ICI Hopper Wagon The Hoppers: Limestone Traffic Which is best for the John Summers wagons, please? John Isherwood.

Can anyone say if the JOHN SUMMERS wagons differed markedly from the Hattons ones that remain in stock? Are there any internet-accessible photos of JOHN SUMMER wagons - ideally from the late 1950s / early 1960s? Thanks in anticipation. John Isherwood.

Now that is a straight cop-out! I don't use scale screw couplings as I prefer the Peco / Hornby Dublo type - which I nowadays mount in the NEM pocket so that a future owner can revert to a tension-lock if desired. The incorrect location of the NEM pocket on this forthcoming model means that anyone fitting ANY type of coupling into the pocket will have a gaping gap between the loco and the first vehicle. It's NOT just about the front end appearance of the loco - which will look odd - it's about a sensible relationship between loco and train. I'm sorry, but this is another example of "It's too difficult / expensive to do it properly - we'll let the customer sort it out". My solution will be to cut the excess off the NEM pocket, and devise a means of fitting a coupler into the remainder - but I shouldn't have to do so! John Isherwood.

In drawing office practice, we used to apply a film of pounce - chalk dust - to discourage 'wicking'. I've tried this on models - years ago - and it did help. I would imagine that the application of thinned paint via a bow pen would be more successful on a matt finish; certainly our drawing film was matt finished, and we applied the pounce to this to absorb any greasy fingermarks before starting work. John Isherwood.

That car type code to the left of the lamp iron doesn't look like DTS to me - perhaps MBS? John Isherwood.

I couldn't agree more - it's almost as if David is enjoying all this tinkering, motor swapping etc. Let it be said - once again and finally - unless the wheeled frames, fitted with coupling rods but no motor, gears or pick-ups, will roll down a slight incline under gravity, no amount of advice here or reports by David of further tinkering will ever result in satisfactory running. End of story! John Isherwood.

.... but you could, instead, fit a Modelu 'hubcap' over the pin - they are already pre-drilled - and you have the perfect solution. Nice one!!! Regards, John Isherwood.

Jon, Count me in if they ever become available. Regards, John Isherwood.

Accepted - but it was the blunt, dismissive character of your doubts expressed that grated. John Isherwood.

I have recently re-chassised a pair of ancient Airfix 2Ps. The Comet chassis was obviously designed to take the Airfix body - the length is spot-on. I fitted scale driving wheels, but also found the problem of the loco body riding too high. Rather than change the wheels, I reduced the chassis locating points within the body, but this required some material removal within the body, to clear the flanges and coupling rod oil boxes. I too cut off the front of the frames - scale bogie wheels came into contact with the frame wheel arches; (even after these were enlarged); and the guard irons. I sprung and pivotted the bogie in the same way that Tony did, and there was plenty of room for lead sheet ballast within the boiler and firebox, around the Mitsumi / High Level drive system. The tender is heavily ballasted with lead, and the front and centre tender wheelsets have the bearing slots extended upwards. The tender drawbar rests on the loco drawbar, thus transferring plenty weight onto the driving wheels. The result is a pair of locos that can pull prototypical loads, and that will be invaluable as pilot locos for holiday expresses on the S&DJR. John Isherwood.

No - but "... there cannot possibly be enough of you to make it commercially viable ... " was pretty dismissive. Like all off-beat projects, it will sink or swim on the support of prospective purchasers; I certainly wouldn't want to predict the outcome. ... or perhaps you have some market research that we are not party to? John Isherwood.

Some huge articulated freight loco proposed, I think, by the Third Reich - I'm not too au fait with Continental model railways, but I remember seeing it reviewed in, I believe, Continental Modeller. John Isherwood.

....... oh, I dunno; Roco managed to sell a model of a steam loco that never existed! Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm afraid that you misread me completely; I have been using household items in my modelling since I could use scissors. My first triumph was to adapt a K's W&U tram loco to run on my Hornby Dublo three rail track. Anyone who has seen a K's motor bogie knows that the clearance between the lower motor brush tag and rail height is approaching zero. Nonetheless, I bought a tin of brass shim and found a couple of drawing pins around the house and - lo and behold - an ultra-low-profile third rail collector, soldered to the motor tag with a huge tinsmith's iron heated in the cooker gas ring. No clear plastic was - and is - never thrown away; it's too valuable for glazing, especially vac-formed compound curves. My wife will attest that my modelling room, and the garage shelves, are stuffed with 'things that might come in handy'! Your comment re plasticene was taken at face value - mistakenly, it seems - but the impossibility of attaching a 'hubcap'-sized dome to the top of a hex crankpin head struck me as ridiculous. No, we are in total agreement as to the value of improvisation in railway modelling; it is only in very recent times that I have been able to afford off-the-shelf solutions. What comes to hand is still often the most convenient and timely way forward. John Isherwood.

Plenty of Scottish 2Ps kept capuchons well into the BR period - here's one with the second BR crest. (Not my copyright - will remove if requested). John Isherwood.

Assuming that all the bits are present, I see nothing that is beyond a neat repair. Regards, John Isherwood.

In which case, it surprises me that quite a few prospective purchasers expressed concern here that the 'hubcaps' would be omitted. My recent suggestions were made in response to one such posting, which hoped that an after-market item might be produced. I doubted that this would happen, and I offered a practical alternative. Clearly, my efforts were wasted on several prospective GT3 owners - perhaps they would rather that I did not draw their attention to the absence of certain distinctive features? John Isherwood.

Not at all - I have tried throughout this thread to make sensible and positive contributions. I have no beef with KRM - I won't buy GT3 because I have already modelled it; I have a kit for 10100, but I have place EOIs for the Leader and DHP1. I just get annoyed when people tell me something can't be done, and especially when a detailed, practical solution to the absence of 'hubcaps' on GT3 is met by a stupid and pointless suggestion of using tiny bits of plasticene. If purchasers are happy to run a model of GT3, which is missing one of its most striking features, they are welcome to do so - I am not posting for their benefit! Let me repeat - I have no axe to grind; I already have a model of GT3, that I built, and that completely satisfies me. John Isherwood.

Have you actually looked at a photo of the real thing? ..... but if that satisfies you - so be it !! If you compare the size of the head of a normal crankpin hex screw, and the size of the real 'hubcaps', why bother with the plasticene? Just imagine the 'hubcaps' are there. Perhaps KRM could have saved even more money, and just printed the windows onto the cab - or the grilles onto the bonnet? John Isherwood.