John Isherwood

Could the solution have been more concentrated at the bottom of the bucket? Was there some undissolved soda at the bottom of the bucket? Could gases produced by the chemical reaction have become trapped against the lower surface? Just ponderings! John Isherwood.

Well, it won't be me - I have enough on my hands with current demand for transfers - including those for GT3. Frankly, the easiest solution for those who care about the absence of 'hubcaps' is to buy the Modelu ones as they stand. When the model is released, remove a crankpin and check what the thread form is - probably one of the smaller metric ones. If possible, buy some studding of the same thread type as the crankpins, or buy some bolts of the same thread and cut off the heads. Screw the threaded rod into the wheels in place of the crankpins and replace the coupling rods. Take the Modelu 'hubcaps' and place one onto each threaded rod - tap the holes in the 'hubcaps' if possible / necessary. Apply a tiny spot of epoxy - NOT superglue - to the centre of each 'hubcap' where the threaded rod emerges. When the epoxy has fully set, cut off the protruding threaded rod, and clean up the centre of each 'hubcap'. It should still be possible to remove the coupling rods by unscrewing the new 'hubcaps' / crankpins, and revert to the as-bought arrangements if required at any point. Sounds long-winded, but dead easy in fact; job done! I wouldn't hold my breath for an 'off-the-shelf' detailing kit. John Isherwood.

https://www.cooksongold.com/category_select.jsp?channel=uk&query=finger John Isherwood.

.... but precariously fragile where it is cut away around the front bearing of the XT60 ! John Isherwood.

That is what I couldn't understand. John Isherwood.

Etched replacement rods with recesses for cast / printed resin domes with clips; or, at least ..... perhaps the Modelu covers - https://www.modelu3d.co.uk/product/2279/- could be modified with the crankpin hole eliminated, and a recess behind the dome to accommodate the KRM crankpin heads; for those who like to live dangerously with superglue? Regards, John Isherwood.

Baz, I think that the point is that there would need to be some form of recess within the dome, in which to insert a screwdriver or similar instrument. Far simpler than all this debate about how to devise crankpins that look like domes, (but would nonetheless turn when they shouldn't), would be clip-on domes, fitted to the coupling rods that covered a conventional crankpin - which, correctly, wouldn't turn. Given that the coupling rods are massive compared to those of a steam locomotive, and the domes are the size of a small drawing-pin, it would definitely be possible to devise such a clip-on cover. Whether there is the motivation / finance to devise such an item is another matter ..... What is certain is that GT3, without these covers, will lack a characteristic feature, and be the poorer for it. John Isherwood.

As soon as I can, I will test T6 as suggested above; if it requires replacement, they are not at all expensive; see https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/products/7743653/ Regards, John Isherwood.

That's well worth investigating - what I need to do is find someone who would recognise a transistor! Ah - I find that I have an image of the Walkabout circuit board : - I assume that the TRx components are transistors, of which there appear to be at least six. I have a multimeter which has, I believe, a facility for testing transistors - though I haven't a clue as to how to do that! I would love to get all my Walkabouts operational again - can anyone assist with this, please? Regards, John Isherwood.

I, too, have investigated this problem. Physical examination of the slider track, plus online information from someone who had reverse-engineered the Walkabout, and at one time undertook repairs, confirmed that the problem in question is caused by wear of the carbon track of the variable resistor slider. This is part of the main circuit board and is thus irrepairable - more's the pity, as I have several duff ones! John Isherwood.

A very valid point! Perhaps, then, the mains outlets can be located at ground level within the plinth below the kitchen unit doors - or perhaps underneath the wall units above the layout? The latter would be particularly convenient for plugging-in soldering irons, etc. John Isherwood.

I will be employing a builder / carpenter to convert the garage and fit the kitchen units; I have discussed fabricating the baseboards with him and he is happy to do this. With care, it should be possible to ensure level baseboards and inte-baseboard joints by using thin packing shims - or even some adjustable bearing bolts? Whilst there will be several baseboards, no two will be the same size! This is designed to ensure that there are no baseboard joints beneath points and crossings. I will also emply an electrician to install the mains wiring / lighting arrangements; trying to anticipate where mains outlets will be required is fun! Perhaps the baseboard edge can incorporate a dado trunking - you can get trunking that is longitudinally divided for mains and low voltage wiring. More comments very welcome. Regards, John Isherwood.

Thanks for your input - much appreciated. My thinking is that the worktops are not really needed at this stage - when, (on my passing), the baseboards are removed, the house purchaser can fit worktops of their choice - they may choose to add a sink if the intended usage requires one. Regards, John Isherwood.

