Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Here's the SE Finecast 61XX undergoing running trials on my layout:

 

prarie2.jpg

 

Although there are still a few small details to be added, I'd already give this kit a very high rating based on my experience so far. Other than

the quibble with the crosshead design, I encountered no great difficulties, with everything fitting very nicely, including the body-chassis 

relationship. I had to file a little bit of white metal away for clearance for the front wheels, and nibble a bit out of the fronts of the cylinders

to allow for bogie swing, but that was all easily attended to. I'll confess that some of the smaller fittings are glued in place rather than

soldered, as I'm a little wary around very small white metal castings.

 

Echoing something Tony has been saying, one of the immediate benefits of this type of construction is the weight and haulage

power of the engine. The five coach rake of GWR stock might not look much of a test, but there's some stiffness in the bogies

and it's a bit of a struggle for some of my engines, whereas the 61XX just walked away with it.

 

In typical fashion, today has seen the announcement of a new RTR model of this class in 00, but (with luck) this one will be painted

and in service long before the Dapol model comes out.

 

Alastair

What a wonderful build, Alastair. 

 

This is the same type as I built on the first and second Right Track DVDs. I had to split the cylinder stretcher and push out the cylinders ever so slightly, just to get clearance between the back of the crossheads and the front crankpins - even in OO. 

[31A]

Thanks Dave,

 

Did any have the springs outside the 'W'-irons, though? Like mine. 

 

I've investigated rearranging them, but they're all soldered securely in place. Is this one disadvantage of soldering - the joint is too permanent? 

 

 

Some did, yes - I'll look through some books and see if I can find out which.

[31A]

See for example E70321E and E70339E, both illustrated on p35 of "BR Parcels and Passenger-Rated Stock" Volume 1 by David Larkin, with the springs outside the W irons.  The former is Diagram 170 and the latter Diagram 177.  As mentioned above, the vans varied in length; Dia 170 being 31' 8 5/8" over body, Dia 177 30' 10 1/2" over body and Dia 120 (which the kit may be?) was 32' over body.

Edited December 16, 2017 by 31A

[davefrk]

Thanks Dave,

 

Did any have the springs outside the 'W'-irons, though? Like mine. 

 

I've investigated rearranging them, but they're all soldered securely in place. Is this one disadvantage of soldering - the joint is too permanent? 

 

That I don't know Tony, It's possible of course if the frames are off various old four wheel coaches. I've found the pic of the one I'm doing and it has inboard springs, battery box behind the step, no long handrails and individual stepboards.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Edit:- post overlap, thanks for the info Steve.

Edited December 16, 2017 by davefrk

[ArthurK]

[

John,

 

Many thanks for these. 

 

The picture of 60854 is particularly interesting because it shows the very low position of the cabside numbers on this particular loco (uniquely?). I've commented on this in my recent book from Booklaw. 

 

Other points to note are the incorrect style of '6' on the smokebox door numberplate, the lowered 'plate (on to the top hingestrap) and the divided cross rail. Only a few V2s got the last two modifications, brought about by overhead electrification and the lowering of the top lamp bracket for safety reasons (the same reasons which saw ex-LMS and BR Standard types having their top bracket positioned at 3 o'clock on the smokebox door). 

 

Oh, those joys of 'loco-picking'. 

 

Here is  another photo of 60854 sowing the cab number in the lower than normal position, Kings Cross 1962. Also two others at Blaydon both with their numbers in the normal position. Blaydon serviced a lot of the bigger locos whilst part of Gateshead shed was being rebuilt. Both of these had by this time acquired outside steam pipes;

 

 

 

ArthurK

[31A]

That I don't know Tony, It's possible of course if the frames are off various old four wheel coaches. I've found the pic of the one I'm doing and it has inboard springs, battery box behind the step, no long handrails and individual stepboards.

 

Dave Franks.

 

 

Erm, see mine above?!

[Barry Ten]

That layout looks great from the picture Alastair  ... do you have a thread on it?

 

Just the blog posts, alas. I never started a layout thread because, back in the day, the blogs were being touted as the "new thing" and it seemed

that was the way the forum was going. Now the blogs are a bit of a tumbleweed area, in my view, but at least they aren't cluttered up with dozens

and dozens of off-topic posts!

