Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

Back on the diesel discussion for a minute .... I came across this documentary a while ago - The Golden Age of British Rail by BBC Timeshift - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2tv1uj

 

If any are familiar with it, I wondered what thoughts people might have about some of the assertions etc.

[teaky]

Back on the diesel discussion for a minute .... I came across this documentary a while ago - The Golden Age of British Rail by BBC Timeshift - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2tv1uj

 

If any are familiar with it, I wondered what thoughts people might have about some of the assertions etc.

Also on TV recently and available via BBC iPlayer if anyone prefers to watch it on a larger screen.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b053pxdr/timeshift-series-14-5-the-nations-railway-the-golden-age-of-british-rail

[Clive Mortimore]

Back on the diesel discussion for a minute .... I came across this documentary a while ago - The Golden Age of British Rail by BBC Timeshift - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2tv1uj

 

If any are familiar with it, I wondered what thoughts people might have about some of the assertions etc.

Hi Tim

 

I think the film sums up BR. The HST is the pinnacle of how good BR was in the 70s and 80s,  who would have thought a stop gap would be still in front line service 40 years later.

[Lecorbusier]

Hi Tim

 

I think the film sums up BR. The HST is the pinnacle of how good BR was in the 70s and 80s,  who would have thought a stop gap would be still in front line service 40 years later.

I was fascinated to hear it stated that BR was very efficient by comparison with other systems and cutting edge .... not how it was presented in the media during the 80s? I have also read elsewhere that there was a policy to keep the stations and public facing aspects as dowdy as possible by starving this aspect of funds so as to pave the way politically for privatisation whilst making the rest of the system as attractive as possible for the bidders - I've no idea if there is any truth in this assertion. Its always difficult to work out what is fact, what is opinion and what amounts to spin .... hey ho 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[AndyID]

Interesting how the location photo foreshortens so much more than the model photo .... I wonder why?

 

 

Perhaps because the camera was only about four feet above the rails in the location shot but much higher (to scale) in Tony's shot? Might it be possible to replicate the original on the model with a mirror?

[Tony Wright]

You could probably call it

 

Poor driver, Unlucky, etc etc 

 

As to Hornby the reason is plastic drivers , if you overload beyond the design limits (no idea what Hornby consider a normal load, if they even know themselves) something will always give.

 

I see no reason why r.t.r should be expected to pull prototypical loads, they aren't sold or advertised as being capable of such a loading and never will be.There is not the demand from the vast majority of buyers for such capabilities.

You're probably right, Mick.

 

I recall reviewing the Bachmann A1 when it first came out. Having the 'luxury' of a layout at the time (Stoke Summit), where scale-length, prototypical trains could be run, I thought 'why not?', and put it on the 12-car 'Northumbrian', made mostly from metal kits. It seemed to start reasonably well, but then came to a halt after a couple of circuits. It was struggling a bit, but 12-car trains (and more) were staple fayre for a prototype A1. I investigated: it had got extremely hot. After cooling down, try again, and the same thing. On lighter trains (not that there were many) it did better, but still, after some running, performance fell away. 

 

The company was not too happy with my comments, and it was suggested that the A1 was not really designed to haul 'real' trains. As it was (and was this my fault?), the whole initial batch was recalled because the motors were failing all over the place. Though the replacement motors (Mashimas) were (are) far superior, the locos still don't have the haulage capacity of a kit-built equivalent. 

 

So, as you allude to, anyone buying an RTR locomotive (especially steam-outline) in OO should not expect it to pull the heaviest loads hauled by its prototype, especially if the carriages in those loads are not lightweight RTR. 

 

Which, as usual, brings us to where we've been before. If one wishes to model a scale-length (well, almost) section of a Class One main line in steam days, then RTR locos, in the main, are pretty useless (or is that too extreme?). There's no doubt that (some of) Grantham's RTR Pacifics have the capability of taking scale-length trains (many built from kits), but the consistency is extremely patchy. How long they'll last is, of course, a pertinent question. My oldest big loco, still in my possession, is a Jamieson hand-cut A2/1, which I built well over 40 years ago. After countless 'miles' on Fordley Park, Leighford, Gamston Bank (as a guest loco) Biggleswade (as a guest loco), Stoke Summit and now Little Bytham, it's still going strong and still can take the heaviest trains. Its motor (a Jepson) is still running well, and nothing (as yet!) has worn out. I state this, not to boast, but as a comparison with RTR locos over the same period. Split chassis horrors have done just that - split, and more recent ones are incredibly flimsy and fragile. This is not anecdotal evidence; it's empirical, from four years now of my loco-doctoring  at shows. I'm astonished at the percentage of new (steam-outline) locos, from all the major manufacturer, which I've had to attempt to fix. Problems include driving wheels shifting on axles, gear wheels splitting, pick-ups not picking-up, motors failing and valve gear all mangled. Can I fix them? Some hopes, when I can't even work out how to get the bodies off! 

