Gricer

By coincidence Simon Kohler – ex-Hornby senior manager – has written about catalogues in Railway Modeller this month (dated Feb 2024). Hornby used to sell over 50.000 catalogues each year and priced it at “break even” to cover production costs. It paid for itself and provided advertising and marketing of their products. Nowadays it sells far less, as people look on-line at what is available and at real time stock levels. Is there a point where it simply becomes too expensive to produce? One solution may be to issue annual or quarterly updates and have them published as a free extra supplement with railway magazines.

The magazine quotes the subject as Eryri National Park in Snowdonia – and that the Ffestiniog Railway runs nearby. However I am sure that it could be used almost anywhere that requires a generic British rural background.

The recently issued Railway Modeller free back sheets (Jan 24 ed.) are about 27cm plus a 2cm edge. My own backboards are approx. 12 inches as years ago I bought cheap hardboard sheets of 8ft by 4 foot and used the shop's free cutting service to cut each into four strips. I also painted the walls above in a light blue to reflect more light and make the sky appear to go further above the boards.

Just a quick update - the Railway Modeller for Jan 2024 (actually on sale now) has another two-part backscene. This time it is of North Wales. Now I just need to work out where to put it! Happy Christmas & New Year to you all - and particular thanks to all who have answered so many questions and provided so much information again in 2023.

I have been replacing my older plastic and metal tyre versions as they deteriorate and I have often used the Hornby R8097 metal disc wheels. They are 12.6mm diameter and come in a pack of 12 axels. Other makes are available, of course.

When I asked the question above on whether the little-but-often or the continuous long running was better for engines I had almost expected someone to immediately say “How long is a piece of string?” But as usual the forum has come up with some useful analysis and comments. Many thanks. Threelink - I did have a quick look at my engines as I have some purchased in the mid-1970s when I first started my layout. My earliest Hornby Hall and 57xx tank locos can still run (but with an occasional push) while my Airfix 14xx tank can run perfectly, as does Hornby’s Lord of the Isles (but with its ancient pick-ups not across any of my points). I doubt that I have any working electrical kit in the house from the 1970/80s, but many of us are still appear to able to happily run engines that were bought many years ago.

I have plenty of rolling stock and so I have the advantage that I can run to a busy Summer or reduced Winter service timetable. Trains will usually do two or three circuits as a timetabled train before stopping at a platform or in a siding. Often they can return as a different scheduled service later. This means that over a running session I have engines that are often in use but not for long periods. I do sometimes just let trains run round but even then I would not expect to run the same train for up to 40 minutes. At one time there used to be people setting “world records” for the longest continually running engine or train. Often at model trade events or in model shops. Good publicity but not really transferable to most modellers who are more interested in having running sessions over many years. However it raises a question. Has anyone done any research on whether the little-but-often or the continuous long running is more detrimental to the engine’s long-term life?

Last year a friend picked up an old Hornby loco for me at a boot fair. When I tried it out I just got buzzing. I visually checked running gear for possible locking and retried it several times. Just buzzing. I finally opened it up and found that it had been converted and contained a chip. Not good on my analogue layout. Perhaps someone had done the same to your second hand Flying Scotsman?

I have had an annual subscription to the magazine for many years. There have been just the two back-scenes (2021/2022). However I think that they did issue something similar some years ago and perhaps there will be another to look forward to next year? Of course most of these magazines do issue extra gifts to encourage readers to purchase them. These have also included DVDs, pull-out reviews, calendars and “How to…..” booklets. I always keep an eye out on the magazine shelves and will occasionally buy them if they are of interest to me.

