Wright writes.....

[46256]

Just reading this section with great interest, have nearly completed black five 44767 with the unique Stephenson valve gear. The valve gear works very well but getting it to pull a decent load is currently proving challenging. I have soldered lead into the chassis, liquid lead into the plastic loco body. I note the post about lead into the cab area including roof..... Will try that as well. It currently only pulls six coaches, two of which admittedly gave comet brass sides,

T albeit this is on my most challenging circuit of the layout out of my fiddle yard and up an unintended gradient created by my lack of carpentry skills ...

[Tony Wright]

Just a couple of dodges to show how weight can be added exactly where it's needed. 

 

 

Please look closely underneath the cab roof of this B12. What looks like some kind of insect's nest is in fact beads of Liquid Gravity superglued underneath. From normal viewing conditions, this is invisible and it helps to balance this loco in the manner described.

 

 

This solution is definitely NOT invisible, but I offer it as pragmatism. Because the Millholme 2P is so nose-heavy, even with the sprung bogie it still wanted to 'nod' a bit. So, I cut out this piece of right-angle brass, soldered it in place and, with the upturned loco body held at 45%, poured in some Liquid Gravity to form a wedge inside. I couldn't fill it all because of the rear drivers and the worm gear, but it was enough to give better balance. The mutilated crew was soldered in and by the time the whole lot is painted matt grey/black and the crew picked out, from 'layout' distances the effect will not be so noticeable. I realise this sort of stuff is anathema to those who pride themselves (quite rightly) in their accurate craftsmanship but my locos must run; run smoothly and have the ability to pull the loads required of them. 

 

In the case of both these locos, the maximum number of carriages they'll be expected to pull in normal use on the M&GNR bit is six. I do, though, run an 11 car excursion (some kit-built, some RTR modified) which is normally hauled by a K2, 4F or Ivatt 4. The fact that both will take this train as well is nice to know. 

[unclebobkt]

.

IIRC, during the 1948 locomotive exchanges the GWR's King (what I call the plough horse locomotive, capable of dragging almost anything up a hill) astounded observers with its careful acceleration of a full load out of Kings Cross.

 

Edit to add:  And the axle loading of a King precluded it from most other Exchanges.  Perhaps proof in the 1:1 scale world that weight over the drivers is what works best!

 

      Ha! Ha!!  Just the same as the GWR's 'Castle.' during the 1925. exchanges;  some of the L&NER's. supporters expected the 'Castle.' to have difficulties exiting KX. - but quite the contrary, being a well-designe 4-6-0..  I believe that it was allegedly Churchward who replied to the GWR's directors about the higher cost of his locomotives: 'Because one of mine can pull two of their bl**dy machines backwards.'.

  Was it the axle loading that precluded the 'Kings.' from most other exchanges?  For a long time I thought that it was their overall width, (the GWR's being a bit more generous, thanks to its BG. background?),;  but Mr. A. Pegler said it was because of their overall height.

Edited March 17, 2015 by unclebobkt

[t-b-g]

Thanks Tony - I couldn't imagine A4's would have worked over Knaresborough viaduct in regular service, from the thumping of the exhaust beat etc., I would have expected the viaduct to fall down!

 

Phil

 

How very dare you!

 

A4s don't thump! They purr!

[Focalplane]

Ha! Ha!!  Just the same as the GWR's 'Castle.' during the 1925. exchanges;  some of the L&NER's. supporters expected the 'Castle.' to have difficulties exiting KX. - but quite the contrary, being a well-designe 4-6-0..  I believe that it was allegedly Churchward who replied to the GWR's directors about the higher cost of his locomotives: 'Because one of mine can pull two of their bl**dy machines backwards.'.

  Was it the axle loading that precluded the 'Kings.' from most other exchanges?  For a long time I thought that it was their overall width, (the GWR's being a bit more generous, thanks to its BG. background?),;  but Mr. A. Pegler said it was because of their overall height.