 

In conclusion (and I've concluded this before), though RTR locos of the last few years might look very pretty and accurate, don't expect a long-term performance from them. Peterborough North's split-chassis stud is nearing the end of its life (too short, in my opinion) and I'll probably end up building several etched replacements. 

 

Me? I'm 'all right Jack'. I make my own, and, thus, are solely responsible for how they run, and how long they'll run for. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Perhaps because the camera was only about four feet above the rails in the location shot but much higher (to scale) in Tony's shot? Might it be possible to replicate the original on the model with a mirror?

It might be, Andy,

 

Then reversing the image on the computer. 

 

The camera I used is a DSLR, Nikon Df. Though 'small' in comparison with my D3, it's still huge compared to the compact digital cameras many folk use these days (which I cannot get on with). 

 

Then one asks, why bother to use a mirror? I'm not being argumentative, but, even though the perspectives in the two shots are not (and cannot) be the same, I think the model shot is a good enough 'test' of the ability of the team which has built LB as to whether its succeeded in capturing 'realism'. 

 

The gauge is too narrow, that right-hand signal isn't an exact replica, the platform surface isn't falling to bits (as it should be), my point rodding might not all be in the right place and there's no mistaking it's only a model. However, I think (I hope) the team's efforts have been vindicated, and it couldn't be a model of anywhere else. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I really couldn't agree more. I do hope the article includes those two images. They really could not epitomise any more what an exceptional example your layout is of the model mirroring the prototype. That's even after there has been some selective compression, in my humble opinion of course.

Thanks Archie,

 

I intend to use these two pictures in the article. I've taken more real/model comparisons for the piece as well, though, for obvious reasons, I won't be posting them here. 

 

There has been selective compression on the main line (14 inches out of an overall 32'), but that's at the north end, where it's more easily disguised. 

 

And, though it might seem repetitious, even though LB is my property (making it mine), I certainly cannot claim 'ownership' of all the work that's gone into it. If it is an 'exceptional example' (of a layout), that's down to the skills I've had at my disposal among the team members who built it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

This argument about RTR versus kit built is almost irrelevant to me as a 7mm modeller.  There are some RTR locos about but few and far between so most of the locos that we run are kit built and usually have quite a bit of weight in them.   I haven't yet found the limit of what my first working kit built loco can pull, a 3F from a modified George Norton kit, but it could easily handle a 22 wagon freight on Long Preston.  22 was the most that we ran though when we were testing we did run some at 35 wagons.  The wagons were kit built from a  mixture of white metal and plastic kits with an average weight of over 4 ozs.  22 was the limit we chose on aesthetic grounds so that we could see the train in the landscape.  Brass coaches from the likes of PC and Janick often weigh in at well over a pound  and my compound can handle 7 of them with ease.  On Green Ayre as the fiddle yard is shorter freights tend to be about 18 wagons and passenger trains of 6 or 7 max.    

 

However I do have a few RTR examples from over the pond.  The market is different over there and this little thing appeared this year. 

I think it weighs about 15 lbs and I dread to think what it's haulage capacity is.   I can't actually run it anywhere apart from the fiddle yard. The hole in Ingleborough where it goes through the backscene is to small.   However Rule 1 applies and perhaps I may be granted planning permission for an extension into to the garden.

 

Jamie

Edited August 16, 2018 by jamie92208

[Lecorbusier]

It might be, Andy,

 

Then reversing the image on the computer. 

 

The camera I used is a DSLR, Nikon Df. Though 'small' in comparison with my D3, it's still huge compared to the compact digital cameras many folk use these days (which I cannot get on with). 

 

Then one asks, why bother to use a mirror? I'm not being argumentative, but, even though the perspectives in the two shots are not (and cannot) be the same, I think the model shot is a good enough 'test' of the ability of the team which has built LB as to whether its succeeded in capturing 'realism'. 

