Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

I wonder if I may ask you a question please?

 

I know somewhere back in your thread you refer to using transfer numbers that can be applied to a locomotive smokebox number plate, and I believe you said you can purchase the entire set of numbers for a whole class of locomotives on just one sheet.

 

I know you spoke highly on the quality of the product, If you can remember the company that supplies these transfer sheets I wonder if you would please be kind enough to let me know their name.

 

Regards

 

David

My apologies David,

 

I've only just picked this up............

 

As Bernard has said, the company which makes the front numberplates is Pacific Models. It's actually Ian Wilson, who started Prototype Models. 

 

Ian can be contacted on 01476 550002. The website is www.pacificmodels.co.uk

 

As Bernard has also said, these are not transfers, but printed paper. As such, they need to be cut out with care, and exposed white edges taken out with a felt tip pen (checking that it doesn't bleed). The 'plates are then stuck in place with PVA. After a loco is painted, I stick them to a backing piece of brass, already soldered to the smokebox door. Every loco in a class is represented, in some cases with 'incorrect' '6s' and '9s' as well as the true Gill Sans types. 

 

They are really excellent. 

 

 

 

 

I use them just about exclusively.

 

 

I've also fitted them for friends; in this case one of Gilbert Barnatt's A2/2s, this one built by John Houlden.

 

There is just one word of caution. Weathering can damage the 'plates, so I fit them after that's completed. Even on dirty locos, the numbers were often repainted. 

 

Ian also does a full range of carriage destination boards, like the numberplates in both 4mm and 7mm scales.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[richard i]

6 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I think that the OP was asking, when there IS lining at the cornice, should it continue above the brake section.

 

IMHO, the answer is 'Yes' - whether many of these coaches had cornice lining is immaterial to the OP.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I think the answer might be answered in part by Tony’s second picture which seems to show lining going all the way along the top . 

Richard

[thegreenhowards]

Many thanks to all for the comprehensive responses, especially all those photos from Tony - much appreciated. It does look like they were either lined all the way across or not at all, but I suspect that Bachmann would have had a prototype for their decision to line above the compartments, but not the brake, so maybe all three approaches existed. I think that, like Tony, I may leave off the top lining next time and save myself some time.

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Andy,

 

snap, I have a 'mini me' Thompson BT 5 going through the paint shop at present. I will give the varnish another twenty four hours, add a little weathering, glaze, paint the cornise and ends, finish with the roof and it will be ready to trundle. Your carriage would be much better suited for pole vaulters I feel.

 

 

 

 

Andrew,

 

That coach looks superb. Is it for LSGC? If so I look forward to seeing it in action. I may be dim, but I don’t get the pole vaulter reference!

 

Andy

[Willie Whizz]

On 14/04/2019 at 15:26, johndon said:

 

In the world of model warships, there are huge arguments as to what colour the USS Arizona was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Even those who were there on the day could never seem to agree. 

 

 

... and don't get me going on "Mountbatten Pink".

 

Apparently the vessels so painted were practically invisible even close to, in certain lighting conditions.  But the ships' crews all died ... of embarrassment.

[Headstock]

45 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Andrew,

 

That coach looks superb. Is it for LSGC? If so I look forward to seeing it in action. I may be dim, but I don’t get the pole vaulter reference!

 

Andy

 

Evening Andy,

 

many thanks for the comments, your dia 331 looks very neat. One of my all time favourite Thompson carriage formations, was the Norseman. If I remember correctly, it was toped and tailed by dia 331, a very pretty train. Did you not no that the van compartment were designed to accommodate an Olympic pole vaulting team?

 

Yes, the BT 5 is for LSGC, they were allocated new in 1950 to the local three sets. They joined the Thompson CL's and ran with the ex GC 60' seven compartment BT's.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2019 by Headstock
add link

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Andy,

 

many thanks for the comments, your dia 331 looks very neat. One of my all time favourite Thompson carriage formations, was the Norseman. If I remember correctly, it was toped and tailed by dia 331, a very pretty train. Did you not no that the van compartment were designed to accommodate an Olympic pole vaulting team?

