Beer and Buckjumpers

[Paul Willis]

I think it continues to be right for the Scalefour Society to inform and encourage finescale modelling, for those with the desire and skill to do so. It is also desirable to inform newcomers so that they may make intelligent choices

I think it should also, in all fairness, be pointed out that working in P4 is not easy - in fact, it's pretty difficult and if I persevere with P4 I reckon it's going to take me a long time to produce even a modest working layout that runs properly, taking into the account the fact that, being self employed, I also work more than full time! Is it really fair to say, for example, that "If you decide to go down the finescale path and already do a fair amount of construction work yourself, then modelling in P4 is now no more difficult than finescale OO or EM"?

What you've said is both interesting and relevant. What I've set out to do with the demo board is to show the possibilities and differences in the different types of track. There is certainly no intent to preach, and any suggestion of that is coming only from the observer, and not from me!

I would also never say that P4 is easy, as in shake-the-box easy. And indeed that is often one of the reasons that it is attractive to some of us. However, what I am trying to illustrate is that in both track, and rolling stock, the learning curve or more accurately "building curve", is not a nowhere near as steep as it used to be, when you there was an assumption that the P4 modelling process started with "First buy your lathe...".

The success of the trackbuilding and loco conversion workshops at Scaleforum 2010 showed a lot of modellers new to P4 that it was possible to achieve something relatively easily, in a short period of time. It is this which will be a major attraction to moving to P4 in future.

The objective of a lot of what we show on the Society Stand is that there are a number of possibilities, and it is up to the individual modeller to do what satisfies them

I'd be quite interested to know how many people on this forum have actually built in P4 even a "modest working layout that runs properly" or how many, on the other hand, basically confine themselves to building locos and rolling stock?

I'm trying to do both, and as my blog hopefully shows I'm not afraid of saying that it can be challenging, and that I make some cock-ups along the way. You're correct in saying that I have previously only built locos and stock, but that is also driven by the fact that up to a couple of months ago, I've never lived anywhere with enough space so that I can properly consider building a layout rather than a test plank for the workbench. We all shape our hobbies to suit our circumstances, and I completely agree with your comment about time as well as the same frustration affects me, as those of you who know my line of work will already know.

Cheers
Flymo

[David Thorpe]

I'm trying to do both, and as my blog hopefully shows I'm not afraid of saying that it can be challenging, and that I make some cock-ups along the way. You're correct in saying that I have previously only built locos and stock
Flymo

Sorry if I've mislead you - nothing was directed at you! I don't know what you've built in the past - my comment was a mass generalisation. Similarly, I'm not suggesting that you ever said "If you decide to go down the finescale path and already do a fair amount of construction work yourself, then modelling in P4 is now no more difficult than finescale 00 or EM" - that's lifted from the Society website.

When I changed from 00 to EM many many years ago, I found it challenging, but I produced a working layout. Subsequently, after a long break from modelling, I took up P4 and I have to confess that even with the advances in the hobby over the intervening years I've found it both more challenging and more difficult to the extent that I do sometimes - perhaps increasingly - wonder whether it is worthwhile.

DT

[martin goodall]

First, a small point of clarification. The only person I was accusing of 'missionary zeal' was myself (30 or more years ago). There were others of us who were equally guilty at the time, although in those days we did feel like a rather beleaguered minority in the hobby, and so perhaps our approach to 'converting the heathens' was justified at the time. I would certainly not level an accusation of 'missionary zeal' at any of the present participants in this discussion.

That said, however, I think we should be slightly careful about how we 'sell' P4.

Davey Tee's comments rang a lot of bells with me. Quite frankly, P4 can be made to work only after a lot of fiddling and tweaking. It was for that reason that I decided to see if I could cut corners by using EM-profile wheels on my P4 track, so as to cut out the need for compensated suspension or springing, and to make conversions of RTR stock quicker and easier. Slightly to my surprise, I found that it worked.

Building a layout in P4 is a slow business. I have completed one small P4 layout ("Crichel Down"), seen on the exhibition circuit between 1982 and 1998, and am reasonably well advanced with a somewhat larger home layout in P4 ("Burford GWR"), but the latter has taken an inordinate amount of time to bring to its current state of semi-completion. It is now fully operational (except for the loco turntable, which has yet to be installed), and after a lot of fiddling and fettling, can be relied upon to run smoothly and reliably. Even P4-wheeled stock runs quite happily on the layout, but I am still comitted to converting all my stock to run on EM-profile wheels (for reasons which I explained at some length in other threads on this webforum earlier this year).