 

The gauge is too narrow, that right-hand signal isn't an exact replica, the platform surface isn't falling to bits (as it should be), my point rodding might not all be in the right place and there's no mistaking it's only a model. However, I think (I hope) the team's efforts have been vindicated, and it couldn't be a model of anywhere else. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

My comment wasn't intended as a criticism, I was simply curious as to whether there might be a technique to increase foreshortening and so increase the drama/dynamism. I vaguely wondered if one used a telephoto lens from a greater distance if the foreshortening might be increased. I loved the way the track lead you into the picture in the BR shot.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Headstock]

O gauge is a whole different ball game, I have never opened up the Deltic (featured in post 27002) to full throttle out of a genuine fear that it would take off. After spending a while building some carriages in O gauge, coming back to 4mm was a real shock to the system, my hands were far too big and everything seemed so weak and delicate, it took a little while to adjust.

[Lecorbusier]

This argument about RTR versus kit built is almost irrelevant to me as a 7mm modeller.  There are some RTR locos about but few and far between so most of the locos that we run are kit built and usually have quite a bit of weight in them.   I haven't yet found the limit of what my first working kit built loco can pull, a 3F from a modified George Norton kit, but it could easily handle a 22 wagon freight on Long Preston.  22 was the most that we ran though when we were testing we did run some at 35 wagons.  The wagons were kit built from a  mixture of white metal and plastic kits with an average weight of over 4 ozs.  22 was the limit we chose on aesthetic grounds so that we could see the train in the landscape.  Brass coaches from the likes of PC and Janick often weigh in at well over a pound  and my compound can handle 7 of them with ease.  On Green Ayre as the fiddle yard is shorter freights tend to be about 18 wagons and passenger trains of 6 or 7 max.    

 

However I do have a few RTR examples from over the pond.  The market is different over there and this little thing appeared this year. 

P7173483.JPG

I think it weighs about 15 lbs and I dread to think what it's haulage capacity is.   I can't actually run it anywhere apart from the fiddle yard. The hole in Ingleborough where it goes through the backscene is to small.   However Rule 1 applies and perhaps I may be granted planning permission for an extension into to the garden.

 

Jamie

What a great railway room .... am green with envy.

[AndyID]

It might be, Andy,

 

Then reversing the image on the computer. 

 

The camera I used is a DSLR, Nikon Df. Though 'small' in comparison with my D3, it's still huge compared to the compact digital cameras many folk use these days (which I cannot get on with). 

 

 

Thanks Tony.

 

I might try it sometime just to see how it works out with my Nikon Coolpix P600 compact. (I see "mirrorless" is all the rage these days. Wonder what will they come up with next? )

 

Regards.

Andy

[micklner]

You're probably right, Mick.

 

I recall reviewing the Bachmann A1 when it first came out. Having the 'luxury' of a layout at the time (Stoke Summit), where scale-length, prototypical trains could be run, I thought 'why not?', and put it on the 12-car 'Northumbrian', made mostly from metal kits. It seemed to start reasonably well, but then came to a halt after a couple of circuits. It was struggling a bit, but 12-car trains (and more) were staple fayre for a prototype A1. I investigated: it had got extremely hot. After cooling down, try again, and the same thing. On lighter trains (not that there were many) it did better, but still, after some running, performance fell away. 

 

The company was not too happy with my comments, and it was suggested that the A1 was not really designed to haul 'real' trains. As it was (and was this my fault?), the whole initial batch was recalled because the motors were failing all over the place. Though the replacement motors (Mashimas) were (are) far superior, the locos still don't have the haulage capacity of a kit-built equivalent. 

 

So, as you allude to, anyone buying an RTR locomotive (especially steam-outline) in OO should not expect it to pull the heaviest loads hauled by its prototype, especially if the carriages in those loads are not lightweight RTR. 

