John Isherwood

I'm afraid that I'm with Tony on this one - if you want to build a metal kit, first learn to solder. If you can't or won't solder, how are you going to wire-up the pick-ups? I'm afraid that, because the box says "kit" on it, some people think Airfix model plane kits. Soldering is NOT a black art, for which some people are fundamentally unsuited - in fact, in my considerable experience it's a lot easier than trying to use epoxy or cyano glues to join components. It's the idea of waving around a soldering iron that hurts if you touch the wrong end that scares these people, I believe. But you can stick your fingers together with cyano glue, or get a nasty rash from epoxies. It should be printed in large red letters on all metal kits LEARN TO SOLDER BEFORE CONSTRUCTING THIS KIT. Anyone can do it - so no-one should kid themselves that they can't. Regards, John Isherwood.

The Tri-ang six-wheeled bogies are also under-length - I had to cut-and-shut those for my TRESTROL 'stretch'. Regards, John Isherwood.

Ah - my misunderstanding; I'd wrongly assumed that the trailing wheels ran in the outside frames. Not having seen one of the earlier design Stanier Pacifics from the current Hornby production, I can't offer an opinion as to whether a swivelling trailing truck is practicable. Regards, John Isherwood.

Filming on my workbench test track is not easy. I will be completely frank and say that unless, like me, you're a pendant when it comes to the model following the behaviour of the prototype, it probably isn't worth the effort. However, it is possible to see that the trailing truck moves independently of the driving wheelbase in response to rail joints, etc. I fully accept that my preference for taking a piercing saw to a brand new model, so that it will behave a tiny bit more like the prototype, marks me out as somewhat eccentric - to say the least. The principle point of this exercise was to demonstrate that my suggestion to Hornby for a means by which the customer could choose to have either a fixed / unflanged or a swivelling / flanged trailing truck is perfectly feasible. I have been told here that it is a case of one or the other - that, demonstrably, is not true. My swivelling truck can still be fixed by inserting a second screw and substituting a flangeless wheelset; an arrangement that Hornby could have adopted at zero additional cost. Anyway, QED. Regards, John Isherwood.

But then Athol didn't have an independent swivelling trailing truck. Regards, John Isherwood.

I did - and have no regrets; I've yet to have recourse to a guarantee in well over fifty years of modelling. No photos, I'm afraid - what is required is pretty straightforward, and easily described. Sorry, John Isherwood.

Well - the dirty deed is done; Sir William now has a fully functional, swivelling trailing truck as per the prototype ! It was, if anything, easier than carrying out the same conversion on a Hornby Bulleid Pacific - mainly because the trailing truck frame is made of plastic in this instance. Having removed the truck frame moulding from the chassis, the inside of the frames were lightly filed flush where the roller bearing lugs are glued in. The locking lug on the rear of the truck frame was removed, and the square screw fixing lug at the front was filed to a semi-circular outline, to permit the truck to swivel. Fitting top hat pin-point bearings was dead easy - two pieces of 1.5 mm. thick plastic card 7 x 7mm., with 2.0mm. dia. holes drilled dead centre. The bearings were pressed into the holes and lightly filed flush with the back of the plastic squares. The plastic squares were then glued in place behind the truck frame sides, to line up with the moulded bearing centres; plastic solvent bonded well to the truck frame. The use of 7 x 7mm. squares ensures that the bottom edges of the squares are level with the bottom of the truck sides, and the sides of the squares line up with the moulded hornguides on the truck frame. Whilst the glue was drying, the flanged truck wheels were removed from their axle; opened up right through at 2.0mm. diameter, and then press- fitted to a 26mm. long pinpoint axle. The wheelset was then sprung between the pin-point tophat bearings by carefully flexing the truck frame sides. Then came the scary bit !! The outline of the prototype rear frames was traced from the Roche drawing, and checked against the Rowledge drawing - they matched ! The frame outline was cut out from the tracing, and placed on both sides of the model's mainframe casting in turn, whilst the lower frame profile was scribed into the black paint. This revealed that a wedge shape needed to be cut out of the Hornby casting; this being the fictional frame extension around the bearing slot for the rear axle. Only two straight cuts were needed with the piercing saw, the chassis being wrapped in bubble-wrap during the surgery. Sawing mazak is never fun or fast, but the cuts required very little tidying-up using a 6" file. It was now possible to refit the trailing truck, using a thin brass washer on the screw to retain it, rather than the thick nylon washer supplied by Hornby to lock the truck frame in place. Onto the track, and power was applied - and Sir William trundled off down the test track and through the Peco medium radius points with no fuss whatsoever. The satin black paint will come out tomorrow to cover the evidence of the surgery, and that will be that. .... and for those who still maintain that all this was a waste of time, (or impossible) - you CAN detect that the trailing truck now has its own independant movement, relative to the rest of the chassis. Regards, John Isherwood.