 

Al

[Barry Ten]

What a wonderful build, Alastair. 

 

This is the same type as I built on the first and second Right Track DVDs. I had to split the cylinder stretcher and push out the cylinders ever so slightly, just to get clearance between the back of the crossheads and the front crankpins - even in OO. 

 

Thank you, Tony. I really would have saved myself some bother if I'd rewatched that DVD - I meant to, but got caught up in the "summit fever" of rushing to complete the model.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

 

Having completed the basic bodywork of the Tourist Buffet Car this morning, my mind went back to some of the discussions about different types of layouts and the philosophy of 'each to their own'. 

 

In some ways, I think I've got the best of both worlds with Little Bytham. If I wish, I can belt through long, long-distance expresses, one after the other; or, I can use the layout (at least in part) as a 'shunting plank'. 

 

 

A candid view into the goods yard sees a J6 fussing with some wagons on pick-up duty. 

 

 

On another day, it could be an O2/4 performing the task. 

 

 

Or, on another occasion, it could be a B1. This is a modified Hornby item on which I've changed the number, changed the bogie wheels and the chimney and renumbered it. Tom Foster applied the beautiful weathering. 

 

 

The Down south lay-bye was accessed (unusually) off the Down fast. Here, a K1 is leaving it with some empty wagons/vans.

 

 

The B1 is continuing its pick-up duties, as the K1 passes by. 

 

 

With the B1 now off towards Essendine, the K1 sets its cut of wagons back, crossing over all the main running lines and into the goods yard.

 

  

 

Later on, an Austerity rolls by on the Down slow with an unfitted goods, while an O4/3 waits to pick up loaded wagons full of limestone for Scunthorpe or Rotherham. 

 

 

A close-up of the O4/3. This was built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary, and I acquired it after he changed to O Gauge. It's a great privilege to have a few locos built by friends, especially if they're as natural as this - heroically-filthy, one might say. 

 

All the other locos in this selection (with the exception of the B1) have been built/painted by me (Tom Foster weathered the K1) from a variety of kits, because 'that's what I do'. 

 

The various movements in the pictures can all be part of the sequence (though it's unusual to have more than one loco shunting at once), and require coupling/uncoupling and forward and backward running over a period of time. I have to say, I find shunting extremely boring, though it is part of the sequence. 

 

As has been said many times, it's a matter of personal choice; I have a choice of both, which is what LB is all about. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[petrovich]

Buffet Car.jpg

 

Having completed the basic bodywork of the Tourist Buffet Car this morning, my mind went back to some of the discussions about different types of layouts and the philosophy of 'each to their own'. 

 

In some ways, I think I've got the best of both worlds with Little Bytham. If I wish, I can belt through long, long-distance expresses, one after the other; or, I can use the layout (at least in part) as a 'shunting plank'. 

 

J6.jpg

 

A candid view into the goods yard sees a J6 fussing with some wagons on pick-up duty. 

 

O2 4.jpg

 

On another day, it could be an O2/4 performing the task. 

 

B1.jpg

 

Or, on another occasion, it could be a B1. This is a modified Hornby item on which I've changed the number, changed the bogie wheels and the chimney and renumbered it. Tom Foster applied the beautiful weathering. 

 

K1 01.jpg

 

The Down south lay-bye was accessed (unusually) off the Down fast. Here, a K1 is leaving it with some empty wagons/vans.

 

B1 & K1.jpg

 

The B1 is continuing its pick-up duties, as the K1 passes by. 

 

K1 02.jpg

 

With the B1 now off towards Essendine, the K1 sets its cut of wagons back, crossing over all the main running lines and into the goods yard.

 

 Austerity & O4 3.jpg

 

Later on, an Austerity rolls by on the Down slow with an unfitted goods, while an O4/3 waits to pick up loaded wagons full of limestone for Scunthorpe or Rotherham. 

 

O4 3.jpg

 

A close-up of the O4/3. This was built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary, and I acquired it after he changed to O Gauge. It's a great privilege to have a few locos built by friends, especially if they're as natural as this - heroically-filthy, one might say. 

 

All the other locos in this selection (with the exception of the B1) have been built/painted by me (Tom Foster weathered the K1) from a variety of kits, because 'that's what I do'. 

