Circloy

Not so - check out the website, not as much progress as the 'other lot' but not a commercial organisation either. The Darlington organisation are only building a look alike much modification of the design is/has taken place. Personally I believe both, along with other re-builds & replica's, are extracting funds needed to preserve the real railway herritage. @albergman Apologies I'm a bit late to the party you might need to revisit the chimney. In plan form they were more an elongated tear drop shape tapering at the rear, have a look at models of the A4 to see what I mean. You might be able to physically re-shape the one you have already printed left square ended you'll have fit issues. A4 single chimney Good work so far.

Not specifically 500.. series errors but I've noticed recently a spate of unsecure warning triangles in the address bar refreshing the page(s) seems to resolve the issue any chance it's related?

News reporters around the world are dreading going on the air now that the new Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch COVID 19 variant has been identified in Wales... (above nicked from another site - too good to miss) Wonder if Paul Harcastle has suffered from Covid N-n-n-n-nineteen, nineteen Thinking on this could run and run and run, just like my nose after the second jab

The photo's do indeed show the two boom variant. the three boom variant being more common. Mike Conniford's booklet on the QL shows a photo of these being converted from the earlier boomless versions. Bedford supplied only the chasis cab (QLC) with the tanks being fitted by outside contractors, e.g. Butterfields of Shipley. Early models had a 1000 gal tank whilst later ones a 950 gal tank. The two boom variant was fuel only whilst the three boom variant, as @Andrew Jones said was for fuel & oil. In the later case the tank was divided into two compartments 850 gal for fuel & 100 gal for oil. This would need different piping arrangements, it is possible the piping runs for the fuel from main tank take off to the fuelling arms would be substantially the same whist an 'extra' run would cater for the oil which, presumably, used the central boom and would also require a third pump in either the rear or side compartments. The additional oil tank would need some form of access for filling so tank top arrangements most likely differ. Looks like I need to do more research for my conversion of the Accurate Armour 1/48th model (3 boom- 2 boom) either that or scratch build the missing parts for the third arm.

Doesn't this link break this rule?

Carpet monster needs some reading matter

He can't do that 'cause he never ordered for Hannants

Even so Hannants are only legally responsible to emodels who in turn are legally responsible to you.

Hannants have no direct obligations to you, you need to direct yor complaint through emodels. I don't know the specifics of Kittyhawk supplies in the UK but there could be more than Hannants importing & distributing items, so your kit may not have come from Hannants. Even if they were the sole authorised UK distributor in this day and age there's alway what's termed 'grey' imports. The only way Hannants can be sure if they are fulfilling their legal obligations is if they receive, & respond to, complaints through the supply chain. As Blecky appears to have bought direct his is with Hannants or as he suggested his credit card company.

08 corrected (humble ) If my memory serves I'd heard that when the moulds turned up at Dapol and an inventory was taken there were more than had been expected. The moulds for the items Airfix had been issuing were obviously there but there were some that Airfix had never used, they'd never looked in detail at what they'd received from Kitmaster. A lot were in poor condition and obviously of no further use whilst others were tested with the thought that one last run might be achievable, of these only the Deltic was of further use hence it's re-appearance after 20+ years. I doubt if Airfix would have been interested in re-issuing the European / American items themselves and these were the wrong scale to be of interest to any of the European kit producers so maybe sat unloved in a warehouse or were scrapped without ceremony. The missing gems were the MK1 coaches, it took Tri-ang a good 10 - 15 years to produce anything close and of course the Blue Pullman.

O gauge in the UK, and I believe Europe, is 7mm to 12" which equates to 1:43.5, In the US it's 1:48 so at 1:45 sits between the two and wouldn't look out of scale against either. The full list of UK OO gauge loco's produced by Kitmaster K, Airfix A or Dapol D loco's is as follows: Pre 1948 Rocket - KAD (Suitable for Rocket only at the Rainhill Trials, modified prior to the Liverpool & Manchester railway opening 1 year later, also suits various replica's built over the years) GWR Prairie - KAD GWR City of Truro - KAD SR Schools Class - KAD SR Battle of Britain/Biggin Hill - KAD LYR 0-4-0 Saddle Tank - KAD J94 0-6-0 Saddle Tank - KA - Built for the War department but also used by the LNER & BR also private industrial railways (e.g. NCB, British Steel) LMS Coronation Class Pacific - K GNR Sterling Single - K LMS Beyer Garrett - K Post 1948 i.e. BR ONLY English Electric Diesel shunter (Class 08) - K - Based on a LMS design, many still exist post de-nationalisation Deltic Prototype - K Evening star - KAD BR Mogul - KAD Blue Pullman - K Drewery 0-6-0 shunter (Class 03) - AD - Similar designs were used by private industrial railways Railbus - AD

Add to that if it has to fit into an existing turret design, then the physical location of the mount, loading systems, targeting systems etc would result in a weapon that would be a virtual duplication of the main gun already fitted. There's no need to waste time & money on re-inventing the wheel, it does the job needed and does it well.