I think that you'll find that a lot of the Gauge 3 brigade are less 'picky' about historical accuracy that we 4mm. types. Regards, John Isherwood.

It seems to me that - after all this drama - you are not temperamentally suited to 4mm. scale. Your very limited experience of Hornby locos leads you to the immediate conclusion that all Hornby locos suffer from mazak rot - (except the best part of fifty, going back some fifty years, that I have in my fleet). Dapol railcars seem to universally suffer from 'hunting' - which I would call surging from your accounts - according to your reported experience. Reading back through your input to this forum since you took up 4mm. scale, it reads rather like a catalogue of woes. You clearly have enviable skills with machine tools - why not scratchbuild to your own exacting standards? Or - are you sure that you wouldn't be happier back with Japanese N scale? Regards, John Isherwood. PS. For those decrepit ones amongst us - remember Robbo Ormiston-Chant?

EXACTLY what I suggested to Hornby - and what I have (repeatedly) proposed here; it seems that a certain section of the membership just can't - or won't - read what is actually posted. The perfect solution, and everyone's happy! Thank you for your post. Regards, John Isherwood.

Nameplates - on W1?? Regards, John Isherwood.

As per my #985 above, ".... I fully intend to try the conversion - hence my request for the rear frame profile. If I am incorrect, I will gladly admit the fact". Regards, John Isherwood.

Thanks for that - ideal. Regards, John Isherwood.

Railroadbill, A-ah - the Roche drawings - a copy of which I already have. Thank you for reminding me. Regards, and thanks, John Isherwood.

Coach, At no point have I ever suggested that a pivotting rear truck will "suit all buyers" - in fact, I have (repeatedly) pointed out that alternative fixed / flangeless and pivotting / flanged arrangements can be incorporated into the SAME design. I have described this design (repeatedly) here, and to Hornby themselves. With prototypical frames / ashpan / grate, the rotation of the trailing truck would be restricted, of course; but I remain to be convinced that any "whopping arc would have to be cut in the ashpan and grate to accommodate the wheels and spring hangers if a swinging truck" is provided. Anyway, we'll see, as I fully intend to try the conversion - hence my request for the rear frame profile. If I am incorrect, I will gladly admit the fact. Regards, John Isherwood.

Can anyone point me to a drawing that shows the profile of the rear cast frames of 46256, please? Thanks in anticipation, John Isherwood.

Not so - there is an easy solution that will accommodate both camps - see my post immediately before your own. Regards, John Isherwood.

Failing any clear identification, I shall do as I have done with the kits already built. I'll build them as intended by Ratio, and number them in the BR P-prefix series using numbers from David Larkin's list of early steel iron ore hoppers; (he is fortunately unable to quote design details for these). Not my usual practice, but I do rather like the appearance of the completed kit. Plus - looking at the heterogenous collection of hopper designs in 1950s photos of iron ore trains around the Oxfordshire ironstone fields, anything could appear !! Regards, John Isherwood.

See my post #975 at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117259-Hornby-princess-coronation-class-duchess/page-39 . Regards, John Isherwood.

My 'to do' box has recently disgorged a couple of veritable fossils - Ratio iron ore hopper kits. Two specimens, packed in poly bags with printed card backer / instructions, and sealed with a (rusty) staple. One card is printed with a price of 5/10, the other 7/0; and the two cards have different printed addresses for Ratio. The kits are very nicely moulded, and they will not be the first of these hopper kits that I have built. However, a bit of research into the provenance of the subject hoppers recalled a problem that I had encountered with earlier builds. On the face of it, the kit represents the standard 'Charles Roberts' PO iron ore hopper, as perpetuated by BR as its Diagram 1/161. However, most steel iron ore hoppers of this type seem to have been fairly standard in having a wheelbase of 9'-0'' and a length over headstocks of 16'-6''. The Ratio kit, on the other hand, has a wheelbase of 8'-6'' and a length over headstocks of 16'-0''. Even all those years ago, there would seem to be little point in Ratio tooling-up a model which is 2mm. short in two critical dimensions; it would have been just as easy to design to the standard dimensions. Another significant point is that the upper, vertical section of the kit's hopper sides are quite a bit shallower than the standard 'Charles Roberts' design, with a deeper sloped section. In his wagon data sheet concerning iron ore hoppers, David Larkin refers to some earlier, lower capacity steel iron ore hoppers which had a shallower vertical side section than the later designs, but other details of the description of these early wagons appear not to match the kit. So - I am left wondering, (again), if the Ratio kit represents an earlier version of the 'Charles Roberts' design, or if it is Ratio's 'interpretation' of that standard design. It would be quite easy to 'stretch' the kit to match the standard wheelbase and chassis length, but the problem of the non-standard hopper sides remains. It is ironic that the other manifestation of this wagon type - the Mainline / Bachmann rendition, suffers from having been 'stretched' to fit a standard 10'-0'' / 17'-6'' chassis. What we really need is an accurate model of the 'Charles Roberts' / BR 1/161 hopper. If anyone else has pondered these matters, I would be interested to learn of their conclusions. Regards, John Isherwood.