By all means let's encourage those modellers who express an interest in P4, but we must not mislead them as to the time and effort which model-making to P4 standards involves, and we should be careful about the comparisons we make between P4 and other 4mm scale standards. Those other standards have improved immeasurably within the past 20 years or so, and there are some excellent layouts in both 00 and EM gauge which are worthy of close attention.

I appreciate that the original purpose of putting a 00 gauge Streamline Code 100 point against a P4 turnout was purely to give a quick visual reference to enquirers as to the difference between the two gauges; all I am saying is that this is not really a comparison of 'like with like', and that a comparison between two C&L turnouts in the respective gauges might be fairer and more informative. The same applies to wheels - the comparison ought perhaps to be between P4 wheels and 00 finescale wheels from the same manufacturer. The differences would then be somewhat less dramatic, but would still show how the one differs from the other. In fact, I suppose for the sake of completeness, EM gauge examples should also be included, so that you would have three examples of essentially the same product from each manufacturer.

[Rod Cameron]

There is no smugness or superiority intended in putting down that piece of OO track. It is simply to illustrate one of the most common questions that we get on the Society stand - so what's the difference with OO?

And there's nothing wrong with that. But I would suggest (I may be wrong here) that the person who asks that question in that form is unlikely to be someone who already builds his own track in 00. He/she is more likely to have a layout based on Peco Code 75 or 100 (and there is a lot of Code 100 about even though these days it's largely unnecessary).

On the other hand, someone who models 00 finescale in handbuilt Code 75 and who asks "where does P4 improve on this?" is going to be a bit insulted if he's presented with a Code 100 point and 1970s Lima wheelsets for comparison. Why not have handbuilt equivalents in Code 75 00 and EM available also? We shouldn't be afraid of the possibility that the inquirer will decide to go EM or stay with 00 - he's as likely to do that, maybe more likely, if he thinks he's having the wool pulled over his eyes.

But the most important thing in the whole demonstration should be that the P4 bit of the test track works reliably!

[Will L]

I'd be quite interested to know how many people on this forum have actually built in P4 even a "modest working layout that runs properly" or how many, on the other hand, basically confine themselves to building locos and rolling stock?

DT

Well lets put it this way, I have no layout plans of my own but I'm actively involved with the CAG layout Knutsford East. So perhaps I nearly qualify.

More to the point, before earning a living having children and swallowed all my time, I did have a very great deal to do with building and running a "finescale" OO layout called Grinding Hault. We were pretty well known on the exhibition circuit in the Northwest for a number of years in the 80s and early 90s. This was all hand built track work and stock and I know all about making it run properly. From personal experience I would say that if you can do that you can do P4, that the amount of effort you put in is broadly similar, but P4 does take more care. Certainly it was the experience of doing Grinding Hault that persuaded me that the next time round I would do it in EM. No better still P4! Remember, this is contemporary with Cyril "I'll believe it when I see it" Freezer, and, much RTR stock of the day would not run on our finescale track!

I'm retired now and my time is my own these day, but what was driving me even back then was a desire to build the best models I could. In the end I couldn't see any point doing that with the wheels the wrong distance apart. It was the pleasure of taking the trouble that was the point as far as I was concerned.

Personally I think attempting P4 as entry level modelling is a tough option, and definitely not the obvious choice for those with dreams of acres of track and lots of long trains. But I didn't say it can't be done.

Will

P.S. My apologies to Cyril ghost, I know it's a miss quote.

[LesGros]

Rod Cameron"
...On the other hand, someone who models 00 finescale in handbuilt Code 75 and who asks "where does P4 improve on this?" is going to be a bit insulted if he's presented with a Code 100 point and 1970s Lima wheelsets for comparison...

But surely, an enquirer already building in finescale 00 would know what it looks like (intimately) and simply by looking at the P4 elements of the plank would find the answers required, supplimented, by discussion with the guardian of the display.
It also seems a bit much to ask of Flymo, that he should invest a lot of time and effort into producing finescale 00 and EM.
Still, perhaps one of the critics might be willing to provide the additional samples?
regards

[dcockling]

That said, however, I think we should be slightly careful about how we 'sell' P4.

