Wright writes.....

[DougN]

John, any ideas of where the rust starts and the Iron ore ends????

[AndyID]

Not sure they'll be able to buff that out.

 

But surely the locomotives had "sleeping/deceased driver" detection? It's not exactly a new idea

[Jesse Sim]

Morning Tony and all.

 

Tony, here are some pictures of the progress so far, as you have seen it pre extension, the idea I had months ago and then with your approval has worked wonderfully. SOOO MUCH BETTER!

 

A more in detail update on my thread Tony, have a geez.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(“Have a geez” means have a look)

 

Aussie language, remember any from when you were here?

 

 

Hope you and Mo are well.

[Tony Wright]

Morning Tony and all.

 

Tony, here are some pictures of the progress so far, as you have seen it pre extension, the idea I had months ago and then with your approval has worked wonderfully. SOOO MUCH BETTER!

 

A more in detail update on my thread Tony, have a geez.

 

A9C48286-D240-48F8-B0DD-C261FC7C6DB3.jpeg

 

1F7C1BDE-D42E-4974-8EFA-1DA000A14F51.jpeg

 

81DF6D00-EFF0-458F-BDB7-DF7F3A1F8D07.jpeg

 

D1A371E4-FC2C-4B9E-9B58-C88EAF551A11.jpeg

 

 

(“Have a geez” means have a look)

 

Aussie language, remember any from when you were here?

 

 

Hope you and Mo are well.

That's terrific progress, Jesse,

 

In a way, I feel partly responsible, in that I spoke to your mum about it. 

 

Thanks for explaining 'geez' - how quaint, how colonial, and how Aussie. 

 

Mo and I are very well, thank you, as I hope you and yours are, too. 

 

Have I remembered any Aussie language? Bits I suppose, though I've never subsequently used 'no worries' to suffix every reply (nor ever will). What I did learn (language-wise) is that I had no idea, before travelling down under, how many derivatives of 'forced, unlawful carnal knowledge' there were (make the acronym). I thought I was fluent in its various uses, but, in that pub, I'm illiterate in comparison! 

 

The 1938 DVD seems to have gone down well - once more, many thanks for your considerable help. The 1958 one was signed off yesterday - thanks again for your help with that. It'll appear in the March issue of BRM.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

That's terrific progress, Jesse,

 

In a way, I feel partly responsible, in that I spoke to your mum about it. 

 

Thanks for explaining 'geez' - how quaint, how colonial, and how Aussie. 

 

Mo and I are very well, thank you, as I hope you and yours are, too. 

 

Have I remembered any Aussie language? Bits I suppose, though I've never subsequently used 'no worries' to suffix every reply (nor ever will). What I did learn (language-wise) is that I had no idea, before travelling down under, how many derivatives of 'forced, unlawful carnal knowledge' there were (make the acronym). I thought I was fluent in its various uses, but, in that pub, I'm illiterate in comparison! 

 

The 1938 DVD seems to have gone down well - once more, many thanks for your considerable help. The 1958 one was signed off yesterday - thanks again for your help with that. It'll appear in the March issue of BRM.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Your approval was the go ahead! I think also that last visit to LB with all the Grantham stock made me sway towards it. Many thanks for the kick up the backside to tackle it.

 

Remember, geez you say it like geese, substituting the S for a Z, no E on the end. Don’t say it like “gee, what a crap bowler” ( cricket, I know, getting there).

 

Yeah the pub is totally different, as John says you were in the West. As you might remember, my mate Craig, a good F you, before shaking hands, all for a good laugh.

 

 

Excellent, my birthday month!!! Woohoo

[Enterprisingwestern]

Underneath a lifting section seems a strange place to put a telephone exchange!

 

Mike.

[Jesse Sim]

Underneath a lifting section seems a strange place to put a telephone exchange!

 

Mike.

Close to it!

