Wright writes.....

[Buhar]

Lubricators for the cylinders. Globe was one type.

[jjb1970]

As someone who has personal recent experience in putting brand new and not inexpensive Chinese built ships into service, the worst British-built ships I've ever served in - both brand new and 'old ladies' - were paradise compared to the Chinese stuff. QA? Let's just say that Chinese fixings such as nuts and bolts bay carry the correct markings, but their composition isn't near what it should be. Commissioning? Plenty of 'monkey business' going on during 'trials' in order to get Class approval. A fistful of Yuan works well... As for build quality - one of my old ships - a product of "British Shipbuilders" dating back to 1982 and an absolute nightmare to operate, although she made her owners a lot of money over the years, finally went for scrap only 2 months ago, at the venerable age of 35, having been working right up until her last one-way voyage. The new Chinese built vessels of my acquaintance are already breaking, after only 3 years in service. They'll be lucky to get to 15 years old, never mind their design life of 25.

 

But I fear that I/we digress...

The Chinese yards aren't the best. These days some of them are actually pretty good and still improving but some of them just build junk. Still the same was said about Korean yards not that long ago and I'm old enough to remember that awful phrase "jap crap".

That said, Chinese yards tend to be a low cost option competing against the top end Korean and Japanese yards. I also think some owners have a responsibility, there is a recurring theme of Chinese yards offering significant discounts to customers who agree to certain contract omissions. That says something about the yards but it also says something about ship owners.

The German yards were far from perfect either. However, if you compared British yards with Korean, Japanese or German yards there is quite a cultural difference. The Japanese and Koreans drop a lot of klangers too but they are quite anal in their monitoring and developing practices to close the holes that allowed defects to go through to sea trials. The British yards tend to have a "its a complex ship, what do you expect?" attitude. And it appears that this is not just a modern phenomenon as I've read a few papers going back to WW2 on the same subject.

[adrianmc]

A while back Tony referenced Sandford and Banwell in P4 as being one of the better layouts at a recent show.  SP Rail, who puts out some pretty good videos on U-Tube, had a fair bit of coverage of said layout in his latest video and I do agree it is rather nice and appears to run well.  Examination of the video suggests that many of the locos (and other stock?) are actually RTR modified to P4.  Assuming this is the case, the builder is clearly not a "kit builder" but he obviously is a pretty good modeller with construction skills because he has successfully modified the RTR material.

 

Jeff Day who with his father constructed Sandford & Banwell is very much a kit builder and enhances models by adding scratch-built extras should the kit in his eyes fall short. The stock on the layout features scratch built items such as the Midland Compound 4-4-0 that makes a "guest" appearance, through kit built to heavily modified RTR. One of Jeff's locomotives that he has kindly built for me and features on Leysdown is a heavily modified Falcon Brass/Jidenco kit of a ex SECR Class B1 4-4-0 whose tender was so incorrect in the kit resulted in Jeff virtually scratch building a replacement.

 

[MarkC]

The Chinese yards aren't the best. These days some of them are actually pretty good and still improving but some of them just build junk. Still the same was said about Korean yards not that long ago and I'm old enough to remember that awful phrase "jap crap".

That said, Chinese yards tend to be a low cost option competing against the top end Korean and Japanese yards. I also think some owners have a responsibility, there is a recurring theme of Chinese yards offering significant discounts to customers who agree to certain contract omissions. That says something about the yards but it also says something about ship owners.

The German yards were far from perfect either. However, if you compared British yards with Korean, Japanese or German yards there is quite a cultural difference. The Japanese and Koreans drop a lot of klangers too but they are quite anal in their monitoring and developing practices to close the holes that allowed defects to go through to sea trials. The British yards tend to have a "its a complex ship, what do you expect?" attitude. And it appears that this is not just a modern phenomenon as I've read a few papers going back to WW2 on the same subject.

Agreed. However, one big problem, of course, is that many countries' shipbuilding capacity has been destroyed, either by political dogma or simple economics. This does tie owners' hands as to where they can go for new ships, and this also means that yards can be quite selective as to whose ships they build. For the tanker trades in particular, where oil majors are determined that their cargoes are carried in modern ships,(and the maximum age for ships carrying their cargoes has come down from 25 to 20 years, with 15 years being the next step to aim for), this means that China is often the only option. It's a dire situation in many respects.

[Focalplane]

Being a Brummie I don't know much about ships.