 

Which, as usual, brings us to where we've been before. If one wishes to model a scale-length (well, almost) section of a Class One main line in steam days, then RTR locos, in the main, are pretty useless (or is that too extreme?). There's no doubt that (some of) Grantham's RTR Pacifics have the capability of taking scale-length trains (many built from kits), but the consistency is extremely patchy. How long they'll last is, of course, a pertinent question. My oldest big loco, still in my possession, is a Jamieson hand-cut A2/1, which I built well over 40 years ago. After countless 'miles' on Fordley Park, Leighford, Gamston Bank (as a guest loco) Biggleswade (as a guest loco), Stoke Summit and now Little Bytham, it's still going strong and still can take the heaviest trains. Its motor (a Jepson) is still running well, and nothing (as yet!) has worn out. I state this, not to boast, but as a comparison with RTR locos over the same period. Split chassis horrors have done just that - split, and more recent ones are incredibly flimsy and fragile. This is not anecdotal evidence; it's empirical, from four years now of my loco-doctoring  at shows. I'm astonished at the percentage of new (steam-outline) locos, from all the major manufacturer, which I've had to attempt to fix. Problems include driving wheels shifting on axles, gear wheels splitting, pick-ups not picking-up, motors failing and valve gear all mangled. Can I fix them? Some hopes, when I can't even work out how to get the bodies off! 

 

In conclusion (and I've concluded this before), though RTR locos of the last few years might look very pretty and accurate, don't expect a long-term performance from them. Peterborough North's split-chassis stud is nearing the end of its life (too short, in my opinion) and I'll probably end up building several etched replacements. 

 

Me? I'm 'all right Jack'. I make my own, and, thus, are solely responsible for how they run, and how long they'll run for. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony

 

      A1 had duff motors , but I doubt if a 12 car train would have helped much on that problem!!! . Bachmann done well to replace the motors as they did.

 

      As to modern r.t.r Locos ,the companies responded very well to the demand of punters and have produced some superb Locos and other stock as a result. Not many people would buy a Jamieson kit nowdays even if they were available , buyers want far more detail in kits nowadays, I know I do.

 

     The vast majority of the faults you have listed are probably due in the main are caused by the buyer or poor assembly/design, Heljan have had big problems with recent releases of Steam Locos.

 

     Loco doesn't work ?? owner who knows little or nothing about how it works decides to "have a go" result it ends up wrecked !! The one weak link on current r.t.r you have listed is the spilt gear wheel problem. Companies need to upgrade the quality of plastic used. I have never had a motor fail on a r.t.r so far, perhaps I have been very lucky !! Perhaps the makers should put on the instructions don't pick up a Loco by squeezing the valve gear as you lift !!

 

cheers 

 

Mick

Edited August 17, 2018 by micklner

[Tony Wright]

My comment wasn't intended as a criticism, I was simply curious as to whether there might be a technique to increase foreshortening and so increase the drama/dynamism. I vaguely wondered if one used a telephoto lens from a greater distance if the foreshortening might be increased. I loved the way the track lead you into the picture in the BR shot.

I've never taken anything you've posted as a 'criticism', Tim.

 

And, anyway, constructive criticism is something I seek. 

 

When folk post pictures on threads, showing examples of their work, they should expect observations (critical observations) to be made. It's no good expecting and anticipating fawning and swooning, accompanied by a huge list of 'likes', and then be upset by someone pointing out errors or omissions. It's also no good blaming camera 'trickery' for things appearing to be like a banana or made of rubber. 

 

Of course, it can work the other way, where one can see a most-realistic still picture of a layout and think 'Wow!', only to be hugely disappointed when seeing the thing in the flesh, where things stutter, fall off and generally don't work very well at all. There are many examples of this.

 

As for working well, I was hugely impressed by the LNER stuff brought to run on LB over the last fortnight or so. It looked fine in my stills, and, as the forthcoming DVD will show, it looks 'great' in motion. I've put great in speech marks as a qualification. The LNER stock worked superbly, but all the little visual niggles are apparent to the brilliant lens of my new camcorder. These include locos waddling about from side to side (mainly RTR to be fair, because of the greater slop), rakes not riding uniformly (especially with regard to relative ride-height and 'leanings'), wagons wobbling along and some locos making a bit too much of a whirr-whirr as they passed the microphone in the camera. With regard to the awkward ride height and leaning issues, some moving images ended up on the 'cutting room floor' yesterday.  

 

I sat back in smug satisfaction. Then, Jesse and I, after putting back all my 1958 stock, took some moving footage of 'my' trains. Guess what? In the main, the results are the same (apart from fewer locos waddling and more of my rakes riding uniformly). Why? Well, my track isn't as level in places as it should be (cue aghast exclamations!), curves I thought were perfectly aligned (mainly in the fiddle yard) are not and there are far too many 'up & down' spots all over the railway's formation which contribute to waddling, bobbing, rocking and all-too-many unrealistic images of my trains in motion. 

