Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

49 minutes ago, 9793 said:

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.

That's lovely work, Tom,

 

It looks so natural. Many thanks.

 

This Hornby D16/3 illustrates what I mean about the current high standards available RTR. You've enhanced it by weathering it, completely eradicating the plastic sheen of the original. I'll consign that coupling to oblivion, add a crew, a screw-link coupling at the front and fit a lamp or lamps. Though not that common, D16s did work on the western end of the M&GNR, and I'm sure Ian Wilson (the loco's owner) won't mind lending it from time to time to run on LB. 

 

Yet, there's still that 'nagging doubt' at the back of my head. Though you've turned it into something most-lifelike (and unique), at source it still represents just purchasing-power. Yes, I know kits have to be bought, and, right now, on my shelf there's a Mallard kit for a D16/3 (with the beautiful valance) which I will build in due course. Not because I expect it to be better (it probably won't be) but because it'll be 'mine' in a way impossible with an RTR loco, however good it might be.

 

This, as I've said many times, is an entirely personal thing, and I'm delighted that far more modellers than ever can enjoy having some very fine, 'scale' models. Building things, though, is much more important to me. 

 

And, the impact goes beyond just the ability to obtain things by handing over cash. The reason why an article on the Princess Coronation I'm building from a DJH kit is no longer 'suitable' for BRM is 'It's because there's an RTR equivalent' (quote). Really? Such articles used to be regular meat and drink to the title (I know, because I wrote dozens of them). Things always change, and, if the mag' (and others) appeals to a wider audience, then that can only be to the good. However, I'm still going to write the article (I'm writing it) because it might find a home elsewhere. Who knows?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Rename it to Sir Ralph Wedgewood?

Please,

 

And I've seen that spelling far too many times in books and magazines.................... It's Wedgwood, without the 'e'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[johndon]

4 hours 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?

 

 

I fear you may be expecting too much.  Years ago, when ViTrains brought out their Class 37 & 47 models, the detail parts (nose handrails, lamp irons, buffer beam pipes) all came loose and had to be fitted by the user and they got a lot of stick about it as a lot of buyers expected to be able to lift the loco out of the box and not have to lift a finger after that..

 

John

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by johndon

[Bucoops]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Please,

 

And I've seen that spelling far too many times in books and magazines.................... It's Wedgwood, without the 'e'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Oh, fiddlesticks!

 

I ruined that one then

[Chamby]

5 hours 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. 

 

.........

 

12 Any other observations?  

 

Tony, 

 

The speedometer drive issue also applies to the A3 and A4.  I would also add to your list some of the awful design features that Hornby seem to be so fond of, such as double-pivot pony trucks and flangeless trailing bogie wheels that increase the risk of shorting and just look wrong on curves.

 

Diesels suffer similar problems- Hornby’s Class 50 for instance has flimsy cables  connecting body and chassis that simply snap if you forget to remove them before separating the two parts.

 

I had a brand new Hornby A3 that blew a chip because the soldering was so poor underneath the socket, that it immediately shorted out.  DCC ready?  It was certainly not.  I routinely test all sockets now with a meter, before inserting chips.

 

The prize for the most ridiculous add-on parts has to go to Dapol for the roof panel handles on their Class 52 Western.  There are so many, so small and impossible to hold in tweezers without them pinging across the room, I just don’t bother to even try and fit them any more.

 

As for sandpipes, They are all too often more trouble than they are worth.

 

I would gladly sacrifice some of this excess fidelity for improved robustness and running qualities.  Some things just don’t scale down well...

[Chamby]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

....The reason why an article on the Princess Coronation I'm building from a DJH kit is no longer 'suitable' for BRM is 'It's because there's an RTR equivalent' (quote).....

 

Sounds like a marvellous opportunity to properly review the two side-by-side...  it would make a fascinating comparison.

[gr.king]

Quote

 

Or just publish the article on a suitably "select" website used by those who appreciate genuine model making.

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

Tarnation, found out, that Ministry of truth document isn't worth the paper it was forged on. And I had a whole tale prepared for Andy on how one dia 331was stored vertically down an abandoned coal mine as part of the strategical reserve.