 

However, I have worked on a drillship in the Gulf of Thailand that was modified from an ore carrier in Hong Kong around 1974. Hong Kong has no reputation as a shipbuilder and that is as it should be. As each component was swung onto the deck it seemed that no one knew where it should be put and the result was that everything was welded or bolted right where it was hoisted aboard. There was no clear path along the deck and hard hats became most useful to avoid bouncing one's head off pipes, girders and so on.

 

To make matters worse, while I was working on the ship I was subjected to a serious 24 hour abandon ship alert, a tsunami swell and a helicopter pilot who trained in Viet Nam.

 

It was called the Tainaron. I hope it has been converted back to being an ore carrier. But not in Hong Kong.

[jjb1970]

Agreed. However, one big problem, of course, is that many countries' shipbuilding capacity has been destroyed, either by political dogma or simple economics. This does tie owners' hands as to where they can go for new ships, and this also means that yards can be quite selective as to whose ships they build. For the tanker trades in particular, where oil majors are determined that their cargoes are carried in modern ships,(and the maximum age for ships carrying their cargoes has come down from 25 to 20 years, with 15 years being the next step to aim for), this means that China is often the only option. It's a dire situation in many respects.

This is a great time to buy a ship if you have cash. The Korean yards are desperate for orders, the arrogance that characterised their attitudes to buyers of a few years ago has evaporated now that the boot is on the other foot. At one time they were notorious for taking a "that's the design, that's what we'll build, if you don't like it sod off and somebody else will buy it" type attitude as there was a demand/capacity imbalance favouring the builders. Now orders have imploded the yards are desperate to offer buyers whatever they ask for.

 

My worry is the long term consequences of the new eco ships designed around the EEDI requirements. We're already getting a lot of reports about ships taking several minutes to get through barred speed ranges with calamitous implications for engine and shaft life, engines tripping out in high currents, ships not being able to even maintain a heading in rough weather etc. Now as you may have noticed I'm a bit of a tree hugger, but I'm also a bit of an advocate of not seeing seafarers as being disposable and also I see no environmental benefit if a tanker goes aground and spills 100,000T of crude oil on a beach because it was under powered. Unfortunately the eco lobby are refusing to accept there is a real safety problem and just blaming it on evil ship owners wanting to avoid efficient ships, does anybody really believe ship owners actually want to use more fuel than they need to?! This is one of those instances where the ship owners and seafarers unions are very much on the same page, which itself say's something.

[ArthurK]

Once upon a time when we still had a merchant navy and still built ships on the Tyne and Wear I was privileged to visit the "African Palm" newly built on the Wear. It left under the command of my brother-in-law Robert Vinton who had risen to rank of Commodore in Palm Line. I believe that this was the last merchant ship built on the Wear so ending very many years ship building at Sunderland.

I don't have a photo of the ship in total but I can offer this photo of my two daughters posed against the funnel. The year was 1975.

 

 

Back to railways!

 

ArthurK

Edited August 12, 2017 by ArthurK

[grob1234]

Thank you all for the responses to my question. Every locomotive I have built so far with the exception of the W1 has had one of these globe lubricators. I presume they were usually fitted to both sides of the smoke box?

 

Arthur, I've sent you a PM

[ArthurK]

These globe lubricators were fitted to locos with saturated boilers, one to each cylinder. On locos with inside cylinders they were normally fitted to each side of the smoke box with a right angled pipe. Less commonly they were on the smokebox front. On outside cylinder locos they were vertically mounted on the footplate above each cylinder. Not all of these were globe shaped. Some were tubular and may have had a rounded top resembling a fat bell whistle.

 

Note that when locos were superheated they normally lost these embellishments and were usually fitted with mechanical lubrication.

 

ArthurK

Edited August 12, 2017 by ArthurK

[Spannerman]

Deleted as posted in error. Sorry

Edited August 12, 2017 by Spannerman

[jimmysbow]

Can I ask a question please

There is an excellent wealth of knowledge on things LNER/ Eastern Region here.

Were Quad Art sets ever mixed ie- the composite set from one set running with the all third set from another or were they always in fixed formations?

Thanks

John

[Jamiel]

Just a photo as a way of saying 'thank you' to the inspiration given by Tony Wright and the many contributors to this thread towards building brass kits.

It has taken a few years to build up the courage to finally make this, through baby steps with etched bogies, coach sides, detailing and conversion kits, now I have started my first full brass kit, a Comet LMS Inspection Saloon (bought just before Bachmann/Farish announced theirs. I bought a OO gauge blue one, very useful as a reference when building this). This one will be BR maroon eventually.