[jamie92208]

I have a complaint to Sir, you have kept going on about lamps on locos so I have had to make sure that the 2F that I'm slowly trying to build from a Mercian kit, about which the least I say is better, has lamp irons and eventually lamps fitted.   This has caused me some pain as the fold up etches supplied were worse than useless and fell apart when I tried to fold them.   A frantic hunt through various part and unbuilt kits produced a set of lovely castings in an old Shedmaster 2-4-0 kit that's now produced by Laurie Griffin.   These were purloined and I have now had the job of soldering them on when there were no witness marks, etched holes etc.   This is the result.

The only one I have left to fit is the one on top of the smokebox door that I can't do until the door is in place.

A lot of tidying up is required but after at least two hours work they are in place.

As they are such nice castings I've had to place a order with Laurie Griffin for several more sets and some lamps to go with them.  It would never do for me to have locos running without lamps or Sir might give me lines.

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

Having just completed some further moving footage of Little Bytham, It never ceases to amaze me how the dynamics of the real thing don't scale down to trainset size. I've never really taken this into consideration with my still photography (at which, I became a professional), apart from trying to get as 'realistic' a view as possible, but I'm 'appalled' at how some of my stock runs. 

 

I know there's always the inherent 'sloppiness' to be taken into consideration with OO (it would be interesting to see what moving footage looks like on the finer gauges in comparison), but, though nothing derails or fails, the amount of bounce and yaw displayed by some of my locomotives seems quite alarming, especially in tight perspective. I console myself in the fact that any RTR locos I've got display even more of a tendency to travel up and down and from side to side! 

 

Though my carriage stock (in the main) runs reasonably consistently, much of my freight stock (not built by me - a good cop-out) wibbles and wobbles as it goes jollily by, though it doesn't derail. 

 

My plan (me, a plan?) is to edit the footage with the help of a friend and then put it out on YouTube and on here (after the 1958 LB DVD has been featured in the March issue of BRM next year). Not for personal gain, but really to see what others think.

 

As far as comments I've received about the 1938 footage go, most have been positive and encouraging. One (highly respected, and deservedly so) observer thought the consistency of some of the trains (particularly the artics) in terms of ride-height and parallelism wasn't very good, and I'm inclined to agree with him. 'Camel-backed' was his description of some - very apposite, and thanks for making the analogy). My stock doesn't appear to suffer quite so much in that respect, but some needs attention. 

 

What's absolutely clear (and, to some extent, it's the same with still photography), is that the naked eye, looking at the trains in question, never sees things in quite such a cruel way. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Chamby]

Having just completed some further moving footage of Little Bytham, It never ceases to amaze me how the dynamics of the real thing don't scale down to trainset size. I've never really taken this into consideration with my still photography (at which, I became a professional), apart from trying to get as 'realistic' a view as possible, but I'm 'appalled' at how some of my stock runs. 

 

I know there's always the inherent 'sloppiness' to be taken into consideration with OO (it would be interesting to see what moving footage looks like on the finer gauges in comparison), but, though nothing derails or fails, the amount of bounce and yaw displayed by some of my locomotives seems quite alarming, especially in tight perspective. I console myself in the fact that any RTR locos I've got display even more of a tendency to travel up and down and from side to side! 

 

Though my carriage stock (in the main) runs reasonably consistently, much of my freight stock (not built by me - a good cop-out) wibbles and wobbles as it goes jollily by, though it doesn't derail. 

 

My plan (me, a plan?) is to edit the footage with the help of a friend and then put it out on YouTube and on here (after the 1958 LB DVD has been featured in the March issue of BRM next year). Not for personal gain, but really to see what others think.

 

As far as comments I've received about the 1938 footage go, most have been positive and encouraging. One (highly respected, and deservedly so) observer thought the consistency of some of the trains (particularly the artics) in terms of ride-height and parallelism wasn't very good, and I'm inclined to agree with him. 'Camel-backed' was his description of some - very apposite, and thanks for making the analogy). My stock doesn't appear to suffer quite so much in that respect, but some needs attention. 