You may be right about the width and height restrictions, but on its own territory a King was limited to Double Red route availability due to axle weight. Even then the GWR Permanent Way Department had to strengthen bridges, etc.

[corneliuslundie]

I'm sure a real 2P would have found six coaches a fair sized load. They were pretty small engines - just 2P classification in fact!

 

Jonathan

[Focalplane]

I'm sure a real 2P would have found six coaches a fair sized load. They were pretty small engines - just 2P classification in fact!

 

Jonathan

Hmm!

 

http://warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrknpreg239.htm

 

I can count 9 coaches on an express service.  The "little engine" that could.

[Mallard60022]

2P......the Midland's version of a T9....yea.

P

[kingfisher24]

Tony

 

I am looking for your opinion on the following;

 

At the Doncaster show i got hold of a pro-scale v2 kit, complete with everything except motor and gearbox for less than £40.00 which I thought is not too bad for a complete kit.

 

I am always trying to gain experience with kit building. Although every kit i have completed so far has had a white metal body with brass chassis etc. The pro scale V2 is all brass construction as as such will be a new challenge for me.

 

Can you give me your opinion on the kit.

 

Gary

[jwealleans]

Tin hats on, everyone!

 

Gary, I suggest you Google 'Tony Wright Proscale V2' and have a good look through the results. The two relevant issues of BRM are well worth a read.

 

It has also been covered at least once on this thread, on page 65.

 

Very good luck and I'm sure Tony will give his considered opinion in due course.

[Mallard60022]

I am always trying to gain experience with kit building. Although every kit i have completed so far has had a white metal body with brass chassis etc. The pro scale V2 is all brass construction as as such will be a new challenge for me.

 

Can you give me your opinion on the kit.

 

May God have mercy on your soul. 

However, I think Tony did once tell me that it can be made to look OK and has some proportions; well I think he said that.........................

Phil

[gr.king]

Who said fireboxes ought to be the right shape and the same length on both sides anyway, or that the brass from which the main loco parts are etched should be thick enough to resist rubbing down rather than caving in under pressure......

 

 

 

Going back to nose-heavy 4-4-0s, or bunker-heavy 0-4-4s, even with a chassis not designed for full compensation or fancy springy beams, it is often possible to split the chassis fairly easily into two portions. The four-coupled unit can then be fitted to the body in such a way that it can rock fore/aft about its mid point, and the bogie can be arranged to slide in a transverse slot while also carrying the weight of its end of the loco. My D10 thus set up pulls very effectively. The steady load on the bogie allows useful  extra pick ups to function properly on its wheels, and the weight on the four-coupled unit is always nicely balanced on the two axles regardless of which way the loco is trying to pull. I suspect in fact that the torque acting on the four coupled unit as it tries to pull means that whichever axle is the rear one at the time (according to intended direction of travel) is always carrying greatest weight, or "trying to dig in" if you like, just the thing that's wanted for maximum adhesion.

Edited March 17, 2015 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I am looking for your opinion on the following;

 

At the Doncaster show i got hold of a pro-scale v2 kit, complete with everything except motor and gearbox for less than £40.00 which I thought is not too bad for a complete kit.

 

I am always trying to gain experience with kit building. Although every kit i have completed so far has had a white metal body with brass chassis etc. The pro scale V2 is all brass construction as as such will be a new challenge for me.

 

Can you give me your opinion on the kit.

 

Gary

Gary,

 

The best of luck!

 

I haven't looked back to P.65, and I no longer can find the relevant BRM issues, but my recollection of my building of the Pro-Scale V2 was that it was a bit 'challenging'. 

 

If I've mentioned this before, then my apologies, but I met with David Brown (the then-Editor) and the late Michael Warner after I'd submitted my 'review' of the building of it because nothing of the like had ever been considered for publication before. Since one cannot be sued for libel for telling the truth, I was asked if what I'd written was accurate. I said it was, and the piece was published. Interestingly, and coincidentally, Steve Barnfield had just built one and he just happened to be in Wolverhampton at the same time, so I photographed his as well. Steve was even more judgemental. 

