John Isherwood

Someone's going to have to 'have a word' with the porter about overloading platform trollies! Regards, John Isherwood.

Are we now in a period where evolution is regressing? Since the invention of railways, humans have managed to stand on platforms, (mostly) without falling off, whilst trains arrived and departed. So what has changed? Are there statistics that show that potential passengers, or others, have suddenly started throwing themselves off platforms in the same way that lemmings apparently jump off cliffs? If so, there is an urgent need to research what is happening to the human psyche. .... or perhaps that burgeoning body of self-interest, the H&S industry, has discovered that railways provide a limitless source of 'accidents waiting to happen'! Regards, John Isherwood.

There is a very good reason why the instructions emphasise the need for a gloss surface - and I'm afraid that you have discovered it. A matt surface is, microscopically, a series of peaks resembling the Alps; it is impossible to apply a waterslide transfer over such a surface without trapping air underneath, within the 'valleys' between the peaks. By contrast, a gloss surface is as near dead flat as makes no difference; it is very difficult to apply a waterslide transfer to such a surface and trap air underneath. None of this is apparent until you apply varnish over the transfer. There is NO reaction involved; simply the incompatibility between a rough, matt surface and a flat waterslide transfer; some people insist on learning this the hard way! Waterslide transfers MUST be applied to a gloss finish - some modellers think that they know better; they find out in due course that they don't. The desired surface finish can be applied AFTER the transfers have been applied and sealed. Sorry, but instructions are written to assist modellers; not to be ignored. John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

A quick stroke with a fine black marker? Regards, John Isherwood.

I think not - I'm sure that I read that it had a forced draught because of the lack of any significant blast from exhausted steam. Regards, John Isherwood.

..... or even answer a simple question ! Regards, John Isherwood.

.... and should be for all but the wilfully idiotic. As for those who see no future in this life - for whom I have the utmost sympathy and some small personal, past empathy - if they can't end it all on the railway, the world offers an infinite number of alternatives which will NEVER all be eliminated, despite the best efforts of H&S. Regards, John Isherwood.

Probably because we have all become numbed by the frequency of injury and death on our roads; whereas they are so relatively rare on the railways; (not that is any justification for the paranoia which society seems to have relatings to all things rail-related). Regards, John Isherwood,

We're not "... dwelling on features that may well be amended ..."; it's you who cannot resist any and all opportunities to trumpet the (in your opinion) superiority of the Rails / Dapol product, and to denigrate the Hornby version. How you have the gall to say "... I have been consistently positive about the Hornby Terrier ...", and then add the rider "... as a mid-range model ..." to try and cover your previous demolition of it, is beyond me. I thought that we had come to a mutual agreement that our positions on this subject were not poles apart, but you just cannot resist the opportunity to express your partiality - you really are your own worst enemy! You may have answered this before - if so pardon my inattention - what, if any, personal involvement have you had in the research, design and / or development of the Rails / Dapol Terrier? Regards, John Isherwood.

I strongly suspect that you made this comment specifically to provoke a reaction - but I'll bite, if only to demonstrate the idiocy of what you're suggesting. So ............ you'd like high security prison fencing along the entire UK coastline, both banks of every river in the UK, the edge of every geographical and man-made feature of the landscape, ........ (oh, I can't be a*sed to go on & on & on)?!? We're well down the road of having an entire profession whose living depends upon coming up with increasingly fantastical ways in which mankind could conceivably put itself in harms way; surely we don't need to encourage them with postings of this nature? ..... or perhaps you're a member of that profession yourself? Regards, John Isherwood.

....... and ? Even if it was effectively an advert; (which it wasn't); these niche products supplied by modellers / small traders are not in the same league as Hornby / Bachmann. The availability of these products is to the benefit of us all, and I can't envisage any modeller taking the attitude that "I won't buy this excellent product because the producer wrote the article on how to use it" - but perhaps I'm the exception? I think not - storm in a teacup, methinks! Regards, John Isherwood.

A low res. image to avoid cloning; covers most / all(?) RTR ex-GWR coaches. I might be induced to add some TRAILER lettering if so requested. Regards, John Isherwood. https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm PS. I can also supply transfer sheets for all your other BR coach marking requirements.

