Ventnor
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Ventnor
-
-
Wrong thread.
-
On 14/03/2024 at 06:02, Steamport Southport said:
Looked even better at one point. It was lined black!
https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p589560953/e4944cacd
https://www.transporttreasury.com/p620923510/ee93cc3fe
However it was just bog standard black until the mid 1950s, before it became one of the station pilots.
https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p589560953/ee2e5fc09
Jason
Even better than lined black? A candidate for another Accurascale exclusive........
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, RapidoCorbs said:
It's a tooling compromise.
Hi Corbs
Was a one piece chimney moulding considered that could be push fitted into the smokebox? If possible it would look a lot more prototypical.
Cheers
Andy.
-
2
-
-
On 16/03/2024 at 23:13, Pre Grouping fan said:
This has appeared on Facebook this morning. Have to say it's looking absolutely fantastic! Amazing level of detail under the boiler and in the cab.
Now, I know that this is an early engineering prototype but I couldn't help noticing that the chimney has been moulded in two parts. The prototype has a one piece casting. Is this due to tooling restrictions or could the chimney be cast / moulded as a one piece item and then fixed direct to the smokebox? It does spoil the overall look of the chimney, and has this approach changed its shape due to the join? Some photos of the front end would be useful to see how the two piece approach has affected the look of the model.
Apart from that the model is looking great.
Andy.
-
2
-
-
On 01/02/2024 at 08:49, fezza said:
I don't buy many new rtr models these days but I picked up number 1 and I thought it was superb! The roof and panel detail is much crisper than the Peco L and B models and the chassis is heavier and holds the very track well. Not cheap but the quality is really excellent
Ashover is a beautiful spot and I've walked on or near various bits of the trackbed as well as travelled in revived line at the Midland Railway. It is delightful to have so many Ashover models in Bachmann RTR. Even the narrow gauge station shelter resembles an Ashover building. I wonder if someone in Bachmann's top brass grew up in the area and loves it as much as I do?
I agree with Fezza, these models are fantastic. Quality and detail are great, nice and heavy, run well and decoration spot on. I'm surprised that more people aren't raving about them. Not much regarding them on NGRM-online either which is odd.
Anyway, great models (I have No.1 and No.4). Well done Bachmann!!
Cheers
Andy.
-
7 hours ago, RapidoCorbs said:
A little update on the CAD - several people noticed the chimney proportions were 'off' - this has been amended, thank you to everyone who assisted.
Also shown is the flush-riveted smokebox variant :)
Old on the left, new on the right.
Thanks Corbs
The new version of the chimney looks great!!
Cheers
Andy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 26/11/2023 at 00:26, adb968008 said:
Some very nice finished samples here today.
i’m reassured they are looking into the headlamps. It’s a dilemma as there’s an led under each lamp, and 1/4mm of space, so gluing them in vs self fit.
but they do understand the desire to not be all royal train lamps, however they are also imminent …
Whether they are, or are not going to fit the Royal Train headcode, just get rid of all of the lamps and have a few "fit your own" in the accessory bag. You really can't unsee this!! Why Hornby......WHY??
-
5
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:
As far as I know it should be matching the works drawings. I am looking at them side-by-side now and they seem to match.
Whether real life mimics the drawings or not I am less sure. I will check with the CAD team.It’s worth checking against the real thing. Hornby originally proposed a “parallel” chimney for their H Class based on works drawings but changed to the correct type with graceful, gentle, subtle curves. Can’t think of any SECR locomotives with a parallel chimney.
Apart from that, looking great!! 👍
Andy.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:
I always get into trouble when I say anything about chimneys, so I'm keeping my trap shut this time.
I think your trap is well and truly open!! 😉 A distinct difference between the two!! Bachmann got the correct shape of the long type of chimney on the SECR liveried C Class. Chimneys always seem contentious things……
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:
Hum. I'm thinking that running powers from the Derby area - perhaps by virtue of the North Staffordshire - over the LNWR South Staffordshire line and hence onto Midland metals in the Walsall / Wolverhampton area might not stretch the imagination too far beyond the bounds of plausibility...
The Great Northern turned up in some odd places, Stafford for example.