 

The various movements in the pictures can all be part of the sequence (though it's unusual to have more than one loco shunting at once), and require coupling/uncoupling and forward and backward running over a period of time. I have to say, I find shunting extremely boring, though it is part of the sequence. 

 

As has been said many times, it's a matter of personal choice; I have a choice of both, which is what LB is all about. 

Hi Tony . The image labelled "A candid view into the goods yard sees a J6 fussing with some wagons on pick-up duty" brings it all together. 

 

Regards 

 

Peter

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony . The image labelled "A candid view into the goods yard sees a J6 fussing with some wagons on pick-up duty" brings it all together. 

 

Regards 

 

Peter

Thanks Peter,

 

It's the work of at least five different people, all working to the same standard. 

[Lecorbusier]

Buffet Car.jpg

 

Having completed the basic bodywork of the Tourist Buffet Car this morning, my mind went back to some of the discussions about different types of layouts and the philosophy of 'each to their own'. 

 

In some ways, I think I've got the best of both worlds with Little Bytham. If I wish, I can belt through long, long-distance expresses, one after the other; or, I can use the layout (at least in part) as a 'shunting plank'. 

 

J6.jpg

 

A candid view into the goods yard sees a J6 fussing with some wagons on pick-up duty. 

 

O2 4.jpg

 

On another day, it could be an O2/4 performing the task. 

 

B1.jpg

 

Or, on another occasion, it could be a B1. This is a modified Hornby item on which I've changed the number, changed the bogie wheels and the chimney and renumbered it. Tom Foster applied the beautiful weathering. 

 

K1 01.jpg

 

The Down south lay-bye was accessed (unusually) off the Down fast. Here, a K1 is leaving it with some empty wagons/vans.

 

B1 & K1.jpg

 

The B1 is continuing its pick-up duties, as the K1 passes by. 

 

K1 02.jpg

 

With the B1 now off towards Essendine, the K1 sets its cut of wagons back, crossing over all the main running lines and into the goods yard.

 

 Austerity & O4 3.jpg

 

Later on, an Austerity rolls by on the Down slow with an unfitted goods, while an O4/3 waits to pick up loaded wagons full of limestone for Scunthorpe or Rotherham. 

 

O4 3.jpg

 

A close-up of the O4/3. This was built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary, and I acquired it after he changed to O Gauge. It's a great privilege to have a few locos built by friends, especially if they're as natural as this - heroically-filthy, one might say. 

 

All the other locos in this selection (with the exception of the B1) have been built/painted by me (Tom Foster weathered the K1) from a variety of kits, because 'that's what I do'. 

 

The various movements in the pictures can all be part of the sequence (though it's unusual to have more than one loco shunting at once), and require coupling/uncoupling and forward and backward running over a period of time. I have to say, I find shunting extremely boring, though it is part of the sequence. 

 

As has been said many times, it's a matter of personal choice; I have a choice of both, which is what LB is all about. 

Absolutely wonderful .... you just have to do a video of this - preferably with a voice over describing the action.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Absolutely wonderful .... you just have to do a video of this - preferably with a voice over describing the action.

 

Don't forget the finger wagging!

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

Absolutely wonderful .... you just have to do a video of this - preferably with a voice over describing the action.

Tim,

 

The plan is to do a further DVD for next year. In fact, two. The first showing Bytham operating as it was in 1958 and the second, as it was 20 years before that. 

 

Tom Foster will be the cameraman for the first and Jesse Sim for the second (I assume they know this!). Tom did one three years ago, but so much has been done on the layout since then that a further one is necessary. 

 

And, there'll be lots of finger wagging and, in my best Noggin the Nog voice, descriptions of the action and lots of the Wright philosophy (tripe). The latter will include the benefits of modelling an actual prototype, running 'accurate' trains, devising a running schedule, personally making things, how to avoid using money (though not theft!) and, most important, teamwork.  

Edited December 17, 2017 by Tony Wright

[StephenB]

Tony

 

I look forward to the DVD with bated breath - I wish more people did the same, not the drivel that gets put on YouTube.

 

Steohen

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I look forward to the DVD with bated breath - I wish more people did the same, not the drivel that gets put on YouTube.