From my experience, many 'adults' never qualified for the transition from childhood !! Regards, John Isherwood.

I think that you may be correct !! Regards, John Isherwood.

So - I have examined sixteen photos of D601; those that appear to be soon after introduction definitely have horizontal grilles; those that appear to be later definitely have vertical grilles at the outer upper ends. My model has vertical grilles at the outer upper ends - that must make it :- a) an oddity - not as illustrated on the Kernow website; b) correct (?) for late 1961 onwards; c) ideal for my intended modelling period - thanks Kernow! Any comments? Regards, John Isherwood.

You are correct - nevertheless, my D601 has vertical upper grilles at each end on both sides. Can anyone say for which period, if any, my model is correct? Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm open to correction, but I don't think that the Britannia was produced for AC; a quick check with 12vDC shouldn't do it any harm, though. If in doubt, consult these guys :- http://www.ttrca.co.uk/index.html http://www.trix.co.uk/ Regards, John Isherwood.

No - straight out of the box, except for Peco Simplex couplings and a coat of Klear. The upper grilles at each end are vertical. Regards, John Isherwood.

It certainly will - when I was at secondary school we built a exhibition layout that combined Trix-Twin and Hornby Dublo 3-rail track and stock. With Hornby Dublo, the two running rails are connected electrically - only the centre rail is electrically insulated. Trix-Twin has all three rails electrically insulated from each other, so that two locos can run under independant control on the same track; each having the return current via different rails. A Trix-Twin loco running on HD track will pick up from the centre rail and the return current will by via the wheels on one side; (unless you modify it to electrically connect the wheels on both sides). Regards, John Isherwood.

Proper modellers reach for the plastic card and scalpel ....... ! Regards, John Isherwood.

These OK? Regards, John Isherwood.

How true - and illustrated by some purchases that I made yesterday afternoon. Going through my loco stock, I came upon what must have been one of the first locos that I ever built from a whitemetal kit. It's a Western Precision Castings 'Cotswold' Jinty, on an ancient Tri-ang chassis, albeit fitted with early Romford wheels; (centre ones flangeless). The loco body isn't half bad, and I feel a certain attachment to this early example of my railway modelling. So - I duly ordered a Comet chassis kit, a set of Markits wheels, and a High Level gearbox for it; (the motor will be one of my Mitsumis). The loco needs renumbering, so a strip / fill / repaint / reletter are also on the programme. It struck me that I could probably have bought a new RTR Jinty for less than the price of the chassis components - but then I'd have to junk the kit-built loco and the RTR replacement would have no personal associations. Logic has little to do with railway modelling; for me, the satisfaction is in what I put into a model, rather than gloating over the detail of what I've bought. Regards, John Isherwood.

When my green 'Ark Royal' arrived I was extremely pleased with the fidelity to the prototype and the excellent running - but somehow it failed to 'thrill'. It's been sitting on my test track above my workbench ever since, and I've been contemplating it when working on another project. That other project was completed today, and I was applying the final coat of Klear. It suddenly struck me what 'Ark Royal' lacked - the matt finish was so dull and lifeless ! A single coat of Klear has transformed it; it now looks as if it was ex-works a week or so ago, and has has acquired a little tonal variation due to road dust and the odd rain shower. I am now inspired to get on and fit the details, and run it in on the rolling road. Regards, John Isherwood.

We're not - but I for one struggle to conceive of a "a little brake van" assuming such a major importance. Surely a place-holder will suffice for the duration? It'll turn up in due course. As for Kernow, they have probably announced this model as a low priority, nice-to-do project - it's hardly going to generate a huge profit for them. If more lucrative (loco?) projects have encountered problems, I would expect them to divert resources to these, and to side-line the road van. Such is life - chill, stressing is bad for you! (How do I know)? Regards, John Isherwood.

How difficult can it be to scratchbuild a small road van? I built a lwb. one from balsa wood on my office desk during lunchtimes, back in 1970 when I was 21. All that I bought in were wheels, axleguards / springs and buffers. If an entire project is dependant on a single RTR vehicle, it has to be a bit of a gamble, surely? Regards, John Isherwood.