 

From memory, the problems included..........

 

The footplate was too short overall and the rise above the driving wheels fouled the flanges.

The firebox was asymmetric (one side being shorter than the other) resulting in the 'V' front of the cab pointing to the left if fitted fully into the back of the 'box.

The smokebox/boiler/firebox combinations were a bit too long overall, resulting in the smokebox front protruding too much over the front platform; exacerbated by the too-short footplate. 

The holes in the valve gear fret for the bearings were much too big and some of the etched components were out of proportion.

The beading on the tender was a flat, square section, not rounded. 

Because the boiler bands/beading were created by half-etching the rest away, the parent metal was very thin and easily dented. The boiler bands were also too wide. 

 

There might have been other issues. 

 

The result was that all the range of kits was taken off the market (a pity because most of the others were good). There was one letter of support from a fellow manufacturer but a load from other modellers who wondered what they were doing wrong and why their V2s didn't go together properly. When the range was taken over, I was asked about the V2 by the new owner and it seemed that it it wasn't worth revamping it. If it's subsequently been reissued, I have no idea whether any changes have been made. 

 

There's no doubt that they could be made - I finished the one I was building for my customer. Alan Hammet built three(?) which ran on Stoke Summit and Charwelton as the property of Tony Geary (but they were only really happy going round clockwise). I think Gilbert Barnatt bought two, and I rebuilt the chassis of one for him; not because of problems with Alan's excellent workmanship, but because of its being DCC-incompatible. If you look at the Peterborough North thread you might see shots of these V2s with their overhanging smokeboxes. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Just for clarification, here are two shots of one of the Pro-Scale V2s acquired by Gilbert. This is the one I part-rebuilt the chassis for. 

 

 

Note the slight gap at the rear of the firebox caused by this side of it being too short.

 

 

The over-protruding smokebox is clear in this shot. I've an idea the actual front-end diameter might be a bit big as well.

The too-long drop-link between the crosshead and the back end of the union link is also clear, caused by some of the valve gear components being out of proportion. 

 

In no way should these be taken as a criticism of Alan Hammet's building. He's done a splendid job with an 'awkward' kit, and has obviously lengthened the central section of the footplate by re-bending and reshaping it. Tony Geary's excellent weathering adds a touch of authenticity as well. That said, and I'm expressing a personal opinion here, none of my own V2s is from a Pro-Scale kit. I do, however, have two entirely satisfactory K3s and Geoff Brewin's A1. I'm quite happy with those.

 

Edited to include something I'd forgotten; because the positions for the boiler handrail pillars and the vacuum ejector pipe are etched in slightly the wrong positions (one set too low, the other too high - not much, I know), then the two end up too close together. Thinking back to the article, and I can't remember if I mentioned this, I've a memory of altering the relative positions.

 

Please let us know how you get on Garry. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Barry O]

lucky Garry didn't buy a B1!

[kingfisher24]

Tony

 

Thanks for the reply on the V2 question, some have also told me at my club that the V2 was a tricky kit to put together. I think it may go in the drawer for a rainy day (mind you in my part of the world it is always b****y raining so that phrase its wrong but oh well.

 

As a follow up to my J37 which i posted a few snaps of in almost complete form i add the following shot of the loco taken at my club tonight. The loco is now complete and running really well, after having to rebuild the motor which was certainly not fun but well worth the effort.

[corneliuslundie]

Re the 2P: "I can count 9 coaches on an express service."

 

The Midland Railway would have prosecuted for cruelty to engines!

 

Re the J37: Nice to see a proper engine designed to earn the owning company some serious money.

 

But I do like Tony's big engines too.