We are...in fact when I'm on the Society stand I'm not trying to 'sell' P4.

There was a time when it was almost essential to belong to a Society (P4, Scalefour, EMGS) in order to 'get the bits', but that certainly isn't true today.

So when we take the stand to a show we are aiming to do four things: Sell the Society, Explain the Standard, Recruit New Members and Meet the Folks.

It's important to remember that we're all different and that even putting aside the differences that will exist amongst us in terms of available time and money, that we have different aims and objectives from our hobby. When people come to me I try to get them to tell me what it is that they're looking for from their hobby, not tell them what I think they should be doing. We have members who model in P4, EM, 00, doubtless other scales too and "not at all" and I reckon there's plenty of them and there always have been. Building a large layout and exhibiting it isn't for everyone and succeeding in doing that isn't the mark of success, unless of course that's what you have set out to achieve. Whatever you've done, even if it's simply dreaming, the most important question (for me) is 'have you enjoyed yourself?'

Every year we lose members for the various perfectly reasonable reasons that you'll find in my annual reports, so if we want the Scalefour Society to continue to flourish, and I do, we need to attract people to join us.

I rather like the Society that I've been a member of for over 32 years, I like the people I've met and continue to meet, I like the friends I've made, I've enjoyed the shows I've visited and taken part in and I've been thankful for the practical help I've received and am still receiving from those friends and acquaintances. It's been fun and it continues to be so. And what I've discovered is the more that I've got involved the more fun it is.

What I'm trying to sell, if I'm selling anything is that sense of belonging to something really good, really helpful, really worthwhile and that's fun to belong to.

Yes of course the P4 Standard is part of what we're about but we aren't the P4 Society and it doesn't mention P4 in the Constitution, so I don't worry too much about that and of course people ask technical questions as well as asking for information about what P4 is, but if they leave the stand, whether they think P4 is for them or not, or whether they've joined or not, I want them to be happy with what answers they've received and to leave thinking 'what a nice lot those Scalefour chaps are'.

I think that the most important word in our title is 'Society', it's about people and we must be doing something right as this year (March and June) fewer people left, and throughout the year more former members and new members have joined, so that today we have 1832 members a clear 2% up on this date last year.

Sorry to be hijacking your thread Flymo.

All the best
Danny

[Paul Willis]

After another couple of weeks of no real progress on the demo board, yesterday I had chance to start work on it again.

I'd already obtained from Maplin some terminal posts and a rotary selector switch as components, so I was ready to go with drill and soldering iron. The interesting thing about the Maplin rotary switch, if anyone is contemplating using one is that although they are sold as (in this case) a three-way by four contact switch, this appears to be defined by the position of a tab-washer inside the switch. This can be moved to give a different number of clicks. This presumably gives a different number of discrete selections. I didn't test this with a multimeter, but is worth exploring if you think that you have the wrong component for the job in hand. Oh, and I found this little gem out when the switch fell apart after I'd taken the locking ring off to install it. So be careful!

Anyway, this is how it looks from above the baseboard:

Demo board finished 011 (Large).jpg

The nearest posts, by the switch are the ones that take the power feeds. I will produce some proper wires for a controller with banana plugs, rather than the temporary flying leads that I use for testing locomotives at the workbench. The far posts are for the power feed to go in for the point motors.

And this is it underneath:

Demo board finished 014 (Large).jpg

I'm using a piece of copperclad sleeper strip as a wiring bus, so that I don't have to try and fit all of the return feeds into a single point or onto a single component.

And so if I get chance today, it's on to finishing off my first Turnout Operation Unit, and seeing if it can be installed.

[Tim Hale]

But surely, an enquirer already building in finescale 00 would know what it looks like (intimately) and simply by looking at the P4 elements of the plank would find the answers required, supplimented, by discussion with the guardian of the display.

Without wishing to raise my head too far above the parapet, there are those who use utilise the S4S finescale ethos* as far as they wish whilst not committing to P4 track and wheel standards. By and large, we know the differences in appearance and we realise that we could commit but we choose not to do so for a variety of reasons.

Tim

* The S4S provided me with inspiration when I previously modelled German outline.