Whilst the pictoral suplements are very good for detail/variant photographs It's the corresponding Profile book that contains any drawings. Because of the many variants of the LMS black 5 it was covered by three profile books (LMS loco profile no 5, no 6 & no 7) and two profile books one each to No 5 & no 6. Suspect @bootneck may be interested in these STD 5 /5MT STD 5 - 5MT LMS BLACK5

But that's only a licensed version of a Fiat who must ultimately own the rights and require the fee

Take control of what's put in your face with Fluffbusting purity https://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity/

PMMS now have a facebook presence - not a patch on the old site though https://www.facebook.com/PMMS.42/

Was reading about the Soham railway disaster of ww2 where, upon spotting that the first wagon of their train was on fire, the train crew stopped their ammunition train outside town, detatched the burning wagon and were proceding to take it to safety when the 5 ton load of 250 & 500 lb bombs destined for the USAF exploded with major damage to the station and loss of lives. Had they not done so it was possible that the whole train could have exploded with a consequential increase in casualties and damage. The official report is interesting reading, the train was loaded at Immingham docks & the names of the loaders is mentioned, none of them, even the supervisors, are given a rank which make me believe these were civvies. The train destined for Ipswich (i'm presuming operating district not town as White Colne is mentioned) was split en-route, again by railway staff. If the train went direct into the dump unloading would have been by the RAF/USAF using military equipment, if unloaded in the local station's goods yard the railway's staff & equipment would be at the heart of getting the loads from the train onto the trucks (USAF) & off the railway. The report also gives details of the make up of the train with respect to types of wagon's included, and the type of load each carried. https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Soham1944.pdf

The airfix coles crane would be a good choice USAF Coles https://www.flickr.com/photos/usani4245/14205637774 or you could use it as the basis for a yard crane, rather than truck mounted link link 2

or a long long time ago..

As you've contributed absolutley nothing to answering the original question you won't be missed.

That's down to the fact cyclists are difficult to trace not having to have licence plates. Rather have them wear bright coloured lycra than the camouflague colours they seem to go for currently - try seeing cyclists imitating the Sky cycling team (all black clothing) in the dead of night on unlight country roads. A single cycles bad enough - but a whole club without a brain cell between them. If the Government serious about eco travel it's got to review the laws.

Very familiar with gear & gearbox design, the figures you quote are well outside the mark, mesh on the above gears is +/-0.05mm & this is required to maintain efficiency, reduce noise & minimise wear. Wiggle room is 1950's toy territory. The gearbox above runs like a Rolex watch because of this & I'll not tolerate anything less than well oiled machine. Rough & ready as befits your design is not an option. Back to the subject of the original question, can anyone advise about the strength & stability of parts made from UV resin, or know where such information can be obtained?

thanks @Schwarz-Brot Without doubt machining from solid brass is the best option however I don't have access to a multi axis cnc macchine which would be required for the precision gear mesh & if i could find someone to do a one off I suspect the price would be prohibitive. Brass bearings/bushings are a given & mentioned in my op above. I'm also sure filament printing would not be able to give the precision required to correctly mesh the gears. I do have a 3D uv printer though so thought I'd ask in case anyone had any similar experience or knew where to find data.

Thought the second picture would help

I've recently purchased an 'O' gauge etched brass/whitemetal kit of this magnificent beast which when built will measure just over 2 foot (610 mm) in length. It will be built to run, which means two motorgearbox units. The problem is that whilst the chassis are identical the tanks above them are different and contain a LOT of open space making selection difficult. I have two identical units set aside which whilst I can fit them will require part of that open space to be invaded something I'm keen on avoiding. I'm wondering if by 3d printing bespoke designs, one for each end, if I can hide them. Motor & gear selection is no problem - I acquired a commercial quantity of surplus NOS. The basic design criterea is that the gears (helical) would run on steel shafts in brass bearings - so no rotating metal parts against resin to minimise both wear & friction, gears would run between two sides each 3 to 3.5 mm thick, 12 mm deep & around 20 mm long - similar to this: What I'm wondering is would a 3D printed (UV resin) gearbox be 'solid' enough not to flex when under load, stable dimensionally over time and resistant to (plastic friendly) lubricants.