 

Yes, the BT 5 is for LSGC, they were allocated new in 1950 to the local three sets. They joined the Thompson CL's and ran with the ex GC 60' seven compartment BT's.

 

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

An Olympic pole-vaulting team? The brake section of a Thompson carriage designed around the requirements of that? Where did that information come from? I know it's April, but it's not the 1st! 

 

Assuming it's true.................. Yes, the carriages would have been in existence in 1948 (the year the first post-War Olympic games were staged in London), but, unless the English pole-vaulting Olympic team was based in the North, then those carriages would never have been used for the purpose they were designed for. Any foreign athletes would have come to London from the South, unless they were Scandinavians. Perhaps the LNER coach-builders had fantastic foresight, expecting their products to still be running in 2012! 

 

If true, I've learned something new today! 

 

Puzzled in the extreme,

 

Tony. 

[RLBH]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

An Olympic pole-vaulting team? The brake section of a Thompson carriage designed around the requirements of that? Where did that information come from? I know it's April, but it's not the 1st! 

If true, I suspect that the design logic was to accommodate the largest indivisible load that might plausibly need to be accommodated in a brake van.

[Clive Mortimore]

From Wikipedia, length of pole vaulting poles

 

Quote

Poles are manufactured for people of all skill levels and body sizes, with sizes as short as 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in) to as long as 5.30 m (17 ft 5 in), with a wide range of weight ratings. Each manufacturer determines the weight rating for the pole and the location of the maximum handhold band.

So did the LNER make several lengths of brake van?

Edited April 16, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[jjb1970]

9 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

... and don't get me going on "Mountbatten Pink".

 

Apparently the vessels so painted were practically invisible even close to, in certain lighting conditions.  But the ships' crews all died ... of embarrassment.

 

A few years ago the USCG did research into the visibility of different colours for life saving equipment on ships such as life boats, life rafts and life jackets and found that pink was the best colour in terms of being able to identify from helicopters but nothing ever came of it.

[jwealleans]

25 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

From Wikipedia, length of pole vaulting poles

 

So did the LNER make several lengths of brake van?

 

Yes they did, up to 61’6” overall but the number of compartments varied from 2 to 6.

Edited April 16, 2019 by jwealleans

[thegreenhowards]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

One of my all time favourite Thompson carriage formations, was the Norseman. If I remember correctly, it was toped and tailed by dia 331, a very pretty train. Did you not no that the van compartment were designed to accommodate an Olympic pole vaulting team?

 

 

 

Morning Andrew,

 

Well I should obviously do more thorough research before building a coach!  Though as 'sir' wasn't aware of the curious design criteria I don't feel too embarrassed! There were only 10 of these built before they switched to the more common BTK(4) so obviously the pressure from pole vaulting teams wasn't keeping the LNER in business!

 

I'm intrigued by your comment about them being used on the Norseman which, as you say, is a fascinating formation...not least because it seemed to be different every day. The carriage workings suggest 4 compartment brakes, Thompson in the early '50s becoming Mark 1 later on. The pictures I can find in a quick look this morning show 4 compartment brakes as per the carriage workings, so I'd be interested in any evidence you have of the 3 compartment version working (maybe when the Norwegian pole vaulting team was visiting!). I was planning to use the coach on a relief formation as the carriage workings only show them on FO/ SO and Q trains, but I'm sure they would have stood in for BSK(4)s on occasion.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Willie Whizz]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

 

A few years ago the USCG did research into the visibility of different colours for life saving equipment on ships such as life boats, life rafts and life jackets and found that pink was the best colour in terms of being able to identify from helicopters but nothing ever came of it.

 

Thanks - interesting.  If the colour they were looking at was something like "lipstick pink" I can well understand that.