[LesGros]

*

The S4S provided me with inspiration when I previously modelled German outline.

I agree Tim; the Scalefour Society provides inspiration for all who seek, and modeling HO, 1:87 with the infrastructure at 3.5mm/foot there is a consistency of scale which is pleasing. However, finescale building in 4mm but with OO guage track does produce an inherent inconsistency which can jar, unless great care is taken to mask the track within the landscape.

As others more erudite thanI have written, in this thread, and elsewhere, what matters is that we try to improve our modelling to suit our own priorities and outlook.

regards

[Tim Hale]

There are we to judge others by their choice of track standards, surely, that is the negative side of the argument?

My contribution was an attempt to reason that there is more to the finescale ethos than track standards.

Now, I shall lower my head from the parapet of reason.

Tim

[LesGros]

["Tim Hale"]There are we to judge others by their choice of track standards... ?

Tim,
I do not think so, although there seems to be some who do; that is a matter for them.

My contribution was an attempt to reason that there is more to the finescale ethos than track standards.

Quite so, For me, choice of P4 track standards is primarily about engineering the track so that it works well and looks right; and as you imply, the landscape must also be be modelled realistically. It appears that we stand quite close in our viewpoint of finescale as stemming from the inspiration provided by Flymo, Jim S-W and many others. Would that I had their skill, but I continue striving for that.

PS, Flymo, sorry, we seem to be straying a bit from the prime subject of your P4 Demo board thread.

[Terry Bendall]

I have not really been following this thread but having looked at recent comments about comparisons between 00 and P4 turnouts, and those relating to the time and difficulties of building a layout to P4 standards I will put my oar in.

During the last three years I have spent quite a lot of time on the Society's stand at various shows. Part of the display includes a panel showing some 00 track alongside P4 track. Both types are partly ballested and painted. At the Cardiff show in October a father looked at this and started a conversation with his son, aged about 10 years, about the differences which both father and son could see easily. What we are doing is to show a comparison between what many people use and track built to P4 standards. Hand built 00 track can look quite good but most people don't build their own 00 track - they are using Peco. A lot of people who I have spoken to when on the stand have said they like the look of P4 track but have too much 00 stock to comtemplate changing. My standard response is that is fine, enjoy what you are doing but if you were thinking of something new - a small project, different period, etc, you might think about P4. Interestingly I have had a few EM modellers say that they wished they had started in P4 but again it is too late to change.

There have been comments on the difficulty of getting P4 track and wheels to work in a satisfactory manner and the time needed. As has been said, it IS more time consuming than setting up Peco track and running the latest products from Hornby or Bachmann and I have always said that to people. However I don't think it is quite as difficult as some people make out. The Society has had two layout Challanges in recent years where people built layouts to P4 standards and used P4 wheels and did it in a limited time period, less than two years for the D&E Challenge. For a lot lot of them it was their first P4 layout and they WORKED. So to partly answer DaveyTee's question, remember that there are 27 layouts from the 1883 Challenge and 15 from the D&E Challenge which are modest in size and which work. So it can be done and I don't think that most of the people who entered either of the layout challenges were that exceptional in their modelling skills although some were quite experienced people.

Many of those who entered the D&E Challenge used track and turnouts from the P4 Track Co and those who did this have said how much easier these are to use. I have built several P4 Track Co turnouts and I know they work first time every time and P4 wheels run on them first time every time - assuming of course that the wheels are to the correct back to back setting and are running true on the axles. (That by the way is said as a customer and with no conection to the company)You may of course choose to build your track in a different way, and if you are modelling the pre grouping period P4 Track Co products are not correct. (9ft sleepers are not available) If you use a different method of track construction it may well take more time and may not work first time but that is another story.

As Danny has said, on the Society stand we are telling and showing people what P4 modelling is about and that includes explaining that it does take longer and will need more work than working in 00 or even in EM but in our view the end result is worth it. Many of those that I have spoken to agree the appearance is better even if they don't want to go that way themselves or are unable to because of the amount of stock and work they have put in already.

Terry Bendall

[chrisf]

Terry, 9 ft sleepers are available from P4 Track Co. I know, I bought some by mistake!

Chris

[Paul Willis]

Terry, 9 ft sleepers are available from P4 Track Co. I know, I bought some by mistake!

