John Isherwood

Why selfish? I gave no indication whether or not I would be able to afford the increased prices. The bottom line is that Bachmann have chosen to charge increased prices - buy their products or don't; the choice is yours. If they have got it wrong then they'll either :- 1] have to reduce their prices, (if they can afford to do so); 2] decide not to produce similar products in future. The chance of products failing just because of a straight price comparison with Hornby products is minimal; the chance of direct duplication of coaching stock , for instance, is not high. If you want Thompson stock in the foreseeable future, buy Bachmann; build kits; or do without ! Crying "It's not fair"! will make zero difference to the ultimate outcome. Regards, John Isherwood.

Everything evolves ! We may have got used to paying less than our European fellow-modellers, but that situation is not set in stone. If prices have to go up, perhaps the UK market will move towards the European norm - less modellers, but those remaining being prepared to pay the higher prices. OK - the home market may be smaller than that in Europe, but we have the US and Antipodean contingents too. Saying the UK market is different from the European one doesn't affect the realities of production costs. All model producers realise that lower prices mean higher sales volume - it's in their interests to keep prices as low as possible. The prices that they set reflect the cost of production, plus the level of profit they deem to be necessary to remain viable. An awful lot of RMweb members need to take a reality check, IMHO !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Cypherman, No idea, never used them - I just know that they exist. They are supposed to be exact reproductions of the originals, which I believe were pressure-fit. Regards, John Isherwood.

See http://www.petersspares.com/?searchStr=Mainline+replacement+axle+set . Regards, John Isherwood.

See post #332 above concerning the origins of the Ebay photos. Regards, John Isherwood.

I'm sure that you are aware of it - but don't forget the crash protection 'bulges' above the windscreens. Regards, John Isherwood.

Now that's the way forward !! I'm following this closely http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/186/entry-10884-wickham-trolley-progress/ . Regards, John Isherwood.

Parkside use their BR 12' WB chassis for this one - understandable really. Regards, John Isherwood.

One observation - it would not have been suitable for pre-Nationalisation use anyway - it's got BR axleguards. For that matter, in very early post-Nationalisation livery - no black patches and LNER lettering style - it is highly unlikely to have been fitted with BR axleguards. Sorry - such details stand out to me, but I know many would consider it nit-picking - which it is, really! Regards, John Isherwood.

On that basis - my pre-order has been cancelled. The essential character, for me, of a PW trolley was the simplicity and incongruity of the single vehicle. Yes, they pulled a trailer occasionally, but not all the time - and certainly not as substantial-looking as that shown in the sample. I did wonder how they'd do it, and the answer seems to be that they haven't. Shame! Regards, John Isherwood.

So you proceed to dismiss opinions put forward earlier in the discussion - but you are not prepared to defend your own views? Now THAT is a sterile debate !! Regards, John Isherwood.

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96229-photos-of-br-and-preservation-in-the-1960s-70s-80s/page-2 . Post #46 onwards. Regards, John Isherwood.

I have recently acquired a pair of Keyser autocoach kits - fortunately the versions with the plastic roof. From a posting elsewhere, I have learned that :- the model is of Diagram A31, converted from steam railmotors built to diagram Q; possible numbers are 202, 203, 207, 208, 209 and 219; 202/3/19 had 8 ft wb fishbelly bogies, 207/8/9 had 7ft light duty bogies; 207 was condemned in December 1956, the other two in March and August 1957 respectively. The kits that I have obtained have American bogies, which it would appear are unusable for this project. Can anyone confirm the above information, please? Does anyone have withdrawal dates for 202/3/19? I am guessing that all of the A31 autocoaches would have been crimson during their BR careers, but was this plain or lined? Did any receive crimson & cream? As the withdrawal dates are rather early for my modelling period, is there a record of the withdrawal livery of any of these coaches. Finally, is there a published drawing of A31? Regards, and thanks in advance, John Isherwood.

If I'm looking at the correct image, surely these are standard RCH 'boxes - as per http://www.dartcastings.co.uk/mjt/2241A.php ? Regards, John Isherwood.

..... but don't hold your breath - hell is more likely to freeze over beforehand !! Regards, John Isherwood.

LN in Bodmin Asda if anyone needs one - look closely though, as you'll miss it otherwise !! Regards, John Isherwood.

In which case - M xxxx M, the prefix denoting the operating region and the suffix denoting the maintaining region, as we know. Regards, John Isherwood.

The unexpected problem that I have encountered is this. On the face of it, the flexible, self-centring NEM coupling mount - the one with the very thin section of shank - should be perfect for carrying a Peco coupling head. So I cut the shank off a NEM coupler, leaving just the head and uncoupling tail. I then drilled and 12BA tapped the remainder of the shank, in line with the tail. I took a NEM narrow coupler as fitted to current Hornby / Bachmann stock and removed the coupling head , leaving just the shank which I drilled 12BA clearance. The Peco head was then screwed to the NEM shank, with spacing washers to adjust the height of the Peco head. Having done this to a number of vehicles, they behaved perfectly when pulled. However, the pivotting action of the opposing coupling heads proved to be too stiff, even with the narrow flexible section of the NEM shank. Pushing two vehicles together would simply propel the second vehicle rather than engage the couplings. Similarly, because of a lack of freedom in the pivotting of the couplings, they would often disengage over pointwork. One of the essential features of the Peco coupling is that is should be totally free to pivot, so that it can readily deflect sideways and engage, and swing with the curve so as to remain engaged. One solution is to substitute the NEM shank with a strip of brass or plastic card that will slide easily into the coupler pocket but which is narrow enough to allow side-swing. A small hole can be drilled through the pocket and strip, and a short length of wire pressed in as pivot, having slightly enlarged the hole in the strip to ensure free movement from side to side. The Peco head is fixed to the strip as before. Even this still results in a coupler / pivot arrangement that is visually too bulky, the problem being the relatively low level of the NEM pocket. So - from now on it's back to basics, and I will be removing the NEM mount by unscrewing it or cutting it off. The Peco coupling will then be mounted below the headstock with the plastic pivot peg supplied by Peco, and a couple of short lengths of wire will be pressed into holes in the floor to limit the coupler swing. .... in other words, what I did for years before the NEM coupler mounts were introduced !! Regards, John Isherwood.

One to suggest to Parkside, I'd suggest. A relatively simple model to tool up, surely? .... and the possibility of producing the alumina version too. Regards, John isherwood.

Of course - you can still buy Peco R2 couplings - http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=&CAT_ID=0&P_ID=17357&strPageHistory=search&numSearchStartRecord=1 . Ebay is a useful source, too. Regards, John Isherwood.

I have very little confidence that we'll ever see this. I spent some considerable time pointing out the problems with their original design and, at their request, sketched out a design that would be fully compatible with the old design. No response subsequently. Don't hold your breath !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Yes - it is much better, and I've fitted them to very many recent locos, coaches and wagons. Regards, John Isherwood.

Old fashioned Nitromors will do the trick, given a couple of applications. You may be surprised at the detail thus revealed !! Regards, John Isherwood.

I have an undated photo of 82001, stabled I believe at Highbridge Works, sporting the additional handrail and lined green livery, (albeit pretty grubby). Regards, John Isherwood.

Well - that's what a tender swap would achieve. The critical length for a turntable is the overall wheelbase, not the length over buffers. The tender swap would reduce the overall wheelbase by 6" - not a lot, but presumably enough !! Regards, John Isherwood.