 

"Mountbatten Pink" was more subtle though.  To quote from Wikipedia, which i believe is correct in this instance:

 

"In 1940, while escorting a convoy, Lord Mountbatten noted that one ship in the group vanished from view much earlier than the remainder. The ship, a Union-Castle liner, was painted lavender mauve grey. Mountbatten thus became convinced of the colour's effectiveness as a camouflage during dawn and dusk, often dangerous times for ships, and had all of the destroyers of his flotilla painted with a similar pigment, which he created by mixing a medium grey with a small amount of Venetian Red. By early 1941, several other ships began using the same camouflage, though no formal testing was done to determine how well it worked.

...  The primary problem with Mountbatten pink was that it stood out around midday, when the sky was no longer pink, and the traditional battleship grey was much less visible."

 

This unusual colour scheme was a feature of the Union Castle Line passenger and fast cargo ships for most of the 20th Century, until the coming of the jet pretty much killed-off their ocean liner services to South Africa in the 1970s.  I never saw one in the flesh, but colour pictures make them look very handsome vessels indeed - perhaps proof, if such we needed on here, that sometimes the paint-job can make or break a reputation of a piece of engineering.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Willie Whizz

[mullie]

Hornby J15 renumbered with Gibson wheels set to EM has now been through the weathering shop, my latest bit of modelling.

 

[Tony Wright]

I know this type of thing has been discussed before.......................

 

However, am I the only one so ham-fisted with modern RTR locos that whenever I remove them from their boxes and examine them, bits fall off?

 

Having just completed taking the pictures of Hornby's latest Nelsons, I'd noticed that the speedometer drive from the nearside rear driving wheel's crankpin on LORD NELSON itself had come loose from underneath the footplate. No problem, I thought; It's a kind of metal peg at the top of the drive which fits into a slot underneath the footplate. Dead easy, I'll superglue it back in. In attempting this, the flimsy plastic flexible drive just snapped in two! Where the top end of it is now, I'm not prepared to waste what's left of my existence finding out. How ridiculous! I'm not naturally clumsy and my tweezers came from a jeweller friend. 

 

To get the body off, the drive as to be disconnecting, anyway; but, not at the top, at the pin. A daft arrangement if I might be so bold - just as daft as Hornby's A4 lubricator drive, which is attached to both body and chassis, or the need to fiddle with Bachmann's A1's cylinder drain cock operating rod to separate the body from the frames. 

 

I wouldn't dream of having such arrangements on the locos I build - undo two screws, fore and aft, and the two principal components separate with ease. 

 

Please don't think I'm having (yet another?) go at RTR, but I think we've now reached a situation where one or two observations might be made. I've listed the following of mine........

 

1. The standards of fidelity to prototype have never been higher with regard to current RTR.

 

2. Only the very best kit-/scratch-builders/painters can now achieve the same standards in OO (though their locos will usually pull much more).

 

3. In 'real' terms, current RTR locos are very good value for money, considering the standard achieved.

 

4. The market has dictated that levels of detail are at a previously unheard of level.

 

5. One of the consequences of '4' is that that detail is so fine and flimsy that it's far too vulnerable. 

 

6. Detail bits thus fall off (and disappear forever) far too easily. 

 

7. Are these current RTR locos ever designed to be taken apart with ease? 

 

8. Why are so many different screws needed to separate chassis from body, and why are they so inaccessible? 

 

9. DCC insistence dictates that tender locos (in the main) now have a plug and socket arrangement semi-permanently coupling the two units, with all the necessary gubbins in the tender body. 

 

10. Given some of the inherent flimsiness of the plastic (and metal?) components in current RTR locos, how long might we expect them to last?

 

11. The packaging is so complex (and wasteful of the Earth's resources!) that videos are need to explain how to get the locos from their 'boxes'. 

 

12 Any other observations?  

[Mallard60022]

Tony, I think that the smaller loco details could easily be issued in the pack as with the parts for the brake links, relief cock pipes and smaller bits that seem to come with RTR these days. I am sure most folk could fit most parts without difficulty, or am I expecting too much?

