John Isherwood

It's supposed to suppress radio signal emmissions, and thereby avoid interfering with radio and television signals. The capacitior, IMHO, serves no useful purpose in this day and age, and I always remove them. Wire it one rail to one motor terminal, and the other to the other terminal; simples !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Have you got an accurate drawing of the Manor chassis? Where should the axle centres be? How high above the axle centres should the top of the frames be? Get these dimension correct - making allowance for the thickness of the running plate if necessary - and everything else should follow OK. That said, Comet chassis are usually pretty accurate, in my experience; just be aware that they are designed to go under a thickish RTR plastic body, rather than a thin sheet metal one. Regards, John Isherwood.

One tiny detail for future reference - the overhead live wire plaque should not have black lettering - they were entirely red on white. Regards, John Isherwood.

Whooo-hooo !! Someone else can see what I see !! It is abundantly clear that there is very little difference between the thickness of the buffer base and that of the bufferbeam. So, both models are wrong. Regards, John Isherwood.

Are you both talking about the same object? In the photo in question, I see an open-framed handbrake(?) pillar with a somewhat simplified(?) S-shaped handle; to the right of which is a light-coloured object protruding from inside the enclosed body. I'm guessing that the latter is the piece of coffee-stirrer, and that the handbrake(?) pillar is possibly missing from Coline33's model - if he has one? On the other hand, I may be trolling a complete red herring !! Regards, John Isherwood.

I have no vested interest in this discussion - I will not be buying either version as there can be no possible reason for running one through Evercreech Junction in 1961 !! (Though that begs the question as to why I have bought RTR models or kits for 43 out of the 91 locos in my collection)! I read the thread out of general interest, and cannot pass over statements which do not seem to be supported by fact. At least the square-on cab spectacle plate photo seems to have produced a concensus on the issue of the spectacle spacing. Regards, John Isherwood.

Regards, John Isherwood.

Hornby - and I'll explain my reason. On the LH (Dapol) view, the red ends flush with the face of the bufferbeam, with pretty much all of the buffer base and bufferbeam projection painted black.. On the RH (Hornby) view the red also ends flush with the bufferbeam, and the thickness of the buffer base is roughly that which should comprise both buffer base and bufferbeam projection. To achieve the correct impression of a thinner buffer base and a black bufferbeam extension, it would be quite simple to recess the buffers into the bufferbeam, and paint the rear half of the buffer base black to represent the bufferbeam extension. However, as the Dapol buffers do not have sufficient forward projection of their bases in front of the bufferbeam, correction would be far from simple. Don't overlook the fact that both versions appear to have little or no projection of the footplate, into which the buffer bases should be recessed. Regards, John Isherwood.

Sorry, no. On the prototype, the thickness of the buffer base is not discernably different to that of the bufferbeam. To be correct, the buffers should have a base proud of the bufferbeam, and the bufferbeam should have a very similar thickness to the buffer base and project up behind the buffer bases. What I see is that neither the Hornby nor the Rails versions is correct in this respect. The Rails version only has a "very thin depth of base proud of the buffer beam"; the Hornby version has buffer bases that are somewhat too thick, and no upwards projection of the bufferbeam behind the buffer bases. IMHO, it would be easiest to correct the Hornby version by removing the buffers, and drilling recesses into the bufferbeam, to accommodate half the thickness of the buffer bases. Regards, John Isherwood.

Well, that's not what I'm seeing. I see buffers against the surface of the bufferbeam, bolted to a backplate which is probably integral with the bufferbeam, and with a footplate that projects forward of the bufferbeam and partially surrounds the buffer base. In this case, the central section if the footplating has been removed. I would accept that, in both models, there is little or no forward projection of the footplate around the buffer bases. Regards, John Isherwood.

Now, I may be missing something, but these look remarkably like Hornby "ghastly stick on buffers". Regards, John Isherwood.

Thank you for your kind comments. Mine are the earlier build, with different suspension to the Accurascale ones. Regards, John Isherwood.

Not that out of scale. As someone who has 'stretched' a good number of these old CEMFLOs, the only major dimensional error is the overall length; (as far as I recall, a straight 10mm.). The body stands too high, and the chassis is to wide overall, because the body has a moulded-in floor and solebars to represent the fairly unusual detail of the prototype. It sits on a chassis that was used for a number of other models; (which probably accounts for the wagon being too short). Considering the basic model consists of three mouldings, plus wheels and couplings, it was for it's day a remarkably good attempt at portraying a specialist wagon. Regards, John Isherwood.

Sorry - could you elucidate? Regards, John Isherwood.

I make no comment, other than to say I don't know which Terrier it belongs to, as it's not my photo - discuss ! Regards, John Isherwood.

.... or was it :- Regards, John isherwood.

I'll definitely second that - a few of these added to a PRESFLO and / or CEMFLO rake would be superb !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Interesting - it and the next photo show just how sensitive to lighting conditions this colour is. In the first photo, I'd go for D604, but in the second photo D816 has the edge. I do think that D816 has the correct shade of bufferbeam red - the Kernow version is, IMHO, too 'cherry' red. WR red was distinctly orangey in shade. Regards, John Isherwood.

Now you mention it - that's ridiculous !! Regards, John Isherwood.

My money's on ARK ROYAL in that respect. Regards, John Isherwood.

Ain't that what he said? Regards, John Isherwood.

Sorry - that's simply not true. I've never had a kit that defeated me - though I did reject Q-kits untried. The reason for the decline in the kit market was the availability of a much greater pool of RTR, so those that had been building kits as a last resort had a viable alternative. Either you enjoy building kits or you don't. Regards, John Isherwood.

Johann, Very, very nice - I had no idea that it had survived. I'm afraid that I was responsible for arranging the demolition of P. H. Allin's premises at 50 Burleigh Street !! I made amends by arranging for the set of tram points from St. Mary's Street to be preserved. I short slice of Cambridge tram rail does duty in my workshop as a paper-weight. Regards, John Isherwood.

Tony, If you're prepared to stretch the timescale, it would make an interesting load for a couple of LOWMACs. Regards, John Isherwood.

Jon, Please record my interest in purchasing a set. Thank you, John Isherwood.