Quote from: elmo on November 08, 2026, 07:01:22 AM

Quote from: PLD on November 05, 2026, 09:58:44 PM

Quote from: trkilliman on November 05, 2026, 07:18:54 PMDapol have dropped their controversial cardan shaft. ... ... ... (I wonder who was responsible for the cardan shaft at Dapol?)

Quote from: trkilliman on November 05, 2026, 07:18:54 PMI paid two deposits with D.J. for Kings.

The very same DJ was Product Designer at Dapol through most of that period...
It was amusing that as soon as he parted ways with dapol, some of his most vocal supporters slated the very designs he was responsible for!

Theres nothing inherently wrong with the principle of the motor in the tender with a cardan shaft driving the loco wheels - it's the flavoured layout for 2mm finescale locos; just that to make it so locos would go around train-set corners, Dapols design had to have sufficient 'slop' in it that with rough handling the shafts were liable to pop out of the sockets.

At a toy fair a few years ago I saw an o gauge Merchant Navy running  a train of Pullmans using a cardan shaft. It is not than many years ago in the big scheme of things that the smallest motor available did not fit a locomotive body but could be squeezed into the tender. I do not personally mind tender motors or tender drive so long as the locomotives wheels are free to run. My first n gauge locomotive was the Lima 4F tender drive. People without model railway knowledge never knew the tender was doing the work until I pointed it out to them.

I think the first motor in tender with shaft drive into loco was the Arnold P4, 4-4-0 . I had one, about 40 years ago .

Quote from: PLD on November 05, 2026, 09:58:44 PM

Quote from: trkilliman on November 05, 2026, 07:18:54 PMDapol have dropped their controversial cardan shaft. ... ... ... (I wonder who was responsible for the cardan shaft at Dapol?)

Quote from: trkilliman on November 05, 2026, 07:18:54 PMI paid two deposits with D.J. for Kings.

The very same DJ was Product Designer at Dapol through most of that period...
It was amusing that as soon as he parted ways with dapol, some of his most vocal supporters slated the very designs he was responsible for!

Theres nothing inherently wrong with the principle of the motor in the tender with a cardan shaft driving the loco wheels - it's the flavoured layout for 2mm finescale locos; just that to make it so locos would go around train-set corners, Dapols design had to have sufficient 'slop' in it that with rough handling the shafts were liable to pop out of the sockets.

At a toy fair a few years ago I saw an o gauge Merchant Navy running  a train of Pullmans using a cardan shaft. It is not than many years ago in the big scheme of things that the smallest motor available did not fit a locomotive body but could be squeezed into the tender. I do not personally mind tender motors or tender drive so long as the locomotives wheels are free to run. My first n gauge locomotive was the Lima 4F tender drive. People without model railway knowledge never knew the tender was doing the work until I pointed it out to them.

Having had success with the exchange of bodies, I've just ordered a pristine body* for my weathered class 25 and a blue one for one of my class 24s.

Quote from: Newportnobby on November 05, 2026, 02:25:36 PMThe only minor niggle is my blue version now has a red buffer beam as opposed to the 'proper' version's black.

It's a very minor niggle to me and certainly bearable

*something I wish I had

RE the SR N15 and S15 kits, The Langley S15 on the Fleischmann chassis is OK, the BHE N15 using the suggested Black 5 chassis is not, the chassis driving heels are too small a Jubilee or Scot would be closer. For an H15 you need 6' drivers.
Between them the two kits can be hacked to the SR 4-6-0s of classes H15, N15 and S15 (but not the Nelson) for Maunsell versions the cab roof is he main change, Smoke deflectors were not fitted from new on the Urie versions until after grouping AFAIK.

@PLD and @Roy L S . Thanks for the corrections to my post. I wasn't into steam at the time of Dapol and Ixion bringing out their steam locos so have probably got a bit confused.

Quote from: Dorsetmike on November 06, 2026, 02:11:56 PMto quote StevenB

"There are big passenger locos for the LNER (several!), LMS and SR so I still think it would sell even if in real life it was route restricted. If nothing else, the inside/outside bearing bogie makes it looks somewhat different to any other GWR 4-6-0."