This does contain some crimes against soldering, and started off with not reading the instructions carefully enough and folding a main support tab the wrong way and soldering it in place, but it is a learning process, (it was heated, bent the right way and soldered into the right position, although not quite as precisely as if I had done it correctly in the first place) and has been hugely enjoyable so far.



I would recommend Comet kits for starters with fully brass kits, their exploded diagrams are very helpful for beginners. The etches are thick and sturdy, not as delicate as some, but I really have liked their etches for the bogies and other bits I have built before. The down side is that thick etches are good heat sinks, and combined with buying a very cheap blow torch (which is useless), I have had to heat some of the larger pieces for a while with the iron, and also had to use a little (way too much) solder as a heat transfer, but hopefully that is all hidden, and will be less clumsy with my next build. The brakes are very fiddly, and the instructions do suggest you can miss them off, but a challenge is a challenge. One pair so far.

So a big 'thank you' to Tony Wright, Coachman, Adam and many others on the forum, as well as Alan, Keith, BarryO and Mike Edge at Leeds Model Railway Society for inspiration, advice and the odd warnings about burnt fingers.

Jamie

Edited August 13, 2017 by Jamiel

[grob1234]

You're on a slippery slope now Jamie!

 

It's great fun though isn't it?

[Tony Wright]

Just a photo as a way of saying 'thank you' to the inspiration given by Tony Wright and the many contributors to this thread towards building brass kits.

 

It has taken a few years to build up the courage to finally make this, through baby steps with etched bogies, coach sides, detailing and conversion kits, now I have started my first full brass kit, a Comet LMS Inspection Saloon (bought just before Bachmann/Farish announced theirs. I bought a OO gauge blue one, very useful as a reference when building this). This one will be BR maroon eventually.

 

This does contain some crimes against soldering, and started off with not reading the instructions carefully enough and folder a main support tab the wrong way and soldering it in place, but it is a learning process, (it was heated, bent the right way and soldered into the right position, although not quite as precisely as if I had done it correctly in the first place) and has been hugely enjoyable so far.

 

 

I would recommend Comet kits for starters with fully brass kits, their exploded diagrams are very helpful for beginners. The etches are thick and sturdy, not as delicate as some, but I really have liked their etches for the bogies and other bits I have built before. The down side is that thick etches are good heat sinks, and combined with buying a very cheap blow torch (which is useless), I have had to heat some of the larger pieces for a while with the iron, and also had to use a little (way too much) solder as a heat transfer, but hopefully that is all hidden, and will be less clumsy with my next build. The brakes are very fiddly, and the instructions do suggest you can miss them off, but a challenge is a challenge. One pair so far.

 

So a big 'thank you' to Tony Wright, Coachman, Adam and many others on the forum, as well as Alan, Keith, BarryO and Mike Edge at Leeds Model Railway Society for inspiration, advice and the odd warnings about burnt fingers.

 

Jamie

Thank you ever so much for posting this, Jamie. 

 

As Tom has said, you're on the slippery slope now. But, it's a slope that goes up as well - up to (and you're well on the way) becoming an actual model-maker, a true railway modeller. 

 

Don't forget RTR altogether, but use it (as you have done) to complement what you're personally doing. You're beginning your own model-making, not asking others (by whatever means) to do it for you. 

 

Great stuff!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[mullie]

I would say in my first attempts at soldering an etched brass wagon (still unfinished) and a Comet chassis one of the main things I learnt was how to unsolder things but I would agree it is addictive!

 

Martyn

[Tony Wright]

With the Booklaw book at Amadeus and my Irwell Bookazine now finished and ready for designing (a fortnight ahead of schedule), a return has been made to modelling. 

 

 

 

Though for a variety of reasons, I'm not writing an article on building the Little Engines A7, in response to a request I'll post some pictures here of progress. 

 

This is the state of play so far, with the basic chassis running sweetly, the bogie and pony installed and the footplate in place. So far, so good. 

 

As already mentioned, because this loco will eventually be DCC-fitted (it's obviously not, nor ever will be, for me), I've made the chassis electrically-dead and ensured all pick-ups are insulated. Not only that, the tight clearances predicted between the cylinders and the bogie wheels mean that it's probably a good idea to insulate the chassis, anyway. 

 

Are Portescaps happy on DCC? It's just that I've already fried one with a chip installed. 