 

Still, it's just OO, so inherent slop is more apparent than in the finer gauges. That said, nothing derailed in front of camera (in both periods), any re-shooting was necessitated by 'artistic' parameters, not because a train fell off, jerked or refused to start when shooting, and a hugely good time was had by all. That, in the final analysis, is the most-important thing. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[rowanj]

 

 

When folk post pictures on threads, showing examples of their work, they should expect observations (critical observations) to be made. It's no good expecting and anticipating fawning and swooning, accompanied by a huge list of 'likes', and then be upset by someone pointing out errors or omissions. It's also no good blaming camera 'trickery' for things appearing to be like a banana or made of rubber. 

 

 

 

The point about criticism of ones' modelling efforts is well made. My posts of my pretty average models have resulted in several helpful ( and occasional unhelpful) observations which have pushed me, not always successfully, towards improvement, and have brought me into contact with a good number of skilled and knowledgeable folk,.Like Tony, I have tried to reflect my appreciation on my thread. Even "likes" however, do show that people do look at them.

 

While on the subject of "criticism", though, I have to say I was surprised, on a thread which seems to praise the virtues of prototype fidelity, to see the aspirations of blue diesels or HST's on LB. Having gone to all the effort to produce a fantastic model in a specific time period, it would seem a shame to alter that perception by running wholly inappropriate stock - an observation which, of course, does not apply to the LNER weekend. Just my opinion- each to their own - and I do see the attraction of seeing ones' favourite trains running in such a superb photogenic location.

 

And finally, (you will be pleased to hear) is it really necessary to repeat the whole of a previous post when replying to it?

 

Grump over  - off to build my Dave Alexander 3900 gallon tender to run behind the DJH D20.

 

John

Edited August 17, 2018 by rowanj

[Lecorbusier]

 

....Then, Jesse and I, after putting back all my 1958 stock, took some moving footage of 'my' trains. Guess what? In the main, the results are the same (apart from fewer locos waddling and more of my rakes riding uniformly). Why? Well, my track isn't as level in places as it should be (cue aghast exclamations!), curves I thought were perfectly aligned (mainly in the fiddle yard) are not and there are far too many 'up & down' spots all over the railway's formation which contribute to waddling, bobbing, rocking and all-too-many unrealistic images of my trains in motion. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I am slightly confused here Tony.

 

I fully understand the wish to get things as right as possible from an engineering standpoint, but I am sure my impression from watching clips in black and white of the real thing showed all the things you describe.

 

Perhaps I am misremembering, but I am sure I have seen many a clip with locos rolling and moving all over the shop (particularly at speed) indeed I recall a ride on the footplate of a king from Railway roundabout where it was bucking like a live thing.

(see 5.40 into the video)

 

Equally I have seen many a coach and or wagon where the ride height was out of true with the rest of the rake. I haven't seen your footage and so have no comparison, but from my perspective the real thing was far from a smooth glide, and the quality of some of the track work was something to behold - meaning quite severe speed restriction were in place.

 

As I say, all gleaned from old footage rather than first hand experience and happy to be corrected if wrong ... just an observation.

[t-b-g]

It is asking a lot to expect a model loco, designed and built/manufactured to go round curves much tighter than the real thing would go round, to run dead true and straight on our layouts. They didn't manage it on the real things.

 

The working tolerances, side play and track/wheel standards just don't lend themselves to it and when you build in things like wheels that don't run exactly true and motors driving coupling rods that exert forces that induce side to side movement, it makes it very tricky to attain.

 

It doesn't stop some of us trying though!

 

There are some things we can sort out, such as bogie mountings on carriages to get them level, or replacing wobbly wheels.

 

There are others that are beyond our control.

Edited August 17, 2018 by t-b-g

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony

 

Sorry to drag the topic back to diesels, more to the point Deltics in plastic card but I found this photo when I was looking for something else. The model was scrapped when I purchased my first Bachmann one. At the time it seem a good idea but now why didn't I finish it? 

Photo by Richard Hall

 

[Tony Wright]

I am slightly confused here Tony.

 

I fully understand the wish to get things as right as possible from an engineering standpoint, but I am sure my impression from watching clips in black and white of the real thing showed all the things you describe.