The GN got to Derby (Friargate) so why not!! Mine will be running on the Southern Region. I’ve seen photos of them at Clapham Junction so good enough for me!!
-
3
-
-
44 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:
Indeed. I've not yet seen a pic of 31065 with warning flashes and small rear buffers, so this livery should be correct for this condition.
Buffers etc aside, any chance of checking the chimney is the correct shape? I’m sure the curves should extend further up. I remember this being an issue with the Hornby H Class which they corrected.
Cheers
Andy.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, JhornG201 said:
That’s unfortunate to hear, and something I sort of expected when the Turbomotive appeared with fixed position lamps which was supposed to have the same lighting arrangement.
I’m not sure about others, but I’d prefer no lamps fitted as standard so you can have your own lamp code without having to cut and remove the lights and fit new lamp irons, especially considering the Black 5 is a mixed traffic loco. The feature is not quite the step forward it was originally made out to be.
Totally agree, NO LAMPS PLEASE!! Please, no lamps!!
-
2
-
7
-
-
On 19/07/2023 at 03:06, gpplumy said:
this seems rather... Bright
The thing that stands out to me and on the other models is that the base of the chimney should be black. In the colour renders they are.
Cheers
Andy.
-
1
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Izzy said:
I think I’m correct in saying that the practice of removing the front rods - to reduce flange wear, was discontinued after the grouping.
My parents were fond of often quoting that in the early ‘50’s, when I was aged around 2-3 and my father was stopped at the Feering crossing in his ‘sit-up-and-beg’ Ford Popular - then on the ‘main’ A12 - I would stand up on the front seat and shout ‘it’s an oosh-oosh’ as the Tollesbury flyer went through. That we were also living at the time in a grounded coach body on the coast while a bungalow was built for my parents probably accounts for my lifelong interest in railways, and especially modelling them…..
So, roll on a J67/69 I can convert to P4. Well, here’s hoping anyway.
Bob
Hi Bob
I agree that the practice of removing front coupling rods did not continue post grouping. In fact, the only photos I possess showing this modification (6 in all) were all taken in 1910. In “The Tollesbury Branch” by Petter Paye it is implied the modification was short lived as the Colchester shed fitting staff found removing and replacing rods time consuming and no benefit was gained in reducing wear on leading flanges and bearings. In fact it’s stated that there was a detrimental effect on the leading axle boxes and frames by removing them!!
Prior to 0-6-0Ts working the branch, Adams K9 0-4-2Ts worked services. Maybe they were trying to replicate the more (assumed) flexible wheelbase of these locos by removing rods.
The LBSCR did something similar with a small number of Terriers on motor-train workings.
Andy.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, pH said:
An ex-works J69 tender loco (at the east end of Eastfield shed yard):
https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=93354
J67. All of the Lauder Light Railway tender / tank locos were J67s.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, NHY 581 said:
Hi Andy,
Are you thinking of 68619 that Accurascale are to produce ?
68616 was a regular on the Tollesbury branch and WOULD BE VERY EXCELLENT NEWS IF ACCURASCALE CAN ADD THIS TO THE INITIAL RELEASES.
Rob.
Thanks Rob, yes, got my 9 upside-down!! Should have read 68619.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Islesy said:
Happy to agree with you @Daddymanthe chimney base does need some minor adjustments to get the right look for a Cowlairs type base, and the mod has already been made ahead of tooling.
Best wishes,
Paul.
Talking of chimneys, in the colour renders, BR J68 68646 – BR Black Late Crest appears to have a GE parallel lipped chimney. It should have a Darlington type the same as J69 68616 does. The Yeadon volume shows it as such. Might be worth checking. Understand these are early colour renders. Who knows, maybe it was retro fitted with a GE pattern chimney in its final years but I’ve never seen anything other than a stovepipe in place of the Darlington type in later years.
Great choice of locos to produce. J69s have always been a favourite of mine. A couple of pre-orders are in. It’s now almost (very soon) possible to model the Kelvedon & Tollesbury line in ready-to-run form. Just needs a couple of ex-Stoke Ferry 6 wheeled brakes.
Great stuff.
Cheers
Andy.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:
Now all of us GER fans need is a F5 or F6.
