John Isherwood

With those buffers - almost certainly a BR-built single bolster to Dias. 1/400, 402 or 405; it's difficult to be sure of the wheelbase, or it would be possible to pin down the diagram more closely. Regards, John Isherwood.

Then decide where the fold should be and use a scrawker to create a fold line that nearly, but not quite, penetrates through the etch; (angle the scrawker either side of vertical to create a 90 degree fold line). Then, as previously suggested, fold and solder. If you don't fancy that, replace the etched solebars with milled brass channel section. If you have a rivetting tool you can press the detail into the channel; if not, press the detail with a sharp point into some 5 thou. brass shim or plastic sheet, and solder / glue it into the channel. As has been stated many times, these kits are 1970s technology and require a little resourcefulness. Regards, John Isherwood.

The bane of my life before, I retired !! .... and a totally pointless exercise and waste of time, dreamt up by HR officers to justify their existence. Any effective manager, at any level, will know if he has an under-performing member of staff on his / her team, and will have already taken measures to remedy the situation. The annual (if you're lucky) ritual of formal staff appraisals is universally recognised as being valueless - but no-one has the bottle to say so !! Ohhh - am I glad to be permanently out of all that nonsense !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Score the fold lines with a Stanley knife or scrawker until nearly through - fold - then reinforce on the inside with solder. Regards, John Isherwood.

Lock the string binding with a touch of superglue before trimming back the string. Regards, John Isherwood.

I take it that this title is yet to be published? Having bought the first two volumes, I will be in the market for the third, but I've seen no notice of its publication. Regards, John Isherwood.

No, I haven't - because I do not consider myself sufficiently skilled to presume to do so. That is my point - to be a teacher, one should have a reasonable proficiency at the skill being taught. Not a radical proposition, surely? I would add that the OP and I have conducted a perfectly civilised PM exchange of e-mails on the subject, without having to resort to sarcasm or any other form of impolite communication. Regards, John Isherwood.

I do - I make no secret of the fact, though I fail to see how that affects my ability to comment on a thread concerning the assembly of Jidenco kits - as stated, I have assembled quite a few. Please could you elaborate on the meaning of the above? Thanks, John.

There are lots of professional builders, plus even more 'amateurs' who have lost count of the number of brass kits that they have built, who post here in detail about their builds. In no way are these members 'superior'; sensible questions will invariably elicit a helpful response. I do feel that a degree of experience is necessary before moving into the tutorial arena, and this requires an element of strong self-criticism. This is why I post along the lines of 'This is how I did it', rather than 'This is how to do it'. The reader is then left to judge whether my finished model is of a sufficient standard to warrant following my methods. Genuine newbies may well follow to the letter 'This is how to do it' postings, which may contain dubious advice and lead them down blind alleys. As I say, I am sorry to be critical, but I believe it is important to put forward 'best practice' when guiding others. Regards, John Isherwood.

I don't consider myself of sufficient expertise to publish 'how to' posts here - I leave that to the acknowledged experts and to published authors. I have posted some of my own modelling projects here, but in no way would I consider them to be object lessons for others to follow. It is a prerequisite, I feel, to publishing such instructional material that the finished model should be of sufficient quality to inspire others to follow suit. Regards, John Isherwood.

I won't argue with any of that, but there are plenty of published accounts of how to undertake this kind of modelling that will help the learner to avoid the more common pitfalls, and gain proficiency more quickly. I am thinking in particular of the the Wild Swan publications of a few years ago - http://titfield.co.uk/Wild-Swan/Subject-List.htm . These books were my apprenticeship, and have yet to be bettered. They tell you how to go about whatever task it may be, how to avoid mistakes that may not be obvious, and lead you naturally through to a finished article of such quality that you are inspired to have a go yourself. That's how I did it, anyway. Regards, John Isherwood.

I built the same kit ages ago. Place the two components over the rivet, ensuring that they can pivot freely around the rivet. Place the rivet head-down on an offcut of steel, and LIGHTLY tap the recessed rivet end with a LIGHT hammer to spread it, and retain the two components. If the joint is sloppy, another tap will close up the joint a little; gently does it is the thing to remember here. An automatic (spring-loaded) centre-punch can also be used to spread the rivet end, after some practice. Regards, John Isherwood.

'Cos no-one's done the huge amount of research required - nor ever likely to !! (Unless you fancy taking it on) ? Don't fancy research ? Railway modelling is not for you . Instant fulfilment required? Building brass kits is certainly not for you . Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm sorry, but I am going to be negative; this post strikes me more as 'How not to build an etched kit', or as a very good way of putting off a prospective builder from ever touching one ! I know from many years of attempting, and eventually succeeding, to build some of these early, more basic kits, that it is very much a case of (a lot of practice) makes (something approaching) perfect. Unfortunately, you have chosen as a subject one of the most challenging of kits - certainly not one for the beginner. I applaud your desire to teach the younger members of our hobby the more advanced skills, but surely it would give more encouragement if the finished article looked more like the prototype ? Research is the most important stage of any model build - you can't possibly build a satisfactory model if you don't know what the prototype looked like, and no kit, however good, is going to come with every last drawing and photograph that will be needed. I've no doubt that you will berate me for being negative, but a bad lesson is no better than no lesson at all. Sorry, John Isherwood.