The packaging is a nightmare, however I have used the Rodney inner, clear, plastic holder as the cradle for when I fitted a decoder in the tender, not having to uncouple the tender . I think the outer Sleeve is a waste of card however pretty it is.

Re the Thomson Brakes (and probably Gresleys?), surely they were built to accommodate the large amounts of luggage for passengers that used the trains as travel for holidays, arriving by ship or travelling as a Serviceman and also youngsters going off to school with their Billy Bunter trunks and hampers? There could have been a need for bicycle space as well but I have no idea if that was the case back then? However car ownership was limited until the early 60s so many more folk took holidays by train and there were porters to load and unload at almost every station.

CWTs were designed to allow the Carriage Dept's  Foreman to select suitable coaches for the train involved, unlike now where there is little variety and trains are just never changing sets without the spare coaches parked around the country to be used if and when required.

Pole Vaulters indeed. What a jolly jape. There will be talk of Shorter coaches for the accommodation of small people next.

Minny I. Ature 

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

Thanks - interesting.  If the colour they were looking at was something like "lipstick pink" I can well understand that.

 

"Mountbatten Pink" was more subtle though.  To quote from Wikipedia, which i believe is correct in this instance:

 

"In 1940, while escorting a convoy, Lord Mountbatten noted that one ship in the group vanished from view much earlier than the remainder. The ship, a Union-Castle liner, was painted lavender mauve grey. Mountbatten thus became convinced of the colour's effectiveness as a camouflage during dawn and dusk, often dangerous times for ships, and had all of the destroyers of his flotilla painted with a similar pigment, which he created by mixing a medium grey with a small amount of Venetian Red. By early 1941, several other ships began using the same camouflage, though no formal testing was done to determine how well it worked.

...  The primary problem with Mountbatten pink was that it stood out around midday, when the sky was no longer pink, and the traditional battleship grey was much less visible."

 

This unusual colour scheme was a feature of the Union Castle Line passenger and fast cargo ships for most of the 20th Century, until the coming of the jet pretty much killed-off their ocean liner services to South Africa in the 1970s.  I never saw one in the flesh, but colour pictures make them look very handsome vessels indeed - perhaps proof, if such we needed on here, that sometimes the paint-job can make or break a reputation of a piece of engineering.

Only problem being it seems not to have worked at night when Kelly was torpedoed in May 1940 and it definitely didn't work in broad daylight when she was sunk by aircraft during the Crete campaign (although I doubt the colour made any difference at all when aircraft could pick out a ship by her wake if nothing else.  Back to railways.

20 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Tony, I think that the smaller loco details could easily be issued in the pack as with the parts for the brake links, relief cock pipes and smaller bits that seem to come with RTR these days. I am sure most folk could fit most parts without difficulty, or am I expecting too much?

The packaging is a nightmare, however I have used the Rodney inner, clear, plastic holder as the cradle for when I fitted a decoder in the tender, not having to uncouple the tender . I think the outer Sleeve is a waste of card however pretty it is.

Re the Thomson Brakes (and probably Gresleys?), surely they were built to accommodate the large amounts of luggage for passengers that used the trains as travel for holidays, arriving by ship or travelling as a Serviceman and also youngsters going off to school with their Billy Bunter trunks and hampers? There could have been a need for bicycle space as well but I have no idea if that was the case back then? However car ownership was limited until the early 60s so many more folk took holidays by train and there were porters to load and unload at almost every station.

CWTs were designed to allow the Carriage Dept's  Foreman to select suitable coaches for the train involved, unlike now where there is little variety and trains are just never changing sets without the spare coaches parked around the country to be used if and when required.

Pole Vaulters indeed. What a jolly jape. There will be talk of Shorter coaches for the accommodation of small people next.