 

Steohen

Thanks Stephen,

 

I don't really look at You Tube (largely because I don't know how to, in the same way that I don't know - nor want to - how to put faces on books or make little bird noises). That said, I do occasionally look at clips which others post on this thread. 

 

It takes a long time to make and (especially) edit a DVD. The last one Tom made took us (literally) a whole day (ten hours) to 'film'. It required our moving of lamps around. Since I've had 200% more lighting installed in Little Bytham's home, extra lighting shouldn't be necessary, though it'll still take a lot of time. 

 

The DVDs I appeared in, made by Activity Media, were professionally-shot and edited. The Warners ones were shot on much cheaper equipment, but they were edited professionally. All of those were for sale or as add-ons to BRM. 

 

There appears little or no fiscal imperative or incentive to make a DVD today - it all gets put on You Tube. It would appear that some folk have become very rich by making You Tube videos, though I have no idea how that works, and, as alluded to, I'm not interested. I don't mean I'm not interested in getting rich, but that would be by 'traditional' means as far as I'm concerned - so far all those means have proved unsuccessful! 

 

I'm told that people make You Tube videos on how to open boxes, how to put your latest 'delight' on the track and how to run it. Is this true? Are some so 'uneducated' in the craft of railway modelling that this sort of stuff is necessary? 

 

Some conduct 'reviews' I believe. Where is their qualification for this? I know when I wrote product reviews in BRM, there was a great responsibility to get things correct and to be as fair and objective as possible. Not only that, the manufacturer saw the review before it was published, so he/she could comment and have a right to reply.

 

My younger son is a partner in a business and some 'reviews' of what his firm makes have been very inaccurate and damaging to potential sales. He once confronted such a 'keyboard warrior' and the guy (who obviously didn't get out much, was pale of face and weedy - apologies for the stereotype) had to admit that he was completely wrong. It makes me wonder whether some such posters realise how damaging their ill-informed comments can be. Has anyone ever been sued for libel on the various forms of social media? 

 

We definitely live in 'interesting' times. 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

sued for.........Libel, I presume?

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks Stephen,

 

I don't really look at You Tube (largely because I don't know how to, in the same way that I don't know - nor want to - how to put faces on books or make little bird noises). That said, I do occasionally look at clips which others post on this thread. 

 

It takes a long time to make and (especially) edit a DVD. The last one Tom made took us (literally) a whole day (ten hours) to 'film'. It required our moving of lamps around. Since I've had 200% more lighting installed in Little Bytham's home, extra lighting shouldn't be necessary, though it'll still take a lot of time. 

 

The DVDs I appeared in, made by Activity Media, were professionally-shot and edited. The Warners ones were shot on much cheaper equipment, but they were edited professionally. All of those were for sale or as add-ons to BRM. 

 

There appears little or no fiscal imperative or incentive to make a DVD today - it all gets put on You Tube. It would appear that some folk have become very rich by making You Tube videos, though I have no idea how that works, and, as alluded to, I'm not interested. I don't mean I'm not interested in getting rich, but that would be by 'traditional' means as far as I'm concerned - so far all those means have proved unsuccessful! 

 

I'm told that people make You Tube videos on how to open boxes, how to put your latest 'delight' on the track and how to run it. Is this true? Are some so 'uneducated' in the craft of railway modelling that this sort of stuff is necessary? 

 

Some conduct 'reviews' I believe. Where is their qualification for this? I know when I wrote product reviews in BRM, there was a great responsibility to get things correct and to be as fair and objective as possible. Not only that, the manufacturer saw the review before it was published, so he/she could comment and have a right to reply.

 

My younger son is a partner in a business and some 'reviews' of what his firm makes have been very inaccurate and damaging to potential sales. He once confronted such a 'keyboard warrior' and the guy (who obviously didn't get out much, was pale of face and weedy - apologies for the stereotype) had to admit that he was completely wrong. It makes me wonder whether some such posters realise how damaging their ill-informed comments can be. Has anyone ever been sued for liable on the various forms of social media? 

 

We definitely live in 'interesting' times. 

As a counter balance .... there are some pretty good 'how to' you-tube videos .... all posted without charge to the viewer. Often they seem to be a form of marketing but not always.

