Wright writes.....

[The Johnster]

Locos are, I suppose, bound to wear out eventually but some early Triang and Hornby Dublo rtr ones seem indestructible.  My oldest is an rtr offering, an Airfix 61xx which dates from about 1977 or 8, and which must have run a few real miles.  Several Mainline ones from the same period have succumbed to axle grooves which have worn though at the top; these are dead beyond revival and have been binned and replaced, bodies being saved in 2 instances.

 

It should be possible to make a chassis, rtr, kit or scratch, on which the components that wear are all replaceable; this would mean replaceable bearings and/or axle sleeves presumably.  The current rtr trend is for sloppy chassis to enable locos to negotiate train set curves, and as the manufacturers make ranges of track to go with their models, this is to be expected and they run very well indeed but you are expected to replace them when they wear out, and on big layouts with heavy loads that probably means years and not decades.  My 61xx feels as if it is just about properly run in, with the awful traction tyre removed and that wheel replaced it is a smooth and controllable runner, if a little noisy, but I am rather fond of it's trainset growl.  It easily pulls anything on my small blt, all my locos do, runs as well as any current rtr loco in my possession, and better than a current chassis Hornby 2721.  It is, like it's owner, crude but functional...

 

it is, in my view, unlikely that a modern rtr pacific with a lightweight chassis and a small motor to preserve daylight where it has to be preserved will have the traction to pull scale loads at scale speeds on a big layout, especially one with gradients; they will come to a stand with wheelslip rather than stall.  Some of Tony's comments seem to bear this out.  2-8-0s and 2-10-0s seem to do better, with the smaller driven wheels in greater numbers increasing traction and gearing the loco down.  Even though it is not really needed for traction purposes, I cram as much weight as I can into my locos because I alway have; it improves the pickup, especially for smooth starting and stopping.  There is always space that the manufacturers could have used for this, and it annoys me a bit that they don't.

[Tony Wright]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)

Thanks Tony,

 

Does 18,000 mean that's a lot? 

 

Your question. 

 

By way of an answer, there are three inclined road/ farm track overbridges at Little Bytham which cross the (flat, to all intents and purposes) railway formation. Two (because of their original low clearances) were demolished with electrification.

 

 

This was at the south end, and known as Marsh Bridge. Though the inclination is the same, it's now a single concrete span. 

 

 

This is what it looked like at an early stage of the model's construction.

 

 

Being a little bit taller, this one still survives, north of the station site and adjacent to the school. Its angle is slightly steeper. 

 

 

If you look into the distance in this shot of A1 ABERDONIAN leaving Grantham on an Up express you can see the steeply-angled old A1 road bridge. Now replaced, it's still at a steep angle, but it no longer carries the A1. 

 

On a totally different subject. I wrote some captions describing  Birmingham New Street for British Railways Illustrated some time ago, and I can't remember if they've been published (the memory crumbles!). I need to check a few facts but can't find enough back copies. Have they been published? And, if so, when, please? It'll have been in the last three years. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)[/quote

 

Have a look at photos of Dent on the Settle to Carlisle line. There was an article on modelling this bridge in a recent magazine, probably MRJ but my memory isn't as good as it used to be. I think if you tried to do it with a girder bridge it might not look right and I can't recall any examples of steeply sloping girders but in brick or stone you could do something like that with prototype accuracy.

[Daniel W]

I took delivery of my copy of 'Modelling the East Coat Mainline in the British Railway's era' today, very much looking forward to reading it, even though I have no interest in the East Coast mainline! The Crowood press has produced some of my most used modelling titles and their presentation is always excellent. It's good to see them adding the esteemed Mr Wright to their stable of writers.

 

Dan

[Tony Teague]

Thanks to Northroader - that is extreme!, The Johnster, Tony W - yes, I think 18,000 is pretty impressive!, and t-b-g for your thoughts & pictures.

I had intended to model this as a flat brick-sided girder with abuttments but I think that on reflection, it will be far more plausible as a brick arch.

Thanks to all.