Minny I. Ature 

 

Definitely the case that large quantities of luggage were more of a norm back then (not that I remember back to the late 1940s but still the case in the '50s).  And even after the car appeared many people still consigned large luggage items by rail.  Another thing with a boat train is that it quite likely conveyed mail traffic and that might well have needed a lot of van space.

 

And I don't know about the LNER/ER but on the Western the passenger yard supervisor in a larger yard (Foreman, or even Head Shunter in a smaller yard) was the one who decided which coach(es) would be used to best match what the Coach Working Programme/weekly or daily notice said was needed although by the 1970s it was under central control and the RHQ passenger Rolling Stock man made the decision (although he was only 9-5 so outside office hours it was still the man in charge of the yard).  In the days (late 1970/early'80s) when I managed a large passenger yard we had virtually no spare vehicles unless we took them out of maintenance but we did have some special traffic sets which we could (and did) 'rob' if they weren't booked out for anything.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

Thanks - interesting.  If the colour they were looking at was something like "lipstick pink" I can well understand that.

 

"Mountbatten Pink" was more subtle though.  To quote from Wikipedia, which i believe is correct in this instance:

 

"In 1940, while escorting a convoy, Lord Mountbatten noted that one ship in the group vanished from view much earlier than the remainder. The ship, a Union-Castle liner, was painted lavender mauve grey. Mountbatten thus became convinced of the colour's effectiveness as a camouflage during dawn and dusk, often dangerous times for ships, and had all of the destroyers of his flotilla painted with a similar pigment, which he created by mixing a medium grey with a small amount of Venetian Red. By early 1941, several other ships began using the same camouflage, though no formal testing was done to determine how well it worked.

...  The primary problem with Mountbatten pink was that it stood out around midday, when the sky was no longer pink, and the traditional battleship grey was much less visible."

 

This unusual colour scheme was a feature of the Union Castle Line passenger and fast cargo ships for most of the 20th Century, until the coming of the jet pretty much killed-off their ocean liner services to South Africa in the 1970s.  I never saw one in the flesh, but colour pictures make them look very handsome vessels indeed - perhaps proof, if such we needed on here, that sometimes the paint-job can make or break a reputation of a piece of engineering.

I remember seeing several Union Castle liners at Southampton in the 1960s. They were indeed distinctive, as were some of the Cunarders whose hulls were a pale green colour (Caronia and Carmania are two I recall).

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I know this type of thing has been discussed before.......................

 

However, am I the only one so ham-fisted with modern RTR locos that whenever I remove them from their boxes and examine them, bits fall off?

 

Having just completed taking the pictures of Hornby's latest Nelsons, I'd noticed that the speedometer drive from the nearside rear driving wheel's crankpin on LORD NELSON itself had come loose from underneath the footplate. No problem, I thought; It's a kind of metal peg at the top of the drive which fits into a slot underneath the footplate. Dead easy, I'll superglue it back in. In attempting this, the flimsy plastic flexible drive just snapped in two! Where the top end of it is now, I'm not prepared to waste what's left of my existence finding out. How ridiculous! I'm not naturally clumsy and my tweezers came from a jeweller friend. 

 

To get the body off, the drive as to be disconnecting, anyway; but, not at the top, at the pin. A daft arrangement if I might be so bold - just as daft as Hornby's A4 lubricator drive, which is attached to both body and chassis, or the need to fiddle with Bachmann's A1's cylinder drain cock operating rod to separate the body from the frames. 

 

I wouldn't dream of having such arrangements on the locos I build - undo two screws, fore and aft, and the two principal components separate with ease. 

 

Please don't think I'm having (yet another?) go at RTR, but I think we've now reached a situation where one or two observations might be made. I've listed the following of mine........

 

1. The standards of fidelity to prototype have never been higher with regard to current RTR.

 

2. Only the very best kit-/scratch-builders/painters can now achieve the same standards in OO (though their locos will usually pull much more).