 

I learnt how to build a VW air-cooled engine almost entirely from on line blogs and you tube videos. There are good manuals, but you tend to have to be a qualified mechanic to be able to access the information they contain. The videos completely de-mystified the process and explained the missing steps assumed to be obvious by the manual authors. I drove my camper complete with the engine I built all the way to Greece and back over the summer .... so - must have been good videos. Most were American ...  I assume the posters would be sued pretty quickly in that parish if they weren't competent !

Edited December 17, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

sued for.........Libel, I presume?

Or being liable? 

 

A Freudian slip - well-spotted! 

[Barry Ten]

Youtube is also very good for amateur musicians, not just tutorials but useful practical stuff like the right way to re-string a guitar.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

As a counter balance .... there are some pretty good 'how to' you-tube videos .... all posted without charge to the viewer. Often they seem to be a form of marketing but not always.

 

I learnt how to build a VW air-cooled engine almost entirely from on line blogs and you tube videos. There are good manuals, but you tend to have to be a qualified mechanic to be able to access the information they contain. The videos completely de-mystified the process and explained the missing steps assumed to be obvious by the manual authors. I drove my camper complete with the engine I built all the way to Greece and back over the summer .... so - must have been good videos. Most were American ...  I assume the posters would be sued pretty quickly in that parish if they weren't competent !

Tim,

 

I'm sure there are, though I remain in ignorance of them - as I remain in (blissful) ignorance of the duds. 

 

You must be very clever. Even with a brilliant 'how to' video, I don't think I could build a vehicle engine. 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Buhar]

No Wright video would be complete without frequent portents of doom; so please be sure to warn us of burns and blood-letting, glue sticking a vital part to your jumper, molten whitemetal detail and how allowing a DCC chip within 2 foot of any loco is simply doing the devil's work.  Even though this looks like it will be a lineside look rather than instructions, I'm sure your commentary will wander wonderfully at times.

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

 

I'm sure there are, though I remain in ignorance of them - as I remain in (blissful) ignorance of the duds. 

 

You must be very clever. Even with a brilliant 'how to' video, I don't think I could build vehicle engine. 

Dare I say it ..... its a bit like soldering Tony - and I learnt that off your video!

 

If you think about it, whilst often competent and good with their hands most mechanics are not rocket scientists and few are high performers academically .... so with reasonable application it is something most of us (practical people) should be able to master. I wasn't designing the engine or even adapting it ... just following the instructions really - and it is mechanical rather than partially electronic like today's offerings.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[mark54]

 DSC_5853.JPG

 

This is much more up my street; started this morning. It's going to be a Gresley Tourist Buffet Car. The sides, ends, floor pan, trussing and solebars were made for a friend of a friend in 1985 by Grange & Hodder. The idea was that all the Tourist stock would be produced in etched form and sold as complete kits. In the event, nothing came of the scheme (as far as I know), and I was given these bits by my friend's friend (thanks John). They were the test etch (the only ones made) and I was told there was no guarantee of the parts fitting. That said, they did, though the trussing (etched as part of the floor pan) is very flimsy. The bottom flange of the solebar was also etched as part of the floor pan. This proved impossible to form without distortion, so I cut it off. It'll be replaced with brass strip. 

 

It should be an interesting build. It runs beautifully on MJT HD bogies. 

Hi Tony,

 

Without wishing to pour poop on your handiwork, shouldn't the Tourist Buffet Car have ordinary duty bogies? All the photos I have seen appear to indicate this. Possibly their slightly lighter overall weight at 33 tons (than the standard cars), allowed the lighter bogies to be used?

 

Kind regards

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

Without wishing to pour poop on your handiwork, shouldn't the Tourist Buffet Car have ordinary duty bogies? All the photos I have seen appear to indicate this. Possibly their slightly lighter overall weight at 33 tons (than the standard cars), allowed the lighter bogies to be used?

 

Kind regards

Mark,

 

If you're right, then I'll change them. If things are wrong, then they should be pointed out - poop dropped accordingly, and well-aimed! 

 

I was going on Nick Camplings advice where he states (in his excellent book of drawings) that the Tourist Buffet Cars had the same underframe detail as the standard Gresley teak Buffet Cars.