John Isherwood

I indicated earlier in this thread that I was intending to use the Kemilway chassis in a couple of projected upgrades of 1980s-vintage loco builds. The models in question were a Tri-ang Standard 3MT 2-6-2T and a Triang / Kitmaster / MTK Standard 4MT 2-6-0. The 2-6-2T had had the wheels replaced with Romfords, and had been detailed with a new chimney, wire handrails etc., but the Tri-ang valvegear was basic, to say the least! The 2-6-0 ran on a modified, unpowered Tri-ang 2-6-2T chassis, fitted with Romford wheels and Hornby Dublo 2-6-4T valvegear, and had been detailed as per the 2-6-2T. Power came from a Tri-ang Hornby Silver Seal 9F tender chassis, installed in an MTK cast whitemetal large tender body; below. What had seemed highly detailed models in the 1980s paled into insignificance when run in company with 2020 RTR locos, so something had to be done! The results of a couple of major rebuilds can be seen below. The 2-6-2T now runs on an extended Kemilway 2-6-0 chassis, with Markits wheels, a Highlevel Hiflier+ gearbox and a Mitsumi motor. More detail has been added; the model has been repainted and lined / relettered with my own transfers. The model is still too long, and the tank profile is not spot-on, but the general impression is still excellent. The 2-6-0 has had a similar treatment, the tender being a combination of a Bachmann chassis with a GML body. I found the Kemilway chassis to be an excellent kit, though the five-piece (!) fabricated crossheads defeated me - cast brass ones were substituted. My aging eyesight resulted in a couple of 'bodges' along the way, but the results are a pair of very sweet-running locos. If you come across the Kemilway chassis kits on Ebay or at swapmeets, give them a try - the results can be quite up to current standards. In addition to the 2-6-0 Kemilway chassis, there was an equally excellent Bullied Light Pacific one for the Kitmaster / Airfix kit - which I can also vouch for. All in all, a pair of interesting and productive projects! John Isherwood.

I have just repeated the test - all I can tell you is that the performance of the Manor, with added weight, is on a par with my other locos. It is a fact that it does not do so without added weight. CJI.

In an idle moment before lunch, I coupled my Manor to a mixed goods rake in the marshalling yard. Whilst the loco could (just) keep the train moving, there was a lot of wheelslip when starting, and when the train was on a curve (around 1m. radius). The Manor has always felt light to me, so I balanced a solid brass back-to-back gauge-block on the firebox and tried again - quite a difference; virtually no wheelslip at all. So, as a confirmed DC Luddite, I will have to remove the body and rip out all the DCC gubbins - including the firebox 'flicker', and substitute lead wherever it will fit. I have been concerned, ever since DCC was introduced, that adhesive weight was being sacrificed for ever more circuitry, speakers, smoke generators, stay-alives, etc., etc. There is only so much space inside a 4mm. scale loco, and all this paraphenalia has nowhere near the density of solid metal. What point is there in a model, however well (or not) it reproduces the sound and pollution of the prototype, if it cannot pull a prototypical train? ....... and, worse still, we are expected to pay significantly more for less performance! ..... and, before the oft-repeated statement that all this electronic-trickery costs next-to-nothing is trotted-out - I simply don't believe it!! CJI. PS. The 'whine' that I mentioned when first testing the loco is apparently associated with wheel-slip - it disappears when more adhesive weight is added.

Spot-on - the latest releases, from all companies, are ones which would have produced knee-jerk orders a few years ago. Nowadays, a more sensible mindset and inflating prices mean that my reaction is "Nice, but I hardly use the vast number of locos etc. that I already have; why waste more money on something more for my family to try and flog when I've gone?" Those companies relying on the retired / reasonably well-off sector of the market may well find more sales resistance than hitherto, as we age and become more pragmatic! CJI.

Symptomatic of their entire approach to business - give us yer money and don't be a nuisance! CJI.

Can't help on that, offhand; would have to do some research. I would repeat what has already been said - if you are serious about wagon detail, be prepared for some considerable investment in books and non-modelling time. CJI.

It is indeed an excellent build. I built (and subsequently sold) an MTK DMU back in the early 1980s, using much the same methods; (BRCW of one type or the other). MTK DMU kits, contrary to popular belief, are not bad at all. As we have seen, provided methodical workmanship is applied to them, a very nice model can quite quickly be the result. I have an MTK Park Royal DMU kit in the stache - with this thread as inspiration, it may well make an early appearance! CJI.

A signature is worthless - unless it is that of the intended recipient! CJI.

Depends if the presence of a NEM pocket is more important to you than an accurate-looking model. Each to their own! CJI.

It is called modelling - ancient, long-lost craft, sadly! CJI.

How do you know it's his signature? He only had to read the addressee's name, and sign in that name. It could be anyone; I suspect that the package has been delivered to the wrong address. CJI.

Without wading back through your posts, I take it that there is evidence that the package was delivered to the CORRECT address? I recently had a package delivered and signed-for ...... except that it had gone to the wrong address, and the signature wasn't mine! Fortunately, the person who HAD signed for the package realised the mistake, and redelivered it to the correct address. CJI.

I would have thought that 03 wheels were distinctly different in appearance to steam loco wheels - large balance weights? CJI.

No chance - praise or criticism, I speak as I find. KRM seem to have the gift of b*llsing-up whatever they touch. Nonetheless, I have a DHP1 on order from them, and I will sing their praises, loud and long, if it turns out to be an accurate and fully-functional model. I would love to have been able to do the same for 10100, but it had to go back - being such a hotch-potch of different periods. CJI.

Better they get the pedantic nit-pickers over before production starts! 🤔 CJI.

Superb! Surely the raised surround to the BR front numberplate is surplus to requirements, though. CJI.

Ohh - don't!! Unless you want one with a different wheel arrangment at each end, plus a rear unit with half a bunker and half an oil tank! CJI

I strongly suspect that such information, beyond monochrome works photos, no longer exists. CJI.

The go-tos are definitely the wagon books dedicated to individual pre-Nationalisation railways. You'll find diagrams, dimensions - in fact, all you need to model containers. CJI.

My adverse comments are based on the reasonable assumption that Peco have not newly tooled this chassis purely for this Christmas VANFIT. Going forward, I would expect it to appear under any new released items. CJI.

I ask you - how could the producer of that perfectly acceptable model have the brass neck to turn out the abomination that is that Christmas VANFIT chassis? What were they thinking? CJI.

All I can say is that a certain Doctor Beeching had come to BR from ICI. Rail Blue - otherwise known as Monastral Blue - was developed and manufactured by ICI. ICI must have received some huge orders for Rail / Monastral Blue paint. .... but I could not possibly comment! CJI.

I made allowance for the scale, but it really looks more like the early days of N gauge, not 2023. Sorry, if this is the best that Peco can do, I'm glad that I model in 4mm. scale. CJI.

Sorry to have to say it but - that is an abominably crude chassis, if it is newly-tooled! CJI.

'Ironmink' on Thingiverse is Jonny Duffett - and his 3D printer designs are second-to-none! Download and print - or get someone else to print - with confidence. CJI.