 

Perhaps I am misremembering, but I am sure I have seen many a clip with locos rolling and moving all over the shop (particularly at speed) indeed I recall a ride on the footplate of a king from Railway roundabout where it was bucking like a live thing.

(see 5.40 into the video)

 

Equally I have seen many a coach and or wagon where the ride height was out of true with the rest of the rake. I haven't seen your footage and so have no comparison, but from my perspective the real thing was far from a smooth glide, and the quality of some of the track work was something to behold - meaning quite severe speed restriction were in place.

 

As I say, all gleaned from old footage rather than first hand experience and happy to be corrected if wrong ... just an observation.

Thanks Tim (repeating your whole post),

 

I recall, particularly, A1s taking the flat crossing at Retford at speed and bucking and weaving as they went. However, I remember the trains they were pulling riding much more consistently, particularly with regard to ride height and how much a carriage (or more) was leaning. The rejected footage showed a couple of trains which appeared to be going up and down, with carriages leaning so much that the ends of adjacent vehicles were exposed way beyond the norm. Not only that, some of the vehicles wobbled so much as to make any miniature passengers very sick! 

 

You're right that, in many cases, the riding of the real things was anything but smooth (witness that Castle at speed on your clip), but the camcorder did pick up riding, the like of which seemed very unrealistic; even on a 'narrow gauge' model railway. 

 

When the footage appears, viewers will make up their own minds. 

 

I'll get the footage of my own stock processed, and put on here. Viewers can then make their own minds up about that as well.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

 

 

While on the subject of "criticism", though, I have to say I was surprised, on a thread which seems to praise the virtues of prototype fidelity, to see the aspirations of blue diesels or HST's on LB. Having gone to all the effort to produce a fantastic model in a specific time period, it would seem a shame to alter that perception by running wholly inappropriate stock - an observation which, of course, does not apply to the LNER weekend. Just my opinion- each to their own - and I do see the attraction of seeing ones' favourite trains running in such a superb photogenic location.

 

I don't think anyone really took seriously the notion of running blue diesels (other than DELTIC) and HSTs on Little Bytham, John. 

 

I certainly didn't.

 

As for electrification - dream on! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

Here's the progress on my Britannia, after several evenings at the modelling desk:

 

 

I painted the frames before adding the brake gear, cylinders and valve gear. Normally

I don't bother until later, but I wanted to try and do as neat a job as I could with this

one. The valve gear was assembled without any particular snags, although I did

find the lifting links quite fiddly to get right. I normally solder the return crank, but

in this case I just fixed it with a dab of cyano - is there a preferred method among

our loco builders? If the cyano holds, I'd be quite happy leaving it as is, as it avoids

any risk of flooding the etched detail on the crank.

 

The cylinders dictate the height of the running plate, but I want to make sure it isn't

riding too high, so I'll be trying to take some measurements off drawings later, and

possibly tweaking the cylinder tops a little if necessary.

 

The body, incidentally, dates back to March 1975 and was a birthday present

which I bought from the model railway department in Hamley's, as part of a

larger treat of a trip to London, which also included Tommy Steele at the

London Palladium in a production of Hans Andersen. I've just checked

and it ran between 1974 and 1975! A few years later, my

dad helped me replace the moulded handrails on the body, and resprayed

it in BR green, using the Badger airbrush I'd been given as a Christmas

present.  I added the Pressfix lining when I was around 15;

it needs redoing in places but I'm not going to do too much to the paint and

lining as it's a connection back to my dad, as well as my much younger

modelling days.

 

Al

 

 

[Barry Ten]

I'm heartened, if that's the word, that even a great layout like Little Bytham has a few up and down bits. I've tried my best, but even taking extreme pains with mirrors, sighting low along the track, constant tweaking, use of spirit levels, I still can't get my tracks as level and kink-free as I'd like. I also noticed on a recent video of Retford (the model, not the real one) that there were a few bumps and dips evident. Certain loco classes seem to find these irregularities more than others, in my experience. Castles, for instance, are "great" at exposing less than perfectly flat track; something to do with the coupled wheelbase versus the overall length of the loco, making bumps more pronounced? Kings seems to ride over the same bumps a bit less awkwardly.

 

Al

[thegreenhowards]

You're probably right, Mick.