Thanks for that... For pre-grouping modellers it may be very useful to know.

Looking at the website, it does seem as though the 9' length is only available in the single wooden sleepers. It's not clear if either the track panels or the FastTrack are 8'6" or 9' length, and I suspect that they are the former. If Andrew Jukes is lurking around here somewhere, perhaps he could clarify for the education of the masses (or me at least).

Of course, not even 9' would cover all of the possibilities. In my readings on Great Eastern branchlines, I have come across one of the impoverished constituent lines that was using even shorter sleepers than post-Grouping. I can't recall exactly, but they were 8', or 7'9", and lasted a normal lifespan so would have been seen until quite late times.

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

["Tim Hale"]There are we to judge others by their choice of track standards... ?

My contribution was an attempt to reason that there is more to the finescale ethos than track standards.

Quite so, For me, choice of P4 track standards is primarily about engineering the track so that it works well and looks right; and as you imply, the landscape must also be be modelled realistically. It appears that we stand quite close in our viewpoint of finescale as stemming from the inspiration provided by Flymo, Jim S-W and many others. Would that I had their skill, but I continue striving for that.

PS, Flymo, sorry, we seem to be straying a bit from the prime subject of your P4 Demo board thread.

First of all, no apologies necessary for straying from the subject. If it's to do with modelling, and it doesn't involve impoliteness to each other, then I'm perfectly happy for any sort of chat on "my" thread

After that, then to my mind you're both right, and I agree entirely with you, that the Scalefour Society ethos is about finescale modelling as a whole. Like Les, the track is the inspirational point that encourages the rest of my modelling to meet the same standard. Which is ironic in a way, as the multitude of jigs, parts and guidance around, and kits from C&L and P4Track Company make the building of realistic, reliable track almost the easiest part of the game. Being able to weather a model like Martyn Welch is something that takes a lifetime of talent and practice.

Finally, I'm rather embarrassed to be bracketed with JimS-W, as you'll have seen from this thread that I'm nothing more than a "have a go" modeller, and I'm trying to share that with you along the way. I sent a link to Jim's latest pictures of BNS track through the tunnel mouth to a couple of friends of mine (non-P4 modellers) who had attended Wigan and been impressed with the finescale track, and they were absolutely gob-smacked.

To return to the original comment about the demo board, the objective of it was to show what is possible in P4, not to preach from the highest about how "superior" it is held by some to be. I believe a key point that many members of the Society may miss when talking about P4 modelling is that it is the reality of P4 track that appeals, and not the accuracy.

Of course, in practice the reality is achieved by being accurate, although that should be seen as the means and not the end in itself. This is my view on how the general modelling public sees P4, and exactly why the "you're wrong because I'm right" approach to the benefits of being a P4 modeller has caused us so much ill-will in the past.

Flymo

[martin goodall]

[/quote]

For pre-grouping modellers it may be very useful to know.

Flymo[/quote]

It's not just pre-grouping modellers who need to use 9-foot sleepers (and point timbers of equivalent length). The changeover to 8'6" sleepers began after the First World War, but it could have been up to 12 years before all the old 9-foot sleepers had been replaced on main lines. After that, those 9-foot sleepers would have been used on branch lines. So if you are modelling a branch line you would have seen 9-foot sleepers in use well into the inter-war period. I have calculated that there might have been some late survivors as late as 1948 (although that would be exceptional). I wrote this up in more detail in Scalefour News some years ago.

A moment's thought will confirm that the railway companies did not rush round and replace all their 9-foot sleepers in 1918. It took a good few years, and the practice of using second-hand main line sleepers on branch lines ensured that 9-foot sleepers continued in use rather longer than most modellers seem to realise.

[martin goodall]

Further to my last note, I happened to come across the text of the note I wrote for S4 News, so thought I might as well add it here:

This is a footnote to Joe’s Jottings - 36 on the subject of track, which appeared in Scalefour News No.133. Joe pointed out that some 9-foot sleepers lasted in use up to 30 years after the 1918/1926 changeover date usually quoted, a point of which many railway modellers seem to be unaware. As Joe indicated, the change to 8’6” sleepers on branch lines was quite a lot later than on the major trunk lines, for the reasons explained below.

The following notes refer to practice on the GWR in the inter-war period, but I would be surprised if the practices of the other main line companies varied very greatly from the details quoted below.