 

Anyway back to modeling,  weathering and cornice finished last night and roof and ends painted tonight whilst awaiting the cooker to stop cooking. United for the first time with the CL that I produced last September, I think?

[Brinkly]

4 hours ago, 9793 said:

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.

 

That is very good Tom! 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick.

[Brinkly]

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies for hijacking your thread, but I thought I would share something I've been working on. 

 

I know you are a great advocate of kit building, this is my first go at semi scratch building. I didn't realise Red Panda sold a BR plywood shock-absorbing van, so I thought I would have a go at building one myself from left over parts. I'm quite please with the result and have learnt how not to do things next time round!

 

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick.

[Tom F]

Lovely bit of modelling there Nick! 

I wouldn't know where to start with something like that! I'd love a V37 Ply wood Mink, but I'm put off knowing I'd need to do something similar to what you have!

 

Or perhaps just lazy!

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Brinkly said:

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies for hijacking your thread, but I thought I would share something I've been working on. 

 

I know you are a great advocate of kit building, this is my first go at semi scratch building. I didn't realise Red Panda sold a BR plywood shock-absorbing van, so I thought I would have a go at building one myself from left over parts. I'm quite please with the result and have learnt how not to do things next time round!

 

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick.

Nick,

 

Nobody need apologise for 'hijacking' this thread, when they post pictures of their modelling. Yes, their modelling.

 

That's splendid work, by the way - please keep stuff like this coming.

 

The invitation is out there for anyone to show their work on here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

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.

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.

As always, thanks Mike.

 

When I was talking with Bob Essery once, I showed him some photographs and documents relating to summer trains to the East Coast, both excursions and service trains. One train, which, by the way, didn't divide on the journey, seemed to have a large number of brake vehicles in its consist. 'For luggage, my boy, for luggage'. 

 

Of course! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Sounds like a marvellous opportunity to properly review the two side-by-side...  it would make a fascinating comparison.

I'd think so, too, Phil,

 

However, such is the RTR dominance these days (and it is good), I feel that kit-builders (like me) are becoming far more marginalised in the mainstream hobby. Still, at least I have many kits on my shelves to build, even if writing about how I make them is no longer 'mainstream'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Brinkly]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Nick,

 

Nobody need apologise for 'hijacking' this thread, when they post pictures of their modelling. Yes, their modelling.

 

That's splendid work, by the way - please keep stuff like this coming.

 

The invitation is out there for anyone to show their work on here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony, I will do. 

 

I feel it is important to keep 'traditional' model railway skills alive. Geoff Kent's series on 4mm Wagons have been wonderful inspiration over the years. 

 

My next step is to learn how to kit build locomotives: I think I'm in the right thread for that! 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick.

[Dave John]

Well, are we becoming marginalised, or does it just appear that way since there is now so much media in which people can show rtr stock on their layouts? I accept you have to dig a bit to find kit and scratch building but I think there are still a lot of people who do like to make things rather than buy them . ( Across all modelling hobbies, not just railways) . I think what may be happening to an extent is that the rtr stuff has improved so much over the last 20 years or so that many modellers feel they cannot compete in terms of accuracy or finish with rtr and are maybe reluctant to display their work. 

 

Really, they shouldn't worry. I love to see what others have made. I like to see something that reflects the modelmaker, not a manufacturer. Give me character and invention over mass produced perfection any day. 

 

So, since you invited us to post here is a largely scratchbuilt Dunalastair 1. I had a go at turning it into a period picture to compare it to real period pictures just for fun. 

 

[Brinkly]

That is very nice Dave. I really like it!

 

Best wishes,

Nick

[micklner]

9 hours 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?  

     The Hornby A4 Lubricator drive is hardly a major or daft problem, how else could they have fitted the part without spending money on redesigning the chassis ? .

            Simply position the wheel to the bottom if a valanced Loco, undo the crankpin with a nut spinner and remove  the crank and replace the crankpin before its lost back onto the wheel. To then remove the body there is one screw at the front remove and lift the body off . Not exactly hard to do with the right tools. The same applies for the Gresley A1 and A3's which share the same chassis.

     The actual problem is Hornby do not highlight the simple way to remove it without causing any damage.