 

What's absolutely clear (and, to some extent, it's the same with still photography), is that the naked eye, looking at the trains in question, never sees things in quite such a cruel way.

 

I think much of what you refer to as ‘sloppiness’ is inevitable, given that the tolerances necessary in 1:76 scale up to far more than they would be in 12 inches to the foot. Also, the focal length of the lens you use when photographing can be very cruel in some situations, both model and full scale.

 

There was an interesting discussion in last weeks ‘Great Model Railways Challenge’ about modelling water, and how it was impossible to get real water to look right because it’s movement properties do not scale down, so any waves and ripples are wholly unrealistic. The same is probably true of other wave-like movement, such as undulations and oscillations that equally do not scale down, and just don’t look right when observed in 1:76. This may be down to the properties of the materials themselves, as much as the issue of tolerances.

 

So don’t beat yourself up if your fastidious modelling doesn’t perform like the real thing, you can’t warp the laws of physics!

 

Phil.

[Enterprisingwestern]

The real thing wobbles like buggery if you film it with a 76.2 times zoom lens, just look at the youtube videos shot of trains with zoom lenses.

I wholeheartedly endorse the last comment of the above reply.

 

Mike.

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

I’ve just picked up December’s Railway Modeller. I enjoyed your article on building the SE Finecast J6 and particularly the side by side shot of the 521 and 536 series which makes the differences clear. I’ve been waiting to start mine until I read this, so no excuses now....apart from the large pile of unfinished projects!

 

It was very handy to provide the drawings - worth the cover price alone.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Lecorbusier]

The real thing wobbles like buggery if you film it with a 76.2 times zoom lens, just look at the youtube videos shot of trains with zoom lenses.

I wholeheartedly endorse the last comment of the above reply.

 

Mike.

Suggesting that a reasonable amount of wobble and movement is proto-typical? Fully concur on some of the head on steam loco footage I have seen where the loco appears to be bucking like a bronco.

genuine question ... would this also be true of the stock or just the loco?

[ScRSG]

Just a question, please, Tony. On the recent footage you have of LB, on the last (A4 hauled) train to feature, there is an RF and a Restaurant Pantry third in the stock, but it appears that the pantry end is at the opposite end from the kitchen of the RF, would this be the normal marshalling? I would have thought the Pantry end would be next to the kitchen of the RF, purely for staff access. Having just finished (?) a pair of these and they will be permanently coupled I would like to know which way is "normal".

 

Chas

[jwealleans]

Was it not the case that when CWR started to be adopted, the speed limit on 4 wheel stock had to be radically reduced as it hunted so much it eventually threw itself off the track? It had been the impact of wheels on rail joints over the years which had prevented the effect from manifesting itself earlier.

 

Another of those things which is realistic but looks like bad modelling/.

[StephenB]

That was certainly the case in the Republic of Ireland when CIE went over to CWR. They had to reduce the speed limit on its 4w container wagons for just that reason, which hastened the introduction of bogie container wagons.

 

Steohen

[jacko]

Suggesting that a reasonable amount of wobble and movement is proto-typical? Fully concur on some of the head on steam loco footage I have seen where the loco appears to be bucking like a bronco.

genuine question ... would this also be true of the stock or just the loco?

 

I took my grandkids on the Bo'ness and Kinneil railway through the summer and found the stock to roll noticeably albeit at unrealistically low speeds.

 

Graeme

[TrevorP1]

With regard to the 'undesirable' movement of models, behaviour of water and, dare I say it, DCC sound. To me this all boils down to the fact that you cannot scale nature. 

[Clive Mortimore]

With regard to the 'undesirable' movement of models, behaviour of water and, dare I say it, DCC sound. To me this all boils down to the fact that you cannot scale nature. 

Hi Trevor

 

Scaling nature...the Japanese have a word for that Bonsai. 

