Buhar

That's an elegant solution to the fall-plate issue. I've been turning ideas over for weeks to find a reliable hinge method. Your's scores by keeping the plate close to footplate height.

Hi Steve, I see you got a very honourable mention for the 492 in True Line, congratulations.

It's the on-off performance with Gibson's wheels that I struggle with, especially when trying to sort out spacers. I can't see a way round the vagaries of frame width, b2b, curves and bits dangling below the footplate except trial and adjustment and these wheels are not forgiving of repeated removal.

I'm an admirer of Steve's work too, as well as the choice of subject. If you think back 18 months or so, you can see a staggering development in his work. This link gets you there. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92190-steve-caledonian-work-bench-making-a-brace-of-scottish-4-4-0s/

Either the Ratio LNWR or MR coaches could work based on the LMS's cascade practice. Better still would be to mix them up. If I recall correctly, some LNW coaches had blocks of raised panelling that would be all black in LMS fully lined livery. It's a lovely loco that Barry Lane tried to get Bachmann to do with the first run but wasn't successful. Mine is in the post, that's 3 in hand with two to be bashed into variants.

I really admire those fittings, my favorite of yours being the safety valve. Are you going to have locos in both types of Caley blue?

Just found this excellent topic which will really help when I do my railway room and workshop, hopefully next year. Before that there is the small matter of a cottage that needs renovating. Searching for "shed" or variations on that on this site tends to throw up loco servicing facilities rather than self-builds! Am I right in thinking there isn't a ridge beam running the length of the building, rather the trusses are joined one by one? The truss jig is an great idea that I will pinch. It's too late for you, but an idea I saw on here for security (Jenny Emily, I think) was to put a layer of ckicken wire in the walls to make cutting and climbing through them difficult. Dave, your comments have been really helpful too, especially about cladding. I always thought overlap was cheap and cheerful, suitable for storage rather than a fully weatherproof space. I was heading towards tongue and groove.

Hi Steve, Your early morning update on the big pug is the first thing I look for on rmweb at the moment. Any news today?

So often on rmweb someone pops up with a build they've done of the loco in question. I'll be very surprised if that happens with this one. I love big tank engines and this one will have a presence on your layout. Using a cast-off boiler solves one of the biggest scratch build problems and reconfiguring an rtr chassis solves another. The idea of brass bracing for the running plate cracks another potential weak point when using plasticard. From here on in, Steve, and in memory of George Cole, the world is your lobster.

The cow-catcher (ineklik?) appears to have been there from the start, the headlight was fitted to some but not all. There are two cylindrical tanks on the other running plate and some had a tank on the right. Whether this was as well or as an alternative, I have no idea. Westinghouse pump on t'other side. The smokeboxes were standard, the rebuilt one with the dogs on 45161 appeared later in life. There was a TCDD versionof the 8F produced by Hornby for it's Istanbul distributor not that long ago. I haven't been over to the shop for a few years so I've not seen it in the flesh. It was 4mm, whereas Turkish modellers work to 3.5mm.

Its a specific loco that I know next to nothing about beyond an article in the railway mag of nov'91 that tells me its 45160 owned by the Churchill Locomotive co. So any info on what modifications where in Turkey would be welcome. Thanks Jon My identified pictures are 45161 which is recorded as having worked Irmak-Cankiri north-east of Ankara. It seems this was a common area for the 45151 class. I have a few other photos of locos in traffic but none are identified as 41560. I suspect the modifications were standard at first, but locos will have had more local adaptations as the years went on. If you want what I've got, please PM your e-mail addy.

Hi Jon Are you going to do a British 8F or a TCDD "Churchill"? If it's the latter, I can help with some post-withdrawal photos.

That looks really good,Mark. Could we trouble you for a bit more detail on how yo planned it and your thinking around construction? Either here or on the linked thread.

My usual stockist only received a single B12, but it is an attractive loco. I was on holiday for the C class and missed out on it, anyone got a swapsie requirement I might match or is willing to sell. I'm up in Cumbria next week, anywhere round Carlisle way that a reliable stockist?

When you find the cranks, what are you going to build round them?

Hi Andy, it's a not a quote from a programme, it was the title of a sitcom series in the late sixties about tailors. Very un-PC if I recall accurately. But with only 3 channels, you watched it. Probably the 7:30pm comedy slot on BBC but I can't be sure.

I expected 6201, but it isn't. Oh well! Princess Margaret, putting the gin in engine.

I think you have an answer there, Jason!! And the reason why. And the wherefore. And the physics. And the type of dust you need to weather it with.

The Past, the Present and the Future walk into pub. After that it got rather tense.

The comparison locos (990 Class) were also Class 4s. The Class 3s were the just slightly earlier "Belpaires" with the rectangular side panel of varying sizes over the rear splasher. All the potential Midland 4-4-0 variations had similar boiler diameter, the big difference is that only the Compounds and the 2Ps had the raised footplate over the drivers, the rest had a straight footplate and that would entail quite a bit of work. Alternative options might be shallow frame Compounds (drum smokebox) or the non-superheater version. You have four chimney and (I think) two dome options to play with too, plus Tups*rse or pop safety valves. Good luck and please post on your progress.

When I said "not good as a standard MR or Fowler tender" I appear to have sowed a little confusion. I meant that, because of its unusual origin,it is not suitable for sticking behind a 2P, Patriot, Jubilee, 4F or what-have-you.

As this is RMWeb, I think the convention is that the bus is stationery on the bridge.

The first few 2-8-0s had tender cabs which when removed left a different shape to the front arc. This is a model of one of those. The wheelbase should be unequal as opposed to the equal wheelbase on a standard Fowler tender.

I think the tender is an ex-SDJR 2-8-0 one as sported by MR 1000 in preservation (slightly different front cutout). This is the same as the Bachmann MR compound had. Not good as a standard MR or Fowler tender.

There was a really good set of drawings in Model Railways Illustrated of October 1994 in an "Profile of" article. These include plan views and some detail variations. The May 1980 Modeller also had plans and there was a scaled GA in MRJ. I think this was December 1994 or the subsequent issue.