     The same applies to the Tender one screw only, but they don't tell you that it is under the coupling. I have seen numerous Tender Bodies wrecked where people have tried to force body off. The screw won on all of them.

 

  As LN no idea not my area , Peppercorn A1's are the wrong period for me .

[rockershovel]

A propos the longest load carried on passenger services, the late Chas Mortimer’s book “Brooklands and Beyond”  has a section about carrying propellor shafts for wartime Motor Torpedo Boats in the corridors of LMS passenger services, by suitable “negotiation” with the railway authorities, involving loading them through the corridor connections at Euston. I’ve never quite understood this - would they have been open saloons like the later BR ones? 

 

[Willie Whizz]

 

Tony, I share your pain on the "bits falling off" issue.  This very morning I was removing the body of one of Hornby's new "blue period" Flying Scotsman models with a view to trying to cure or alleviate the "ski-jump" problem from which many of their recent production of A3s seem to suffer. [See the main Hornby thread for more details].

 

As I was doing it looking at the LH side of the model, I failed to spot that there was a little metal lever (ashpan lever I believe) attached to the body below the RH side of the cab.  And of course even though I was being very careful, it got knocked-off when I put the body on the table.  Closer examination revealed this had been attached just with two microscopic blobs of glue on the ends of the metal strip, located in what I wouldn't describe as a hole so much as a dimple, so no supporting strength whatsoever.  I'm unsure now whether to bother attempting to replace it, since it seems scarcely likely to be robust enough to withstand even careful routine handling once the loco is running on the layout in due course.

 

Besides which, further posts on the relevant thread now lead me to understand that the model is wrong, and at this period (early 1950s at Leicester Shed before Scotsman's drive was changed over) the ashpan lever should have been on the LH side under the cab anyway!  So yes, i will go with slightly less finesse of detail and slightly more robustness and careful design.

[Buhar]

39 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

A propos the longest load carried on passenger services, the late Chas Mortimer’s book “Brooklands and Beyond”  has a section about carrying propellor shafts for wartime Motor Torpedo Boats in the corridors of LMS passenger services, by suitable “negotiation” with the railway authorities, involving loading them through the corridor connections at Euston. I’ve never quite understood this - would they have been open saloons like the later BR ones? 

 

The LMS was a big user of vestibule (open) stock although why a full brake with gangways wouldn't have been suitable, I don't know. 

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Buhar said:

The LMS was a big user of vestibule (open) stock although why a full brake with gangways wouldn't have been suitable, I don't know. 

 

I can't find a diagram off-hand but I think a full brake would have a centre guard's compartment that would obstruct the line-of-sight from gangway to gangway.

[Clem]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Tony,

 

Tarnation, found out, that Ministry of truth document isn't worth the paper it was forged on. And I had a whole tale prepared for Andy on how one dia 331was stored vertically down an abandoned coal mine as part of the strategical reserve.

 

Anyway back to modeling,  weathering and cornice finished last night and roof and ends painted tonight whilst awaiting the cooker to stop cooking. United for the first time with the CL that I produced last September, I think?

They look very good together, Andrew. May I ask, are they both from Comet kits? The new crimson BT5 looks spot on and you've certainly perfected a method for that steel panelled mock teak effect. I hope to get on to some carriage building before too long, but I've got several layout projects to complete first. But when I do get around to carriage building again, I'd be extremely happy to get anywhere remotely approaching that standard! I've said it one to two times butI love this thread. It's very inspiring.

 

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

I did have a 30' yacht mast, in an older type DMU , we managed to squeeze it into the DMU via the brake van double doors, but being so long, it went half way down the passenger compartment aisle, certainly had to watch my step when collecting tickets. I always wondered why a Yacht mast was in Huddersfield, with a ticket to Leeds !!

 

manna

[Pacific231G]

14 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:

 

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.

 

In the late 1960s I worked for British and Commonwealth who owned Union Castle and I would have described their hull colour as mauve rather than pink so with more blue than red. According to Wiki Mountbatten "pink" is colour #997A8D and that looks close to what I remember (though as we all know colour memory is dubious at best) 

Mountbatten also thought that partitioning India was a good idea!