Rails and sleepers were expected to be used twice, first when new on a main line, then later as second-hand material for a branch line or siding. The decision whether to use new or second-hand rails and sleepers depended on the nature and density of the traffic and, in particular, the loco-axle loadings permitted on the line. Lines intermediate between main and branch might justify the use of new sleepers with second-hand rail.

New rail would be expected to last in main line use for at least 12 years on the most heavily trafficked lines. On less heavily used lines a further six or seven years' use might be achieved, but a total main line life of 20 years was exceptional. The rails and sleepers would then be lifted and would be assessed for further use. The best would be ear-marked for running line use on a branch line and the more worn rails and sleepers would be used for sidings. It is unlikely that these materials would be assessed as scrap at this stage.

Re-used rails and sleepers on a branch line would be expected to have a further life of 15 to 20 years, but the ultimate life of the track was determined by the life of the sleepers. They would not last more than 30 years at the outside. There would be no purpose in relaying the track with the existing rails at this stage, as the replacement of the rails a few years later would be wasteful of labour. So, when the sleepers were life-expired, both rails and sleepers would be replaced together, using fresh second-hand materials. Again, the lifted rails would be assessed for re-use elsewhere but in this case were more likely to go for scrap or at best for relaying in the most lightly used type of siding. When finally discarded, the 10-inch by 5-inch sleepers were cut in two length-wise to provide 5-inch square posts for the standard GWR post and wire lineside fencing.

Thus it will be seen that 8’6” sleepers would not have found their way onto branch lines until 1930 at the earliest, and that 9’0" sleepers could have survived in use on the running lines on branches until as late as 1948. For this reason all the track on my model of Burford (GWR) has been laid with 9'0" sleepers, and point and crossing timbers were cut to equivalent length.

I hope members will find the above notes useful. I found all Joe’s Jottings extremely interesting and informative. Regrettably Joe Brook-Smith is no longer with us, having passed away a while ago now. I believe No.36 in the series may have been his final contribution.

[chrisf]

Further to my attempt to be helpful, I've checked the catalogue numbers. The 9 foot sleepers in the NewTrack range come in 45 ft panels and are catalogue number 4NTPL18. The 8'6" sleepers are 4NTPL24 and 4NTPL26.

Chris

[Paul Willis]

Further to my attempt to be helpful, I've checked the catalogue numbers. The 9 foot sleepers in the NewTrack range come in 45 ft panels and are catalogue number 4NTPL18. The 8'6" sleepers are 4NTPL24 and 4NTPL26.

Thanks very much Chris for the extra information. That's not apparent from the online catalogue.

I'll have a good look at them when I'm next at an exhibition with the Exactoscale stand. The panel length/sleeper spacing won't suit my prototype or period, but I'll have a think about whether they are an easier way after cutting and shutting to correct that compared to building track sleeper by sleeper.

I don't suppose you can recall whether they were two-, three- or four- bolt chairs?

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

Well, I've just booked myself on the Missenden Modellers Weekend. That's 11-13 March 2011, in deepest Buckinghamshire.

Now I really *must* get on and finish the Y14, as I started it at last year's course, and it's going to be so embarassing if I'm *still* working on it

To the workbench (after dinner and a glass of red wine, that is)!

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

To the workbench (after dinner and a glass of red wine, that is)!

So, to make a start on the fine detail of the locomotive. The picture below shows my initial stage:

Y14 detailing 009.jpg

Thanks to Adrian Marks of the GERS, I have photos of the left and right sides of sequential locomotives from my intended production (1899) batch of the Y14. They are also in roughly the correct period. You'll see that I've printed them off at A4 size. I've then ringed each detail that I can see on the locomotive and that isn't already on the model.

Some of these fittings already come with the Alan Gibson kit. Some I will have to make from scratch. And so to the soldering iron...

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

Making progress is great when you put your mind to it. For once, I had an evening with very little in commitments to do anything. We were staying in to wait for a friend who is coming up from Bristol for the weekend, so I retired to my modelling desk to get started on what was initially quite a daunting set of details that I'd identified.