I have now, finally, had chance to examine my 'Sir William A. Stanier F.R.S' and I have to say that, IMHO, the design that Hornby have used for the trailing truck achieves exactly the opposite of what the prototype looked like. There was daylight between the ashpan and the truck - there had to be to allow the latter to move. What the Hornby model has is a darned great chunk of mazak; (to carry the fixed trailing axle); where there should be fresh air. The design is pretty much the same as Hornby use on their Bulleid Pacifics except that, in this case, the separate trailing truck is moulded in plastic / nylon. With the cosmetic trailing truck removed, the loco looks reminiscent of a Raven Pacific, with frames continuing to the back of the cab. In reality, there should be nothing below the ashpan other than the rocking grate levers. The plastic / nylon trailing truck is fixed to the cast chassis block with a single crew, through a square lug that fits into a recesses, thus preventing rotation. It will be easy to round-off this lug to permit the truck to pivot. The space between the inside faces of the trailing truck frames is 27mm.; thus there is plenty space to fit spacers behind the frames, with holes drilled for top-hat bearings to take a pinpoint axle. The roller bearings of the trailing truck are separate mouldings, glued in place. Hopefully, it will be possible to remove these temporarily to allow the work to the truck to be undertaken more easily. The inner reinforcing rim inside the truck moulding is too large to allow the supplied flanged wheels to rotate; a touch or two with a rat-tailed file will remedy this. The hardest, and most stressful, job will be to take a piercing saw to the fictional area of cast frames below the ashpan - but I've done it successfully with my Bulleid Pacifics. I will probably retain a chunk of the piece cut off, where it will be hidden by the truck frames, and fix it in place as a ballast weight for the pivoting truck. So - all this talk about Hornby being 'forced' to use this form of fixed rear truck in order to accommodate lower frame detail and avoid daylight where it shouldn't be is, frankly, tosh; (I was thinking of a more direct description)! What it actually produces is solid metal where it should NOT be. My suggestion to Hornby, at the earliest design stage of this model, of a pivotting trailing truck with a second locking / raising screw, and alternative flanged and unflanged wheels remains valid. It would have been easier to produce, and would have offered either prototypical pivotting flanged wheels for those with suitable curves, or fixed unflanged wheels for those who are 'radially-challenged'. Fortunately, Hornby listened to my other suggestion, and the Stanier tender 'valance' is no more; shame they didn't go the extra mile with the trailing truck! Regards, John Isherwood.

They must be - or placing them on the track would cause a short ! Regards, John Isherwood.

Not sure that I can follow this logic. Provided one wheel at least is insulated from the axle - which it has to be for 2-rail operation - there will be no short circuit, provided that both insulated wheels are on the same side. In this respect, it's no different from having a metal chassis on a loco - provided that the insulated wheels are all on the same side, and no motion components are live to both sides, all is well. Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm not the expert that you seek - but the "... sort of upward pointing arrowhead between the W and the D ..." was the 'Broad Arrow', used to denote government / military property. I understand that it was used to mark anything from teaspoons to railway locomotives ! It is included on my transfer sheet BL161 - WD locomotive lettering; see https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm . Regards, John Isherwood.

Lovely weathering - congratulations. On the subject of fixed rear trucks, my postings at least have referred to the lack of movement of the truck on radii far greater than trainset curves. If, as I did, you saw Stanier Pacifics negotiating pointwork within station confines, you will KNOW that the trailing trucks moved very noticeably away from the straight-and-narrow. They had to - or they would have derailed; that's why they had a pivot ! Defenders of fixed trailing trucks can protest all they like - the real thing had a pivot for a very good reason, and its movement was definitely noticeable ON PROTOTYPICAL TRACK - not trainset curves. Regards, John Isherwood.