 

Jonathan.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

Thanks for the reply on the V2 question, some have also told me at my club that the V2 was a tricky kit to put together. I think it may go in the drawer for a rainy day (mind you in my part of the world it is always b****y raining so that phrase its wrong but oh well.

 

As a follow up to my J37 which i posted a few snaps of in almost complete form i add the following shot of the loco taken at my club tonight. The loco is now complete and running really well, after having to rebuild the motor which was certainly not fun but well worth the effort.

image.jpg

Excellent work Garry, and my compliments. As I've said many times before, work like this (your own work) is much the more interesting to me, and I'm delighted when folk post images of what they've made/altered for themselves.

 

Have you glazed the spectacles? If not, a dab of Kristal Klear (I have no idea if the peculiar spelling is correct) will do the trick. I know the side windows weren't glazed (or if they were, they were always open). 

[unclebobkt]

You may be right about the width and height restrictions, but on its own territory a King was limited to Double Red route availability due to axle weight. Even then the GWR Permanent Way Department had to strengthen bridges, etc.

 

  I believe that the GWR's. PWD. had started a bridge-strengthening programme before the design of the 'Kings.' was finalised.  But such was the lack of inter-departmental communications that the Drawing Office was unaware of the bridge-strengthening programme and thus, after the news had percolated through finally,  was able to heave a sigh of relief that bridges were being strenthened to take axle-loads of 22T., being that of the proposed new class.

 

[MJI]

440 and 044, there is a way around this, treat them as a Diesel, both ends as bogies.

 

I have read about it and it appears to make sense.

[PGC]

How very dare you!

 

A4s don't thump! They purr!

 

If only the Knaresborough viaduct could talk, then we'd know for sure whether they purr or thump!!!!    

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

 

When friends volunteer to do jobs, I wonder on occasions what they're letting themselves in for. Good mate Rob Davey has been painting all the insulators on the plastic telegraph poles. Using Ratio four-bar ones, I fixed three together to make taller ones with more cross-bars. Though not immediately noticeable from this picture, they are evident when viewing the layout. 

 

This type of view illustrates a photographic dilemma on another level. When looking at the layout, the (ridiculously!) tight curves to go on/off scene at both ends are not apparent; except when one gets down to eye level. I could Photoshop out the images beyond the bridge for effect, but I don't think there is an absolute answer - other than go on/off scene on the straight, and curve round out of sight. At least, from most viewing angles, that works. 

 

Rob also weathered most of the wagons in the goods train. 

 

 

I've also completed the scratch-built Ivatt 4 for Richard Wilson - he's doing layout 'gardening', so I do something I'm better at in return. Who originally built this is not known, but it now runs; really sweetly, complete with the Comet valve gear I used. It's not as 'accurate' as the Bachmann equivalent but it is unique. Somebody made this (and I completed it) - an illustration of model-making from a different age.

 

Does anyone know the best solvent/cleaning agent to get rid of the crud of ages, please? I normally use kitchen sink cleaning stuff, but I wash my metal models immediately they're finished. The encrusted flux-residue on this must be over 40 years old! 

[Michael Edge]

Best way is grit blasting after washing with kitchen cleaner and scrub with an old toothbrush. Keep the plug in the sink though, this process shows which bits are likely to fall off. I also rinse off with distilled water before painting, our tap water leaves crusty deposits (of what?) all over the models.

[St Enodoc]

Best way is grit blasting after washing with kitchen cleaner and scrub with an old toothbrush. Keep the plug in the sink though, this process shows which bits are likely to fall off. I also rinse off with distilled water before painting, our tap water leaves crusty deposits (of what?) all over the models.

Ha ha, I shudder to think what's in Barnsley water...

[DougN]

Tony, I use esteele powder which is like Ajax but specially designed for stainless sauce pans. It etched and scratches the surface and I have not found any grott it can't move. I am sure it has the same ingredients as the shiny sinks but the powder adds to the grott removal. The only challange is to make sure it all gets removed before painting.