If you are 100% certain that this is the ultimate track design for you to use for the future then, of course, you can ballast and also drill and fit signals. Ballasting can be a lot easier when there are no obstacles in the way. However I have often found that I have wanted to make changes to the layout once I have actually started to run the trains. Sometimes just minor track adjustments that simply weren’t obvious in the planning or trial running of a few engines. So to avoid wasting time and energy having to remove ballast I definitely choose to delay ballasting and have a trial running period for a while. I also place station platforms and freight unloading bays where I think they will go. Railways always had a purpose. Potential roads and fields can be drawn in marker pen or paints and easily changed later. If you already have some buildings add these but be prepared to move them about. All this can help you to see how you want the overall layout to look and finalise things in your mind. So - personally I don’t permanently glue or ballast anything until I have sorted out everything and I am content. But in the end it is what works best for you.

As the separate UK railway companies built up a national network for businesses it would be normal to see their wagons travelling far outside their home bases. However they also realised that there was no profit in continually returning the empty wagons back to their home stations or sidings. As has been said, most private owners did insist upon their immediate return for their own reuse, and some were specifically designed wagons, so the sight of empty wagons was not unusual. But the pooling of most railway-owned wagons to reduce the running of empty trains to a minimum meant that many wagons were reused and returned with a profitable load. During the second world war this pooling system became the rule and even the private-owner wagons were treated as part of a single pool. The exceptions were often labelled as “Not Pool” and with instructions on where to return them empty.

Thank you both for your ideas. The lining on the cylinders is BR vertical lines rather than a GWR box and so, with the other differences, I am now sure that it was originally a Hornby BR model. It does have sprung buffers but no front coupling is now fitted. The tender has push-fit couplings and sprung buffers. I suspect that you are right to assume that it must have been paired from a County or Castle. So it’s obviously not the Hornby King Richard I model (R292) and I do not think that Hornby issued a BR King with the Red Dragon smoke box banner. It must be one of the other models that you suggested above. I will do some internet surfing to see if I can narrow it down a bit more. However I suspect that this is as close as I will ever get to discovering its true origins. It’s a good runner and doesn’t look too out of place. I may look to replace the body with a genuine GWR King at some time. Gricer

I was recently given a second hand unboxed Hornby GWR King Richard I 6027 by a friend who had spotted it at a boot fair. I have now looked at it properly. I had wrongly assumed it was R292 made 1988/90 but it is engine drive. My Hornby Henry VII R2119 is tender drive. There is a Hornby logo but no identification number on the model. I have several other concerns. First that it has a double chimney (not fitted until long after GWR in 1956) and a “Red Dragon” banner on the smoke box (Western Region invention in 1950). The "King Richard I" and cab side "6027" look to be added etched plates. There is also (as per BR) a 6027 on the smoke box and not painted on the buffer beam. The tender logo is an unusual G-coat of arms-W. In fact the tender is not the Collett hipped design of my Henry VII and Lima King George VI. It has an oval water filler rather than round and it is flat sided and is nothing like any other tender in my large collection. Looking in my books it's more like a Hawksworth design(?). I assume that I have been given someone’s DIY job. It’s a good runner so I would like to make use of it. But, my friends, do you have any thoughts on what I may actually have?

Why not just fit a set of buffers to the end of the track inside the shed? If you misjudge the manoeuvre the engine should just literally stop against the buffers and not damage the engine shed. If you have no room to add buffers then another way is to paint (approx) the final inch of the track. This will insulate it from the power and ensure that engines stop short of the back wall of the shed. However, once stopped, depending on the engine pickups you may need to nudge it before it picks up power to reverse out of the shed. But this will at least ensure that you don’t end up damaging the shed itself. The buffers are prototypical and shouldn’t take up much extra room.

I have just looked at my Airfix Prairie 6110 and it also has just the one traction tyre wheel on the last of the coupled wheels. I bought it new and the rubber tyre is still in place! My other Airfix engine is 1466 and was also bought new and has just one traction tyre wheel (middle coupled wheel). This rubber tyre went missing in action some years ago but it does not have much impact on its pulling power. It appears that it was standard practice for Airfix to have just the one traction tyre wheel on their models.