It's MUCH easier to clean tarnished etches with a fibreglass polishing stick, and it gives the brass an ideal finish to allow solder and paint to adhere. Folding brass is also much easier if you score the fold lines with a Stanley knife or scrawker, and use a couple of lengths of ground steel strip held in the vice to support the etch; (or, if you want to do a lot of this kind of work, buy a pair of bending bars). There are skills to be acquired when building etched brass kits, but doing so will open up a whole new range of subjects that are unlikely to be made available RTR. Regards, John Isherwood.

Sorry Larry, but Jidenco / Falcon Brass Kits are far from useless - IF you regard them as a basis for a model, and upgrade them wherever your skills permit. This was how they were designed way back in the mists of time, and that build approach still applies. I have built several wagons from Jidenco / FB kits and they have turned out to be excellent representations of off-beat subjects. I still have several to build. Regards, John Isherwood.

Agreed. John.

I couldn't agree more, assuming that your scenario occurs. My scenario predicates that this situation will not arise, and that all concerned - producer, retailer, potential customer - find the model to be something of a disappointment. It must be remembered that the mass market, such as it is, most likely believes that model trains mean Hornby - or Bachmann as well, if they are a tad more well-informed. So the market for the more recent / less-well-known producers is inevitably skewed towards the more informed modeller, who will mostly require greater accuracy / more detail. Regards, John Isherwood.

No dispute with any of that - but it does rankle when, with a bit more research and sophistication in tooling, it could have been up to the Hornby Duchess standard. There's a 'That'll do' attitude still prevalent amongst certain producers, that is not reflected in the prices that they charge. When errors and shortcuts are so evident in photos, it's no wonder that some prospective purchasers voice their disappointment in no uncertain terms. Fine - if it doesn't bother you, go ahead and purchase; those with higher standards will probably not purchase unless there are significant discounts in due course. That will result in a slow turnover and lower profits for retailers; it could also discourage Heljan from tackling steam loco subjects in future; we are all losers if that happens. Heljan seem to be able to produce decent diesel locos when they try - what's the problem with steam locos? Regards, John Isherwood.

That was why I used the phrase '... had their in ...', as some of the equipment used was certainly WW1. Regards, John Isherwood.

This model has all the hallmarks of one which, if you are prepared to do a bit of work on it, should be able to be picked up at a significant discount in a few months time. Regards, John Isherwood.

Some time ago, I came across the two photos below, and thought that the subject would make an interesting model. The machinery wagon is a BR diagram 2/900, built for the Civil Engineer's Department for carrying mechanical plant; (contrary to David Larkin's published statement that these wagons were not allocated a marine telegraph code, the BR diagram gives the code PENGUIN and this example is quite clearly marked PENGUIN - though this was later amended to LORIOT). The jib runner is an ex-GWR diagram B3 ROLL wagon, originally built to carry heavy steelworks rolls. Cambrian Models produce a kit for the PENGUIN / LORIOT, which built up nicely and only needed the addition of a jib support. The ROLL / jib runner was easily scratchbuilt from plastic card and components from my stock. The RUSTON BUCYRUS 19-RB face shovel was produced as a Corgi Trackside model some time ago and, though out of stock at most suppliers, I managed to obtain one from a German trader. The Corgi model actually represents a slightly older version of the 19-RB, but a little adjustment with files soon updated it. I fitted a pair of turned brass winches within the cabin, so that the model could be rigged and operated by hand to pose the jib and shovel as in the photos. Painting with Halfords spray cans and the application of my own transfers finished the model apart from chaining down the face shovel, which remains outstanding. Running is remarkable stable at the speeds to which such a load would have been subjected. As an aside, I checked the profile of the 19-RB, when loaded on the PENGUIN wagon, against the contemporary BR loading gauge diagram; this convinced me that RUSTON BUCYRUS must have had that loading gauge to hand when designing the face shovel ! Regards, John Isherwood.

I believe that there were several sugar beet railways in Northern France / Belgium that had their origins in WW1 NG trench railways. Eg. http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/tales/francetales03.htm . Regards, John Isherwood.

I think that this would be a reference to the EE Type 4 (Class 50) - DP2 was the prototype in a Deltic bodyshell. Regards, John Isherwood.

The French attitude to micturating, (I learnt that one from Morse), is apparently 'Where'ere you be, let the pi$$ flow free' !! Regards, John Isherwood.