 

Tony

[davidw]

I took delivery of my copy of 'Modelling the East Coat Mainline in the British Railway's era' today, very much looking forward to reading it, even though I have no interest in the East Coast mainline! The Crowood press has produced some of my most used modelling titles and their presentation is always excellent. It's good to see them adding the esteemed Mr Wright to their stable of writers.

 

Dan

Still waiting for my copy to arrive.

[johndon]

Arglye Street in Newcastle has a bridge over the ECML that is on a slope, it can be seen this photo, at which time, the single span girder bridge crossed six tracks:

 

https://newcastlequayside.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/1987-26500-leaving-trafalgar-yard-for-the-last-time-to-south-gosforth-29-02-64-is-carr-347.jpg

 

John

[Tony Wright]

Still waiting for my copy to arrive.

It's definitely out, David,

 

My complimentary copies arrived yesterday. 

 

Any thoughts on it, please let me know - critical if necessary (from anyone). 

[jollysmart]

It's definitely out, David,

 

My complimentary copies arrived yesterday. 

 

Any thoughts on it, please let me know - critical if necessary (from anyone). 

 

My copy arrived yesterday and I've just started reading it, enjoyable and informative up to now although I have 3/4 still to read. It's a yes from me.

[gr.king]

A loco appeared on here a few pages back looking for a sympathetic new owner. It now has one. This addition to my loco stud is a Millholme Models B5, generally neatly built, though not by me of course, and with some added details. It is certainly tidy enough and runs smoothly enough, as it Is, to be granted running rights on my home layout until such time as I feel inclined to do a few things to improve it. Power is from a Mashima Can motor via some kind of two-stage gearbox. Early attention will however have to be given to some features of the chassis, because the bogie is on the "good old toy train standard" swinging arm which throws the leading pair of full size (14mm) bogie wheels straight into the cylinders on anything but the gentlest of curves - occasional binding even on a five foot radius is visible. Re-mounting of the bogie either on a reversed swinging arm, or more likely on a pin sliding in a suitably curved transvers slot will alleviate the problem, and a slight compromise on bogie wheel sizes may help further. Those wheels need to be changed anyway as they currently are the 12 spoke variety when the should be ten-spoke. The back-to-backs on the coupled Markits / Romford wheels are a shade narrow too, perhaps as a result of too much cleaning up of wheel boss backs with a file at the time of building, maybe too many cycles of fitting and dismantling - who knows? They are okay running through Peco's "sloppy code 75" point flangeways, but on one or two of my long handbuilt points with true-to-standard narrow gaps around the crossings they bind up slightly. I'll have to whip the wheels off and insert some (paper?) shim washers between the shoulders on the axles and the wheel backs. A couple of side-play limiting washers on the middle wheel set can come out at the same time, as there's pleanty of room for those wheels to have some more sideplay. They have almost none at present and I tend to find that the more flexible the coupled wheelbase is on curves, the better, so long as there's nothing to catch or get knotted up! Depending on how I get on with it, the loco may appear on Grantham at some stage.

Here's the new arrival, middle, compared to a couple of stablemates, including the B4 that also managed to push its nose in on this thread recently:

 

On appropriate stock:

Not the sharpest pictures I've ever taken. I had to borrow the mobile phone from the boss after inserting the batteries wrongly in the stand-by power pack for my own camera, discharging them in seconds after carefully charging them for some time beforehand! Stupid boy.....
I hope the cells have survived the rather hot experience!