The only SR 4-6-0s are the Langley and BHE white metal kits, the only "big" SR passenger locos available in N gauge are the Bullied  4-6-2s which did not appear until the 1940s, the only "express passenger" loco prior to 1940 modeled in N is the Schools 4-4-0.
At grouping the SR got the 3 classes of 4-6-0 by Urie H15, N15 & S15 plus a few remaining Drummonds, Maunsell continued some of the Urie classes with a few modifications and introduced the Nelson in 1926.
The 3 classes of Urie 4-6-0s were almost identical except for driving wheel diameter, so all 3 classes could use the same basic body and a basic chassis available with 5'7", 6'0" or 6'7" wheels spaced correctly for the class; The same chassis  could probably suit Maunsell versions of the 3 classes, a few minor alterations to body e.g. cabs (mainly roof) 
Having played mix 'n match and hack with the Langley and BHE kits over the years if I can do it why can't a manufacturer with vastly more facilities?

Sad face from me as I am also waiting for Southern 4-6-0

I don't really want to buy any more locomotives, the cost of them just put me off. That being said, i would throw my weight to support the other guys here saying that a 4-6-0 from the southern is well needed. A mixed traffic loco like the S15 perhaps? They did get around a lot on the Britains rail network.

Quote from: Dorsetmike on November 06, 2026, 02:11:56 PMto quote StevenB

"There are big passenger locos for the LNER (several!), LMS and SR so I still think it would sell even if in real life it was route restricted. If nothing else, the inside/outside bearing bogie makes it looks somewhat different to any other GWR 4-6-0."

The only SR 4-6-0s are the Langley and BHE white metal kits, the only "big" SR passenger locos available in N gauge are the Bullied  4-6-2s which did not appear until the 1940s, the only "express passenger" loco prior to 1940 modeled in N is the Schools 4-4-0.
At grouping the SR got the 3 classes of 4-6-0 by Urie H15, N15 & S15 plus a few remaining Drummonds, Maunsell continued some of the Urie classes with a few modifications and introduced the Nelson in 1926.
The 3 classes of Urie 4-6-0s were almost identical except for driving wheel diameter, so all 3 classes could use the same basic body and a basic chassis available with 5'7", 6'0" or 6'7" wheels spaced correctly for the class; The same chassis  could probably suit Maunsell versions of the 3 classes, a few minor alterations to body e.g. cabs (mainly roof) 
Having played mix 'n match and hack with the Langley and BHE kits over the years if I can do it why can't a manufacturer with vastly more facilities?

Please note--Gosport Railworks ( JimSan ) offer 3d printed bodies for several Southern 4-6-0's: although ive yet to do any.

to quote StevenB

"There are big passenger locos for the LNER (several!), LMS and SR so I still think it would sell even if in real life it was route restricted. If nothing else, the inside/outside bearing bogie makes it looks somewhat different to any other GWR 4-6-0."

The only SR 4-6-0s are the Langley and BHE white metal kits, the only "big" SR passenger locos available in N gauge are the Bullied  4-6-2s which did not appear until the 1940s, the only "express passenger" loco prior to 1940 modeled in N is the Schools 4-4-0.
At grouping the SR got the 3 classes of 4-6-0 by Urie H15, N15 & S15 plus a few remaining Drummonds, Maunsell continued some of the Urie classes with a few modifications and introduced the Nelson in 1926.
The 3 classes of Urie 4-6-0s were almost identical except for driving wheel diameter, so all 3 classes could use the same basic body and a basic chassis available with 5'7", 6'0" or 6'7" wheels spaced correctly for the class; The same chassis  could probably suit Maunsell versions of the 3 classes, a few minor alterations to body e.g. cabs (mainly roof) 
Having played mix 'n match and hack with the Langley and BHE kits over the years if I can do it why can't a manufacturer with vastly more facilities?

Quote from: Steven B on November 06, 2026, 09:24:32 AM

Quote from: Suffolk Rob on November 04, 2026, 12:43:11 PMLittle surprised to see another 2 150s, been a fair few farish DMUs in bargin bins for a while now.

Maybe, but now Central and Great Western modellers get a chance to buy one.

It's an interesting problem of privatisation. A green, blue or blue/grey DMU doesn't look out of place anywhere (particularly if you can't read the destination boards!). A Transport for Wales unit in Birmingham on the otherhand looks odd.

I'd happy have another class 158 (of which there are plenty left), but it'd have to be in West Yorkshire red and cream rather than Scotrail which leaves the stock on the shelves.

Transport for Wales runs through Birmingham New Street to Birmingham International currently with class 158's but occasionally class 150 or class 153 stock.

Chris