Or hopefully both!! 😉
-
2
-
-
Good morning everyone
The lining on the tenders of the BR models doesn't look quite right to me. Shouldn't the bottom tender lining line up with the bottom of the cabside lining? I've tried finding images to illustrate my point. Not spending too much time on this I've got a couple that hopefully show what I'm driving at. Anyone else see it? Is there too much of a gap between the bottom tender lining the the tender running plate? The top lining also looks a bit too low.
The earlier livery samples seemed to be OK and looked closer to the prototype.
Cheers
Andy.
-
2 hours ago, Torn-on-the-platform said:
The club exclusive:
https://uk.Hornby.com/products/sr-terrier-0-6-0t-662-martello-era-3-club-exclusive-r30217
Martello as it has run since 2016. Martello was never, I understand, an IoW engine yet gained an extended bunker in BR days. Despite this product being marked as era 3, it seems to be more a preservation era model as it would not have had the extended bunker when it originally wore olive green. Please correct me if I'm wrong! If I manage to see the real Martello before the model comes out, it might be worth joining the collectors' club for.
Hello Torn-on-the-platform
You are correct in saying that Terrier 662 (Martello) did not carry an IOW extended bunker until BR days and was never an IOW loco. It acquired the extended bunker from 32677 (formally 77 Wonersh, a.k.a W3/W13 Carisbrooke) when that loco was withdrawn in 1959 or sometime soon after. Prior to this it had the smaller "as-built" bunker with coal rails.
Cheers
Andy.
-
1 hour ago, 2ManySpams said:
One thing that really bugs me about the O2 is that the mainland versions all have cab doors. A look at photos shows that, unlike the IoW ones, cab doors weren't fitted.
I've heard it said that the mainland O2s did have cab doors and it's just that they are left open in use. The photo extracts below show no sign of a door, open or closed and they also show a safety chain across the opening.
Anyway, I'm looking at putting this right on my O2 which will become 30200.
Has anyone else undertaken this surgery? Did you do it insitu or remove the body? Does the cab come off or is it integral with the body?
Thoughts and experiences welcomed.
Hello
The majority of mainland 02s didn’t have cab doors fitted as you say but pull-push fitted ones did. Those that later had the equipment removed seem to have retained their doors. An example is 30225 which was one of Kernows models.
It is sometimes difficult to see if doors are fitted or not as they could be open in photos. The tell tale evidence is as you’ve provided above with the safety chain fitted.
I guess this doesn’t really help you as I’ve not tried to remove the doors but can confirm they are part of the body moulding together with the cab handrails.
Kind regards
Andy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, No Decorum said:
Assuming you’re serious: R3830 60501 Cock o' the North and R3831 60505 Thane of Fife.
On screen 14 of the topic: Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (2020 Range), Screen 14, there is a photograph of the scoop fitted the wrong way round.Not serious........sorry!!
But thanks for the info on the scoop error.
Andy.
-
12 hours ago, No Decorum said:
By any chance, were you on the design team for Hornby’s A2/2?
What's an A2/2??
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, rapidoandy said:
The 16xx was picked up and corrected. The GA drawing only shows half of the back/front on one elevation and the CAD designer assumed and mirrored the part. The survey of 1638 and the photos supplied to the designer were not much help as the engine was fully coaled ready for its next duty and thus hid the area! Either way, it is correct on the production models!
Andy
Thanks for the reply. It hadn't stopped me from ordering one and considering another!! Besides, what would a green badge man like me know about GW locos and water scoops anyway!! ; )
By the way, the 15xx looks superb. I'll have a few tough financial decisions to make in the next 12 months what with Manors and corrected Modified Halls etc.......
Cheers
Andy.
-
1
-
But thanks for the info on the scoop error.
Rapido SECR O1 0-6-0 (OO Gauge)
in Rapido Trains
Posted
I raised this exact same issue earlier with Rapido on this thread with a possible similar solution and was told it's a "tooling compromise".
I don't like to compare manufacturers but Accurascales J67/68/69 has a metal smokebox but an all plastic chimney that push fits so is complete without join a third of the way up. It also looks like a decent fit.
I think we'll just have to accept it. Further refinement may make it less noticeable as these are early engineering prototypes but I'm not convinced. Being told it's a tooling compromise I think closes the issue.