The kit instructions are generally quite vague at this point, and there is only a single exploded diagram of the locomotive that shows *everything* that is in the kit, regardless of period or option. Points that I came across on the way, and that I include for the education/amusement/despair of you, gentle reader, include:

- The Westinghouse pump mounting bracket does not have an identifiable location to fit to the kit. It isn't visible on the instructions, nor any of my photos. Logically really, as it's hidden behind the pump itself. So I concluded that it can only go behind the lower part of the pump, as to be behind the upper would interfere with the reversing rod.

- Getting the lower ends of the pipes from the clack valves and the Westinghouse pump fixed firmly to the footplate promised to be problematic, as I didn't want to leave a visible gap at the end of them. I solved this by flooding a blob of low melt solder onto the footplate, then fixing the pipe into this. I could then use the tip of a scalpel and some needlefiles to pare back the excess solder until only a pipe-width remained.

- Most of us have an excess of different solders in our tool kit - USE THEM! Last night I used four different types. These are all from Carrs/C&L (no connection, just good quality stuff) and were 188 solder paint, 179, 145 and 70 degree. Use each in its proper place and the job is so much easier.

- Details of what I believe are the sandbox operating linkages are not included in the kit. I made these up from a couple of spare AG short handrail knobs and some 0.45mm straight wire. They curve under the boiler, where it appears that the operating linkages to the cab run on the prototype. I think that they are an extra detail that is rather quite convincing.

- Bending the front curve of a handrail is an absolute sod! I've always struggled to get this even on any loco that I've built (not that there have ever been more than <counts on fingers> three of them before this), and of the correct radius. This one isn't perfect, but it's not too bad, and I seem to have got the "elbows" to bring the length of wire back down the boiler side in roughly the right places. I did it with a series of very small wreaks in AG straight wire using snipe nosed pliers. If anyone has any other tips or methods that they can share, I'd very much appreciate it.

So what is the result of all this labour? Here are a couple of (slightly blurry, as they were shot using the grey natural light this morning) pictures of it:

Y14 details 002.jpg

Y14 details 003.jpg

There are still a few more external details, such as pipe runs and hinges, to be fitted, but it's starting to look much less clean-lined than before, but is a workmanlike, good way. Maybe some more to be done this evening, but in the meantime it's Christmas shopping!

Flymo

[grovenor-2685]

That's not apparent from the online catalogue.

True, Andrew is a bit minimalist with his design but the detail is there if you click on the pdf symbol, gives the spacing as well.
http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/drawings/4NT%20PL18.pdf

I don't suppose you can recall whether they were two-, three- or four- bolt chairs?

These are just sleepers, you have to get the seperate chairs so can choose any from the list.

The Y14 is coming along a treat, I hope the apparent angle of the chimney is just an optical illusion.
Regards
Keith

[Paul Willis]

True, Andrew is a bit minimalist with his design but the detail is there if you click on the pdf symbol, gives the spacing as well.
http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/drawings/4NT%20PL18.pdf

I don't suppose you can recall whether they were two-, three- or four- bolt chairs?

These are just sleepers, you have to get the seperate chairs so can choose any from the list.

Thanks Keith. I hadn't realised that there were, so to speak, "technical diagrams" lurking behind the pdfs, and that would give much more detail. As they were described in the listing as "panels" then I assumed that they were just a variant on the trackbase panels that you just slip the rail into. I did wonder why they were different to the FastTrack bases listed just underneath them!

In effect, they are a shortcut to sellotaping the sleepers down to a plain track template. Looking at it on screen, the pdf shows that they have the prototypically closer spacing at the ends of the panel as well, so if they fit your chosen prototype they would undoubtedly be a time-saver.

The Y14 is coming along a treat, I hope the apparent angle of the chimney is just an optical illusion.

It is. Not helped by the fact that the picture was taken at close range on my compact Ixus, and that the chimney itself is the original GER "flowerpot" style that has quite a taper on it.

The chimney itself seems to be upright from all angles. The dome behind it is slightly listing to port, unfortunately, but that is thankfully less noticeable. Both fittings were rather a challenge to get securely fastened due to the large amount of heat that was needed to get into the lumps of metal. The chimney was done by using the RSU, which was a revelation in being able to hold the part in place and then really zap it with enough power to fix it.

Thanks for the comment. I'm feeling rather pleased with it myself. As we have a very snowy lane outside the house, I may carry on with the chassis today, before returning to the final body detailing later.

Flymo