Edited July 27, 2017 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

A loco appeared on here a few pages back looking for a sympathetic new owner. It now has one. This addition to my loco stud is a Millholme Model B5, generally neatly built, though not by me of course, and with some added details. It is certainly tidy enough and runs smoothly enough, as it Is, to be granted running rights on my home layout until such time as I feel inclined to do a few things to improve it. Power is from a Mashima Can motor via some kind of two-stage gearbox. Early attention will however have to be given to some features of the chassis, because the bogie is on the "good old toy train standard" swinging arm which throws the leading pair of full size (14mm) bogie wheels straight into the cylinders on anything but the gentlest of curves - occasional binding even on a five foot radius is visible. Re-mounting of the bogie either on a reversed swinging arm, or more likely on a pin sliding in a suitably curved transvers slot will alleviate the problem, and a slight compromise on bogie wheel sizes may help further. Those wheels need to be changed anyway as they currently are the 12 spoke variety when the should be ten-spoke. The back-to-backs on the coupled Markits / Romford wheels are a shade narrow too, perhaps as a result of too much cleaning up of wheel boss backs with a file at the time of building, maybe too many cycles of fitting and dismantling - who knows? They are okay running through Peco's "sloppy code 75" point flangeways, but on one or two of my long handbuilt points with true-to-standard narrow gaps around the crossings they bind up slightly. I'll have to whip the wheels off and insert some (paper?) shim washers between the shoulders on the axles and the wheel backs. A couple of side-play limiting washers on the middle wheel set can come out at the same time, as there's pleanty of room for those wheels to have some more sideplay. They have almost none at present and I tend to find that the more flexible the coupled wheelbase is on curves, the better, so long as there's nothing to catch or get knotted up! Depending on how I get on with it, the loco may appear on Grantham at some stage.

Here's the new arrival, middle, compared to a couple of stablemates, including the B4 that also managed to push its nose in on this thread recently:

B4, B5 & Q4.jpg

 

On appropriate stock:

B5 in service 1.jpgB5 in service 2.jpg

Not the sharpest pictures I've ever taken. I had to borrow the mobile phone from the boss after inserting the batteries wrongly in the stand-by power pack for my own camera, discharging them in seconds after carefully charging them for some time beforehand! Stupid boy.....

I hope the cells have survived the rather hot experience!

Thanks Graeme,

 

It's interesting to learn of your experiences with the B5 on your layout. As you saw the other day, it ran round LB without any trouble, including negotiating a 3' curve. That, of course, was out of sight, so any binding would not have been apparent.

 

It looks like Norman Solomon made the scenic-side pointwork with a bit more clearance on LB.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you're generally happy with it. It does pose the question again of what kit-built locos of this standard are actually worth. It's well-built (though not to top-professional standard), is nicely, if not fully-painted (the wheel rims are not lined) and it runs very well. What a Millholme kit for a B5 might be worth unmade I don't know, but Romford/Markits drivers are now around £6.00 each, plus the cost of axles/crankpins/carrying wheels, then the cost of a motor/gearbox. Even at a conservative estimate I'd put the component parts at around £175.00.

 

Though I thought I'd sold the very last of the late John Brown's locos (of which the B5 was one), some more have now appeared (I'm assured these are the last!). There's a J10, N7, K3, 'Scott', J11, D11/2 and J39. These are a mixture, and I'll work on them all to make sure they run well.  I'll post some pictures later. All are kit-built. Anyone looking for a real bargain, please note. 

[t-b-g]

A loco appeared on here a few pages back looking for a sympathetic new owner. It now has one. This addition to my loco stud is a Millholme Model B5, generally neatly built, though not by me of course, and with some added details. It is certainly tidy enough and runs smoothly enough, as it Is, to be granted running rights on my home layout until such time as I feel inclined to do a few things to improve it. Power is from a Mashima Can motor via some kind of two-stage gearbox. Early attention will however have to be given to some features of the chassis, because the bogie is on the "good old toy train standard" swinging arm which throws the leading pair of full size (14mm) bogie wheels straight into the cylinders on anything but the gentlest of curves - occasional binding even on a five foot radius is visible. Re-mounting of the bogie either on a reversed swinging arm, or more likely on a pin sliding in a suitably curved transvers slot will alleviate the problem, and a slight compromise on bogie wheel sizes may help further. Those wheels need to be changed anyway as they currently are the 12 spoke variety when the should be ten-spoke. The back-to-backs on the coupled Markits / Romford wheels are a shade narrow too, perhaps as a result of too much cleaning up of wheel boss backs with a file at the time of building, maybe too many cycles of fitting and dismantling - who knows? They are okay running through Peco's "sloppy code 75" point flangeways, but on one or two of my long handbuilt points with true-to-standard narrow gaps around the crossings they bind up slightly. I'll have to whip the wheels off and insert some (paper?) shim washers between the shoulders on the axles and the wheel backs. A couple of side-play limiting washers on the middle wheel set can come out at the same time, as there's pleanty of room for those wheels to have some more sideplay. They have almost none at present and I tend to find that the more flexible the coupled wheelbase is on curves, the better, so long as there's nothing to catch or get knotted up! Depending on how I get on with it, the loco may appear on Grantham at some stage.

