John Isherwood

..... and I was one of those - in fact, the first to order. However, I'd cancelled my order because of 'splashergate' - so someone else now has No.1 !! Regards, John Isherwood.

.... or drill new mounting holes in the High Level gearbox etches before assembly. Buy your motors from me, and I provide a template. Regards, John Isherwood. https://www.cctrans.org.uk/

If you have to - get a Black Beetle, not a Tenshedo Spud. Regards, John Isherwood.

With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that when postings become a discussion between two members, it might be best to transfer to PMs. Regards, John Isherwood.

The actual phrase was ".... to preserve the range digitally at least for the time being ...."; what in that opens the door to anything contrary to copyright law? It indicates concern that the physical means of producing more kits are not secure, and that a digital record might (or might not) be a sensible precaution. No mention of legal ownership of that record, or to what purpose that record might (or might not) be used for; any suggestion of misuse of that record comes from subsequent posters' speculation, including your own. I wouldn't try reproducing my transfer designs if I were you - though it has been known; all of my output is clearly marked as my copyright. Any suggestion that I'm ".... not bothered by copyright of others work ...." is, once again, your own invention - where have I given the slightest suggestion that could lead you to speculate to that effect? Regards, John Isherwood.

I do blame them - unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, take what is posted at face value. Don't look for an ulterior motive when there isn't the slightest evidence that such exists. #1126 is an eminently sensible suggestion to preserve in digital detail something that could well be neglected / deliberately destroyed. That is why historical records are maintained in digital format - one can never totally guarantee the continued existence of the physical artifact. It is a shame when it is not possible to put forward a perfectly sensible suggestion without the usual suspects relaunching the interminable circular argument concerning copyright. Regards, John Isherwood.

Please re-read the first post in this sub-thread - #1126 - nowhere is there any suggestion that the 3D scans would be used by third parties for production purposes. The suggestion was that there should be a record of what the product range comprised of, via the most accurate digital process currently available. How that digital record might be subsequently used, or by whom, was not mentioned. It would save a great deal of debate if people actually read what a post says, rather than what they think might be implied. The volume of argument that bloats this forum, relating to things that weren't actually posted in the first place, is incredible. Regards, John Isherwood.

No mention of reproducing in Gt. Shefford's post. 3D scanning is no different from taking a photo - it simply records what the object looked like, but in rather more detail. IF the moulding tools deteriorate or are destroyed, and the intellectual property was transferred to another party, then an existing 3D scan of the original product could make it easier to reproduce the kit - IF it was deemed desirable so to do. Regards, John Isherwood.

I couldn't agree more - thanks for illustrating the point. If fixed trailing trucks become / are now acceptable, how long before fixed / flangless leading bogies or non-functional valvegear are proposed - all in the interests of economy, you understand !! Regards, John Isherwood.

But surely that makes it much easier to intentionally obliterate them, and replace them with prototypically correct scribed lines? It'd be the work of moments using a sanding stick, small engineer's square and a scriber / scrawker. Regards, John Isherwood.

g Garden fleece - the lightweight white stuff. Regards, John Isherwood.

Thank you - however, I have two Airfix RTR Scot tender bodies with nicely reproduced rivets, so I'll use one of them when / if I can justify a complete repaint. Regards, John Isherwood.

It did at the time in question - I have a number of photos, and they are what highlighted the lack of rivets on the Hornby tender. Quite right for 46165, but not for 46114, unfortunately. (Copyright unknown) Regards, John Isherwood.

... and a couple in front of the radiator. Regards, John Isherwood.

I had wondered about that. I may have to resort to having the new 'Improved BR Green' scanned and matched for a spray can, with which I can then spray the old Airfix rivetted Stanier tender body. (The new 'Improved BR Green' is, IMHO, still only halfway there - it doesn't bear comparison with Precision BR loco green). Matching the lining in the form of a transfer will be interesting !! Perhaps I might as well just bite the bullet, and spray the lot with Precision BR loco green. Regards, John Isherwood.

The problem with providing images is that they are a short-cut to pirated (inferior) products. Don't ask me how I know ........ Regards, John Isherwood.

I have the Archers rivets in stock - and an old Airfix rivetted Stanier tender body, for that matter. This is just a shot in the dark to see if I can find a matching rivetted tender to go with a brand new loco. 46114 it has to be - I need a 21C allocated loco. Regards, John isherwood.

I'm not averse to mods - I'd just like to get a rivetted tender top in matching Hornby lined green, so that I don't have to repaint / reline the loco. Thanks, John Isherwood.

I have just purchased a current model Hornby 'Royal Scot' 46165 "The Ranger" (R3558), which I am renumbering as 46114 "Coldstream Guardsman". The latter loco should have a rivetted tender by the 1960s, whereas 46165 comes with a welded tender. Does anyone have a rivetted, lined green, Hornby Stanier tender body that they would be willing to sell / swap, please? PM me if you can help. Thanks in anticipation, John Isherwood.

Sorry - I don't do TOPS-era transfers. Regards, John Isherwood, https://www.cctrans.org.uk/

Quite so - that is what I will do. My point is simply that, in many recent cases, the way that Hornby have modelled the trailing trucks as separate items, it would appear to be the case that they have made an extra effort to ensure that the truck cannot pivot, rather than have the option to be fixed or pivotting. I have had to remove this fixing structure on several locos, when it would have been easier for Hornby not to have incorporated it in the first place, and just provided a locking screw. Regards, John Isherwood.

I can assure you that there will be no 'spat' initiated by me - hopefully those who disgree can do so in a similar reasoned manner. Regards, John Isherwood.

Tongue-in-cheek - nothing less than Peco largest radius here. My point was that, even on prototype radii, movement of the prototype trailing truck was quite evident. Surely, one point of fora such as this one is to bring to the attention of RTR producers the views of the consumer? The effective pressure of such expressed opinions is evident in the demise of the Hornby Stanier tender 'valance'. If enough consumers were to make it clear to Hornby that the option to have a swivelling pony truck is desired, they may well act. I have explained in this thread - more than once, (see #708) - how this could be achieved whilst still retaining the default option of a fixed / flangeless truck. It is surely counter to the aims of this forum to close down discussion on particular subjects, just because the moderators may not agree with the point being made? Regards, John Isherwood.

As will the one on my Hornby model - unless the manufacturers have been fiendishly awkward in their design. I know that model pivotted trailing trucks swing much more than the prototype, due to the radii that they traverse. However, the prototype trailing truck DID move quite noticeably and, IMHO, nothing looks more ridiculous than a fixed truck projecting out beyond the outer rail when the loco negotiates a curve. We'd not tolerate fixed front bogies - why should we accept fixed trailing trucks? Is this another case of 'splasher-gate'? Regards, John Isherwood.

We were indeed. In fact, I mentioned directly to Hornby the Stanier tender mythical valance - which has been eliminated - and the fixed trailing truck with flangeless wheels. I suggested a pivotted trailing truck, locked with a second screw and fitted with flangeless wheels, to suit the 'radially-challenged' amongst us. If this had been done, and a spare pair of flanged wheels had been supplied, those of us with more generous curves would simply have had to remove one screw and swap the wheels. I will be investigating the possibilities for an articulated trailing truck just as soon as I can turn my attention to the model of 46256 that I picked up from Kernow Models today. Regards, John Isherwood.