 

I recall reviewing the Bachmann A1 when it first came out. Having the 'luxury' of a layout at the time (Stoke Summit), where scale-length, prototypical trains could be run, I thought 'why not?', and put it on the 12-car 'Northumbrian', made mostly from metal kits. It seemed to start reasonably well, but then came to a halt after a couple of circuits. It was struggling a bit, but 12-car trains (and more) were staple fayre for a prototype A1. I investigated: it had got extremely hot. After cooling down, try again, and the same thing. On lighter trains (not that there were many) it did better, but still, after some running, performance fell away. 

 

The company was not too happy with my comments, and it was suggested that the A1 was not really designed to haul 'real' trains. As it was (and was this my fault?), the whole initial batch was recalled because the motors were failing all over the place. Though the replacement motors (Mashimas) were (are) far superior, the locos still don't have the haulage capacity of a kit-built equivalent. 

 

So, as you allude to, anyone buying an RTR locomotive (especially steam-outline) in OO should not expect it to pull the heaviest loads hauled by its prototype, especially if the carriages in those loads are not lightweight RTR. 

 

Which, as usual, brings us to where we've been before. If one wishes to model a scale-length (well, almost) section of a Class One main line in steam days, then RTR locos, in the main, are pretty useless (or is that too extreme?). There's no doubt that (some of) Grantham's RTR Pacifics have the capability of taking scale-length trains (many built from kits), but the consistency is extremely patchy. How long they'll last is, of course, a pertinent question. My oldest big loco, still in my possession, is a Jamieson hand-cut A2/1, which I built well over 40 years ago. After countless 'miles' on Fordley Park, Leighford, Gamston Bank (as a guest loco) Biggleswade (as a guest loco), Stoke Summit and now Little Bytham, it's still going strong and still can take the heaviest trains. Its motor (a Jepson) is still running well, and nothing (as yet!) has worn out. I state this, not to boast, but as a comparison with RTR locos over the same period. Split chassis horrors have done just that - split, and more recent ones are incredibly flimsy and fragile. This is not anecdotal evidence; it's empirical, from four years now of my loco-doctoring  at shows. I'm astonished at the percentage of new (steam-outline) locos, from all the major manufacturer, which I've had to attempt to fix. Problems include driving wheels shifting on axles, gear wheels splitting, pick-ups not picking-up, motors failing and valve gear all mangled. Can I fix them? Some hopes, when I can't even work out how to get the bodies off! 

 

In conclusion (and I've concluded this before), though RTR locos of the last few years might look very pretty and accurate, don't expect a long-term performance from them. Peterborough North's split-chassis stud is nearing the end of its life (too short, in my opinion) and I'll probably end up building several etched replacements. 

 

Me? I'm 'all right Jack'. I make my own, and, thus, are solely responsible for how they run, and how long they'll run for. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

The original Bachmann A1,60158, had a dodgy motor as has been well catologued. More recent ones are excellent pullers, and in general will romp round on 15 RTR coaches in my experience. Kit built coaches are slightly more of a test, but are generally fine as well as long as they have roller bearings and are on the flat. A little wheel slip on starting but then away they go. Having said that, I don’t have any rakes of 15 kit built coaches! Eight coaches with brass sides or three fully kit built coaches is about the maximum in one train apart from Kirks (which weigh the same as a RTR).

 

Tony’s clearly pull more than that, but I think the Bachmann model is pretty capable of pulling scale length trains.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[asmay2002]

Thanks Tim (repeating your whole post),

 

I recall, particularly, A1s taking the flat crossing at Retford at speed and bucking and weaving as they went. However, I remember the trains they were pulling riding much more consistently, particularly with regard to ride height and how much a carriage (or more) was leaning. The rejected footage showed a couple of trains which appeared to be going up and down, with carriages leaning so much that the ends of adjacent vehicles were exposed way beyond the norm. Not only that, some of the vehicles wobbled so much as to make any miniature passengers very sick! 

 

You're right that, in many cases, the riding of the real things was anything but smooth (witness that Castle at speed on your clip), but the camcorder did pick up riding, the like of which seemed very unrealistic; even on a 'narrow gauge' model railway. 

 

When the footage appears, viewers will make up their own minds. 

 

I'll get the footage of my own stock processed, and put on here. Viewers can then make their own minds up about that as well.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

This modern video clip might be of interest.  Loco all over the place but the Mk1 coaches absolutely smooth (from the outside).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs2NPFkR8Xw