John Isherwood

That's certainly how I read it - whatever, let's leave it at that. Regards, John Isherwood.

No - it's not; merely an observation. As a list member, I understand that I am entitled to post my views; (as, apparently, you are entitled to post sarcasm). Regards, John Isherwood.

....... and don't forget the hoards of staff, intent on filling the click-and-collect boxes, who scarcely take their eyes off their on-line shopping list devices ! Don't mind me - I'm only a customer ! Regards, John Isherwood.

I have raised the issue with Bachmann via e-mail. Regards, John Isherwood.

BR made a training film about wrong line working on the S&DJR. They were anxious that it shouldn't show any regional associations, so they renamed Shepton Mallet to "Averton Hammer" whilst filming was undertaken, complete with running-in boards. The trouble was, the loco featured was an S&DJR 2-8-0 ! This somewhat gave the game away ! Regards, John Isherwood.

Yes - if 4mm. bothers you that much; (it did me) ! Regards, John Isherwood.

Now that makes a lot of sense. Regards, John Isherwood.

Why? The Golden Arrow resin body is very good and, in conjunction with the available detailing kit, makes up into a totally acceptable model of GT3. Regards, John Isherwood.

Mike, I don't think so - they have had buffers fitted at the loco end. .... and V hangers. Regards, John Isherwood.

What variety of slurry had you in mind - surely not the agricultural variety? Sludge, (as in water-softening), seems unlikely - these were usually liberally decorated with white deposits. Regards, John Isherwood.

I have come across these tenders - which are clearly in departmental use as some form of tank wagon - the design of which seems to anticipate the WD / BR standard tenders. The RCTS caption reads "Cl O4/1 No. 63727 (ex GCR) at Mexborough shed 16/10/60". Any observations? Regards, John Isherwood.

Ah - a more pro-active response ! Thank you. Regards, John Isherwood.

You can do as I have done, and use the CONTACT US form on the Model Rail Offers web page : http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/contact Regards, John Isherwood.

Chris, Thank you for that - very helpful. My pre-order of 301C (1623) has changed to 1640 - which just happens to suit me better ! Regards, John Isherwood.

It's clearly a server problem - sometimes I could nearly boil a kettle and make a coffee whilst the whirly-thing whirls away !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Tony, I know that, for you and many of like mind, the provision of correct lamps is a major issue. However, there are also many, including me, who simply do not see it as such. What offends my own eye is the failure to provide appropriate freight stock. It's amazing how many modellers, who go to great lengths to ensure that their passenger train make-ups accord with the individual prototype trains, (and provide correct lamps on their locos), are content to compile their freight trains with whatever wagons come readily to hand, regardless of correct period and location. I do not condemn them for doing so, nor do I assume that they do it out of ignorance; it is merely an expression of their personal interests and priorities. Those of us of a certain age are all too aware that life is finite, and that the chances of achieving our modelling ambitions are slim, without becoming obsessed with detail which is not important to us. I recall my days as a trainspotter - which so many of us are trying to recreate in miniature - and we paid very little attention to the loco lamp code. We could see what type of train was approaching; we didn't need to refer to the lamp codes in the front of our ABCs ! So, tolerance is all - if the modeller has priorities other than loco lamps that's his business. There are far worse anomalies published in the model press which get passed over without the slightest comment. Regards, John Isherwood.

COPYRIGHT UNKNOWN Having first encountered the VoR in the days of BR lined green locos and chocolate & cream coaches, I studiously stayed away from the railway whilst they were desecrated by BR diesel / electric blue !! Regards, John Isherwood.

I don't believe that KR have committed to produce the 4-8-4 variant; only the 4-4-4-4. The prototype suffered from what we experience on model locos - driving axles should only be coupled by rods OR gears; NOT both ! If both are used, the two systems 'fight', and poor running or even seizure occurs. My Judith Edge 4-4-4-4 will have gear drive to the outer two driven axles, with rod drive to the inner two axles. Regards, John Isherwood.

From Graeme King would seem to be the obvious answer. He is a member here - you could try a PM. Regards, John Isherwood.

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brbanana This is the arrangement of lifting links with a brake cross-shaft that I had in mind. Regards, John Isherwood.

I stand corrected (by myself) - the arrangement to which I referred applies to wagons with a cross brakeshaft. It seems that the iron ore tipplers had separate brake systems on each side, and therefore the same application on each side. Regards, John Isherwood.

Not on the prototype, it's not - the other side does have a lifting link; but it is to the right of the V-hanger, not over the V-hanger.

John, I am steadfastly of a DC / no lights / no sound disposition - so a pair of wire snips or a soldering iron are the only 'tweaking' tools that I need ! Regards, John Isherwood.

Chris, That is great - if Kernow are going to take a pro-active stance on this matter then existing customers, including me, will be reassured. Regards, John Isherwood.

It's just a more effective alternative to the usual reversing dog clutch found on many railway wagons. Regards, John Isherwood.