 

3. In 'real' terms, current RTR locos are very good value for money, considering the standard achieved.

 

4. The market has dictated that levels of detail are at a previously unheard of level.

 

5. One of the consequences of '4' is that that detail is so fine and flimsy that it's far too vulnerable. 

 

6. Detail bits thus fall off (and disappear forever) far too easily. 

 

7. Are these current RTR locos ever designed to be taken apart with ease? 

 

8. Why are so many different screws needed to separate chassis from body, and why are they so inaccessible? 

 

9. DCC insistence dictates that tender locos (in the main) now have a plug and socket arrangement semi-permanently coupling the two units, with all the necessary gubbins in the tender body. 

 

10. Given some of the inherent flimsiness of the plastic (and metal?) components in current RTR locos, how long might we expect them to last?

 

11. The packaging is so complex (and wasteful of the Earth's resources!) that videos are need to explain how to get the locos from their 'boxes'. 

 

12 Any other observations?  

Hello Tony and All

 

Has the demand from the market (us as modllers) for ever finer detailed models reached a point in that what is essentially a toy for grown ups is no longer a thing that can take the rough and tumble of being played with ?

 

Phil mentions the add on bits....how many of us have brought a secondhand loco, with its box around it only to find the add on bits have not been added on and are no longer in the box.

 

As for modern packaging, not only in our hobby but in life generally is getting so complicated and wasteful that we as a society need to change our ways. Having said that I did manage to open a new packet of Wensleydale cheese with cranberries without too much fing and jeffing....very nice it was too.

[woodenhead]

In my experience - bits falling off is a Hornby thing, my Bachmann/Kernow/DJM things seem to be able to hold on to steps and such like with less fuss.

 

My Hornby locos and coaches are all prone to losing bits, but I've stopped worrying since I removed the brake shoes on some Ex LSWR non corridor coaches and simply could not see the difference (other than they were now free rolling).

[jamie92208]

From something I am aware of within the family. Trai s from Cambridge must have had plenty of van space. When rowers won i ter college races they were presented with their oars (the cox got the rudder) My two Canadian cousins who were post grads in the 50's had to get their oars to Southampton to get them home and I belive that they took them on the train with them from Cambridge. Not quite as long as a vaulti g pole but still long.

 

I have a vague memory that they carried them on their sholders across London to catch the boat train from Waterloo.

 

Jamie

 

I'M IN A LAND DOWN UNDER.

[Arun Sharma]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Arun Sharma
duplicated info so removed for clarity

[Tom F]

Good Afternoon Tony!
I thought you might like to see the D16 is finished!

 

 

I look forward to returning her to your good self (and having a catch up) at York next weekend.

Edited April 16, 2019 by 9793

[ecgtheow]

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony and All

 

Has the demand from the market (us as modllers) for ever finer detailed models reached a point in that what is essentially a toy for grown ups is no longer a thing that can take the rough and tumble of being played with ?

 

Phil mentions the add on bits....how many of us have brought a secondhand loco, with its box around it only to find the add on bits have not been added on and are no longer in the box.

 

As for modern packaging, not only in our hobby but in life generally is getting so complicated and wasteful that we as a society need to change our ways. Having said that I did manage to open a new packet of Wensleydale cheese with cranberries without too much fing and jeffing....very nice it was too.

Tony,

 

You are lucky. I bought a train pack consisting of 3 teak BR coaches & a blue A4 off eBay cheaply because I wanted the coaches. I pulled back the protective cardboard sleeve & the loco fell to the hardwood floor. The plastic tray holding the contents was the wrong was up!

 

William

[Bucoops]

19 minutes ago, ecgtheow said:

Tony,

 

You are lucky. I bought a train pack consisting of 3 teak BR coaches & a blue A4 off eBay cheaply because I wanted the coaches. I pulled back the protective cardboard sleeve & the loco fell to the hardwood floor. The plastic tray holding the contents was the wrong was up!

 

William

 

Rename it to Sir Ralph Wedgewood?