Here's the new arrival, middle, compared to a couple of stablemates, including the B4 that also managed to push its nose in on this thread recently:

B4, B5 & Q4.jpg

 

On appropriate stock:

B5 in service 1.jpgB5 in service 2.jpg

Not the sharpest pictures I've ever taken. I had to borrow the mobile phone from the boss after inserting the batteries wrongly in the stand-by power pack for my own camera, discharging them in seconds after carefully charging them for some time beforehand! Stupid boy.....

I hope the cells have survived the rather hot experience!

 

Lovely stuff Graeme. I have said it before but anything GCR is alright by me!

 

I wonder if the problem with the bogie wheels touching the cylinders is being caused by the relationship in the positions of one or the other. On the prototype, the cylinder was central between the bogie wheels but on the model the cylinders are much nearer the front bogie wheel.

 

I don't know which is wrong without measuring  but it looks likely that the cylinders are too far forward. Moving the cylinders is perhaps not an easy option but having seen what you can do to a loco, if anybody can do it, you can!

[MarkC]

Road bridge with a serious incline on the road, crossing the railway at an angle? How about the "Coal Road" bridge immediately north of Dent station?

[allan downes]

Still talking of bridges, was it true that when the GWR took over the  line at Fairford they had to dip the rails under the road over bridge as their locos were clouting the underside !

 

Was it also true that some of the GWR's engines 'abused' the standard loading gauge and ripped out platform edging on newly acquired lines ?

 

Allan

Edited July 27, 2017 by allan downes

[Re6/6]

Was it also true that some of the GWR's engines 'abused' the standard loading gauge and ripped out platform edging on newly acquired lines ?

 

Allan

Indeed it did appear to happen when BR(W) engines strayed. Earlier this week l did hear a tale (probably apocryphal!) that a large GW engine ended up at Fratton and they had to wait days for a path via London so that it could be returned from whence it came!

[mdh1950]

It's definitely out, David,

 

My complimentary copies arrived yesterday. 

 

Any thoughts on it, please let me know - critical if necessary (from anyone). 

 

 

Mine arrived yesterday. As expected, it is an excellent volume! My only complaint is that it caused me a significant loss of sleep last night as I could not put it down!

 

Well done Tony.

 

Michael

Edited July 27, 2017 by mdh1950

[4069]

As for the 2-8-0 you mention, when I was photographing Pendon several years ago, a GWR 2-8-0 28XX (the one described?), was being moved into position for me to take a picture. It waddled along the track in a most ungainly fashion making a serious grinding noise, promptly derailed and failed! I am not in any way being disparaging about the work of the peerless Guy Williams, but it looked to me as if it were worn out. 

I don't know which locomotive this was, or how long ago, but Guy Williams' model of 2844 is still very much in service at Pendon, now at long last hauling her loaded coal train (75 to 80 wagons, usually) through the Vale scene, after nearly fifty years "temporary" use in Dartmoor.

[landscapes]

Thanks Tony,

 

Does 18,000 mean that's a lot? 

 

Your question. 

 

By way of an answer, there are three inclined road/ farm track overbridges at Little Bytham which cross the (flat, to all intents and purposes) railway formation. Two (because of their original low clearances) were demolished with electrification.

 

Bridges 01.jpg

 

This was at the south end, and known as Marsh Bridge. Though the inclination is the same, it's now a single concrete span. 

 

Bridges 05.jpg

 

This is what it looked like at an early stage of the model's construction.

 

Bridges 02.jpg

 

Being a little bit taller, this one still survives, north of the station site and adjacent to the school. Its angle is slightly steeper. 

 

A1 60158 Grantham 21.08.60 2528.jpg

 

If you look into the distance in this shot of A1 ABERDONIAN leaving Grantham on an Up express you can see the steeply-angled old A1 road bridge. Now replaced, it's still at a steep angle, but it no longer carries the A1. 