 

Seriously you are right, that is why a model will always be a representation not a miniature of the real thing.

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

Seriously you are right, that is why a model will always be a representation not a miniature of the real thing.

Now that opens a can of worms as far as semantics are concerned 

[jamie92208]

Suggesting that a reasonable amount of wobble and movement is proto-typical? Fully concur on some of the head on steam loco footage I have seen where the loco appears to be bucking like a bronco.

genuine question ... would this also be true of the stock or just the loco?

 

I remember reading somewhere about the journey that KGV did across the Atlantic as deck cargo on a fairly small freighter.  They had chained it down but had to re rig it once they hit rough seas as no one had realised how much it moved on it's springs.

 

Jamie

 

PS, as to the cruelty imposed by the camera Lens, I felt that when I saw those photos that I took of the 2F last night.

Edited November 8, 2018 by jamie92208

[RLBH]

I think much of what you refer to as ‘sloppiness’ is inevitable, given that the tolerances necessary in 1:76 scale up to far more than they would be in 12 inches to the foot. Also, the focal length of the lens you use when photographing can be very cruel in some situations, both model and full scale.

 

There was an interesting discussion in last weeks ‘Great Model Railways Challenge’ about modelling water, and how it was impossible to get real water to look right because it’s movement properties do not scale down, so any waves and ripples are wholly unrealistic. The same is probably true of other wave-like movement, such as undulations and oscillations that equally do not scale down, and just don’t look right when observed in 1:76. This may be down to the properties of the materials themselves, as much as the issue of tolerances.

 

So don’t beat yourself up if your fastidious modelling doesn’t perform like the real thing, you can’t warp the laws of physics!

 

Phil.

This comes about because when you scale things down, the ratio between gravitational and inertial forces goes adrift. To compensate, you also have to scale time - which isn't impossible. The approach taken is - imagine that you model a grandfather clock with perfect fidelity in 1:76 scale, using the same materials as the prototype. Since this is a thought experiment, we can assume that your modelling skills are arbitrarily good.

 

If the prototype clock's pendulum takes one second to make a full swing, the scaled pendulum will have a period of 1/sqrt(76) seconds - i.e. 114.7 milliseconds. This is then your scale second. You also have to scale down speed in a similar fashion, so that a 35mph prototype train travels at 4mph on the model, and so forth. If you speed up video taken of your model in this ratio, the behaviour of the model will be more realistic.

 

The only problem is, for this to work you also have to scale down mass and inertia, which is not exactly straightforward. And with scaled down axle loads, you'd better scale down power too, otherwise you'll get wheel slip all over the place. Oh, and friction doesn't scale this way, make sure to compensate for that.

 

There are ways to do all of this, and it can be done for scientific/engineering testing purposes. But for a model railway it's all a bit complicated and not very satisfactory.

[Killybegs]

Suggesting that a reasonable amount of wobble and movement is proto-typical? Fully concur on some of the head on steam loco footage I have seen where the loco appears to be bucking like a bronco.

genuine question ... would this also be true of the stock or just the loco?

 

Having stood on the platform at Swindon (back in the fifties) and watched a Castle approaching at a fair old speed on the through line, I can assure you that there was a hell of a wobble as it came over the pointwork at the end of the station.

[great central]

Having stood on the platform at Swindon (back in the fifties) and watched a Castle approaching at a fair old speed on the through line, I can assure you that there was a hell of a wobble as it came over the pointwork at the end of the station.

This one is more recent and it does wobble a bit......

https://youtu.be/cs2NPFkR8Xw

 

I can assure you that trains still wobble considerably on uneven track

[Lecorbusier]

This one is more recent and it does wobble a bit......

https://youtu.be/cs2NPFkR8Xw

 

I can assure you that trains still wobble considerably on uneven track

The thing which interests me about this clip is that the Loco certainly is bucking about ... but is the same true for the coaches? certainly as they pass on through the station they seem quite serene?