[Theakerr]

Years ago I built a Little Engines A5 which I think is basically the same as the A7.  After the usual fettling it would run perfectly 99.8% of time and on the 0.2% it would just stop until prodded by the hand of God.  I must have spent 4 or 5 years trying to figure out what it was until one night when, whatever reason the room was dark, I saw the wheels arc against the frame.  I think it was the front wheels but it might have been the rear.  Somehow under one particular configuration of track, bogie position, bogie wheel position it was just catching.  60 seconds of file work and for the last 10 years it has run perfectly.  I know you are building the motor isolated so I am not sure if the post is even relevant but I thought I would post as a lesson learnt and all that PC/Nanny stuff

Edited August 13, 2017 by Theakerr

[chris p bacon]

Tony.   I've run out of the sleeve I use on pick ups and can't for the life of me remember where it came from.  Where did the sleeve on the A7's pick ups come from ?

 

Thanks.

[Tony Wright]

Years ago I built a Little Engines A5 which I think is basically the same as the A7.  After the usual fettling it would run perfectly 99.8% of time and on the 0.2% it would just stop until prodded by the hand of God.  I must have spent 4 or 5 years trying to figure out what it was until one night when, whatever reason the room was dark, I saw the wheels arc against the frame.  I think it was the front wheels but it might have been the rear.  Somehow under one particular configuration of track, bogie position, bogie wheel position it was just catching.  60 seconds of file work and for the last 10 years it has run perfectly.  I know you are building the motor isolated so I am not sure if the post is even relevant but I thought I would post as a lesson learnt and all that PC/Nanny stuff

Thanks for that,

 

I always run my new locos in the dark - it's the easiest way to identify a stray short. I didn't find out the technique by accident - a mate told me. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony.   I've run out of the sleeve I use on pick ups and can't for the life of me remember where it came from.  Where did the sleeve on the A7's pick ups come from ?

 

Thanks.

Dave,

 

It's GEM Mercontrol 1015 PTFE Flexi-Tube. The code number on the bar is 7121008.

 

It's available (or was) from 12 Manor Farm Road, Bere Regis, Wareham, Dorset BH20 7HB. 

 

www.lytchettmanor.co.uk

 

I've used miles of the stuff. 

[Barry O]

you can use the plastic cover from single strand wire if you need some in a rush. It is a great insulator and slides onto pick up wire very easily

 

Baz

[AndyID]

you can use the plastic cover from single strand wire if you need some in a rush. It is a great insulator and slides onto pick up wire very easily

 

Baz

 

A bit of small bore heat-shrink tubing might work too.

[allan downes]

Thanks for that,

 

I always run my new locos in the dark - it's the easiest way to identify a stray short. I didn't find out the technique by accident - a mate told me. 

 

That's the way we used to check car electrics for plug, HT leads, distributor caps etc for  electrical shorts and jumping. Run the engine in the dark. Worked every time.

 

Allan.

[chris p bacon]

Dave,

 

It's GEM Mercontrol 1015 PTFE Flexi-Tube. The code number on the bar is 7121008.

 

It's available (or was) from 12 Manor Farm Road, Bere Regis, Wareham, Dorset BH20 7HB. 

 

www.lytchettmanor.co.uk

 

I've used miles of the stuff. 

 

Many thanks Tony,     I thought Dorset rang a bell.....just not loud enough for me.

[DougN]

As already mentioned, because this loco will eventually be DCC-fitted (it's obviously not, nor ever will be, for me), I've made the chassis electrically-dead and ensured all pick-ups are insulated. Not only that, the tight clearances predicted between the cylinders and the bogie wheels mean that it's probably a good idea to insulate the chassis, anyway. 

 

Are Portescaps happy on DCC? It's just that I've already fried one with a chip installed. 

 

Tony, I have a DCC fitted portescap. loco and generally yes they are happy on DCC. As long as they are Chipped with a "high frequency" decoder. Generally all the current Decoders are high frequency and some where buried in their literature they will state that they are OK with coreless motors. However, I would suggest avoiding "cheap" decoders as these may not be. I have had some success with TCS M1's, they are nice and small with good control-ability. No doubt the other decoder manufacturers, Zimo, ESU, Lenz, DCCconcepts have suitable products. As usual though the motor MUST be isolated from the chassis and body. This can kill the motor and the decoder.  Like all these things the decoder manuals which for various reasons are all online and semi difficult to read. Some decoders need their BEMF turned off with the CV's. This is getting into territory I don't go into unless absolutely necessary. (Also the actions don't get remembered as it is too long between times where I have too.

 

The decoders are a little touchy but the better manufacturers will have goof proof warranites and there is a hard reset that can bring the decoders back to their original settings.