 

On a totally different subject. I wrote some captions describing  Birmingham New Street for British Railways Illustrated some time ago, and I can't remember if they've been published (the memory crumbles!). I need to check a few facts but can't find enough back copies. Have they been published? And, if so, when, please? It'll have been in the last three years. 

 

Hi Tony

 

Nice photo of A1 Class 60158 Aberdonian.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited July 27, 2017 by landscapes

[Tony Teague]

Not sure whether this will be of interest to anyone, so apologies in advance, but PostScript books are selling copies of Peter Tuffrey's "British Railways Steam: Kings Cross to Aberdeen: The Bill Reed Collection", pub. Fonthill 2012, for £5.99 (RRP £16.99).

See: https://www.psbooks.co.uk/British-Railways-Steam-Kings-Cross-to-Aberdeen-9781781550533

They also have a number of other railway titles.

Postscript sell remaindered books from many publishers including e.g. Ian Allan, and I can recommend their rapid service (no connection etc).

 

Tony

[gr.king]

Lovely stuff Graeme. I have said it before but anything GCR is alright by me!

 

I wonder if the problem with the bogie wheels touching the cylinders is being caused by the relationship in the positions of one or the other. On the prototype, the cylinder was central between the bogie wheels but on the model the cylinders are much nearer the front bogie wheel.

 

I don't know which is wrong without measuring  but it looks likely that the cylinders are too far forward. Moving the cylinders is perhaps not an easy option but having seen what you can do to a loco, if anybody can do it, you can!

 

Camera perspective and narrower-than-scale gauge are "pulling our chains" somewhat in this case. When seen square-on, the cylinders, bogie wheels and smokebox positions all relate to one another as per the drawings I have. Still, as a temporary measure the bogie could simply go forward a trifle more, as you suggest, without fouling the guard irons at the front. It would then swing back to produce the correct wheelbase (rather than one too short) on curves, and the wheels might clear the cylinders more satisfactorily. I'd prefer the bogie ultimately to be in the right place when straight, and creeping forwards on curves, but just fitting a longer arm in the interim would be easy.....

[gazman424]

Tony,

Excellently set out and moves along at a perfect pace. I'm usually a 'skimmer' when it comes to this type of book, but I have found myself reading every page. That, combined with the pin sharp photography, make it a winner!

Well recommended!!

Gaz.

 

My complimentary copies arrived yesterday. 

 

Any thoughts on it, please let me know - critical if necessary (from anyone).

[Richard E]

I see, for those that have the technology, that a Kindle version of the book is also available - I can say I'm tempted ...

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Nice photo of A1 Class 60158 Aberdonian.

 

Regards

 

David

Thanks David, though it's not my picture.

 

It was taken by Keith Pirt and is one I'll be commenting on in my forthcoming Booklaw book.

 

Speaking of books, may I please thank all those who've posted so far with regard to my Crowood book? It's very gratifying indeed. 

 

Returning to A1s, how about this one - a model, of course? 

 

 

Some grand friends came today and one of them brought this. He's changing gauge, and it's now surplus to his requirements. I built it for him from a DJH kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. It's appeared in the model press. 

 

I know it's not from a bereavement, so, if any of the moderators deem this to be inappropriate, then I'll understand. That said, if it sells, a fair bit of the proceeds will go to Cancer Research. 

 

If anyone is interested, please send me a PM. Were I to build this loco today, it would be a fair bit beyond the four-figure mark. Fear not, it won't be that much I'm asking for it.  

[BR(W)]

Indeed it did appear to happen when BR(W) engines strayed. Earlier this week l did hear a tale (probably apocryphal!) that a large GW engine ended up at Fratton and they had to wait days for a path via London so that it could be returned from whence it came!

 

It did indeed happen. A 4073 (Castle) ended up at Fratton when no suitable Southern loco was available to take over an inter-regional working. I have seen a photograph of her, impounded, towering over the diminutive, local A1X Terriers.

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

[Enterprisingwestern]

. Were I to build this loco today, it would be a fair bit beyond the four-figure mark. Fear not, it won't be that much I'm asking for it.  

 

£10.50?

 

Mike.