I am slowly working up the motivation to make a start on my garage conversion-based layout. The garage conversion itself will not be cheap - I intend to opt for a fully insulated room that can add to the value of the property, and be marketed in the future as a home office / hobbies room / home gym / small business premises. To this end, the baseboard supports will be off-the-shelf kitchen units, with wall units above for additional storage and mounting the baseboard illumination. To all intents and purposes, the room will be a kitchen without a sink or appliances. The two long sides will have central knee recesses for seated operating areas. My current considerations centre around the form of the baseboards themselves - which will not be portable for exhibiting purposes. Note that I intend to hinge the baseboards to the wall, so that they can be raised to an angle of approximately 60 degrees to aid under-baseboard wiring, etc. installation. Keeping to the kitchen theme, my instinct is to fit bog-standard kitchen worktops, with the track laid on cork sheet. Though worktops offer the benefit of rigidity and resistance to warping, the obvious downside to this seems to be that they are solid (and heavy), and thus any below-baseboard point operating mechanism - mechanical or electrical - will require a longish, and therefore thickish, rigid actuating rod attached to the tiebar. This would seem to constitute a potential for future failure. Thus a fabricated form of baseboard construction seems to be indicated. A standard kitchen worktop is 40mm. thick, but a somewhat thicker fabricated construction would offer the advantage, for my 6'-0'' stature, of raising the track level to a more comfortable working height. Nominal 2" x 1" planed softwood is actually 44 x 18mm., and using this for a traditional, diagonally braced frame with a surface of 12mm. thick smooth faced hardwood plywood would, I would have thought, produce substantial and rigid baseboards when supported by the kitchen units. The overall baseboard thickness would be 56mm., thus raising the trackbed by a small but helpful 16mm. Point control is currently intended to be mechanical, via wire in tube; operated by slide swiches at the baseboard edge providing the actuation for the wire-in-tube, and frog polarity switching. Track will be Peco bullhead code 75 in the scenic area, and flat-bottomed code 75 elsewhere. I would welcome comments as to whether my thinking is sound and, if not, suggestions for an alternative form of baseboard construction. Many thanks in anticipation, John Isherwood.

I'd be quite happy if my epitaph was "He was a Lancastrian who called a spade a shovel"! Adrian might have not tolerated fools gladly - but at least he did it from a standpoint soundly grounded in fact. John Isherwood.

Nah - 18100 in two guises; D0226 & D0227; 11001; the Paxman DEMU prototype; several diesel railbuses; etc. I'd have 'em all! John Isherwood.

Coke, I believe. John Isherwood.

There were plenty of secondhand split spoke wheels running around in the late 1950s / early 1960s. In fact, quite a number of BR new-build non-fitted wagons got fitted with them, due to the post-war shortages. John Isherwood.

Since when did hypothetical discussions become illegal / actionable? Get a grip, please! John Isherwood.

.... and that, I think, is what Darius43 was alluding to; a concern that moneys taken against a second run might be used to pay for the first run models. There is no evidence to suggest that this might be the case - but, in the light of recent events, a justifiable concern. John Isherwood.

Looking at the photos of the prototype, I'm pretty certain that the lower curve of the model's motion bracket is far to deep. It appears to be horizontally symetrical on the model, whereas the prototype seems much deeper in the top curve than in the lower one. If I were to build this chassis, I would be seeking to remove a section of the lower curve of the motion bracket, where it abuts the upper slidebar. This could be achieved with the current model by soldering a piece of thickish fret waste above the upper slidebar, between the front and rear halves of the motion bracket. The fictional section of the motion bracket, in front of and below the slidebars, could then be cut away. John Isherwood.

To my eyes, rather than the plain BR Gill Sans, the BRITISH RAILWAYS and 46100 appear to be in the LMS style as latterly applied to black express passenger locos - I seem to recall that it involved cream with a maroon outline, or something similar. John Isherwood.

Since it is a simple addition, it would be an ideal opportunity for a bit of modelling. John Isherwood.

Given the statement "Designed specifically for use in model locomotives, they are not re-purposed from other applications and we can ensure ongoing supplies", one has to wonder why the mounting holes are located such that the motor ends up at an angle. John Isherwood.

Because the purpose for which these motors were originally designed had no connection to model railways. High Level gearboxes were designed to accept Mashima motors - we now have to use other designs of motors that were not designed for our purposes. It is perfectly possible to drill extra fixing holes in a High Level gearbox - this is how you do it for a Mitsumi motor. John Isherwood.