Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, PJT said:

 

You're right, but I'd put it a little more strongly than that.  When you look closely at photos of Maindee East, changing the gauge is absolutely a non-starter.  I'd end up with half destroyed baseboards and a collection of very beautiful buildings to find new homes for and that's the very last outcome I'd want for something that I set out to save.

 

Contacting the Scalefour Society is a very good idea and once I have everything back here and I've found out exactly what I have bought I think I'll be in touch with them.  Lying in bed last night, I had one of those head vs. heart conversations with myself.  Much as I'd love to, I really can't keep it long term.  I have too many other commitments for my time and for me to leave it languishing untouched for years is definitely another outcome I wouldn't want for it.  If ultimately I can pass it on to an individual, an organisation or museum that will give it the future it deserves, then I'll be happy with that.

 

In the meantime I just need to get it back here before the auction house start charging storage...

 

Pete T.

 

It may be worth contacting Cliff Parsons or one of the AIMREC team regarding the layout. Things seem to be happening there after a couple of false starts.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It may be worth contacting Cliff Parsons or one of the AIMREC team regarding the layout. Things seem to be happening there after a couple of false starts.

Thank you for that.  I shall, once I've got the layout back here next week.

 

Pete T.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 I think most folk will have realised the establishing shot is a poor composite for the very reason it's such a poor composite!

 

It's the video content that is relevant.

 


The sequence as a whole is very probably edited together from different trains as the angles shown would require a several cameras shoot to get all the shots, and since the trains are probably identical (other than numbers) it would make more sense to shoot several trains from different viewpoints.

Perhaps the poster meant that it is an edit and not a composite? Photoshop is a stills compositing tool and not editing software, it is also not a good video composting tool being used mostly for still images.

The YouTube video compression is also an issue taking a great deal of sharpness from the sequence which does make it look at bit artificial.
 

The opening shot is moving so would require a huge amount of pixel/camera tracking in something like After Effects or Nuke. Where is the join? I cannot see a patch or discrepancy between perspective lines. For a moving shot like that to do a composite of two trains I would be quoting a serious budget.
 

It could be done in Photoshop for a still image, and the later Photoshop versions do support some video/moving footage, but not at the level this would require. Were this a static or still image I would be equally doubtful, but as it is footage shot on a moving camera, it is unlikely to be a composite.


It does look like there may be a dropped frame near the beginning, or awkward playback from the source server. The odd angle of the train is due to lens distortion at the edge of the frame where it is most apparent.
 

I have worked in the film and television industry for over 25 years and now lecture in visual effects as well as still working on some projects, so have been asked to do shots like this, and I would say to a director to not move the camera or drop the shot.
 

As for tight curves on layouts there is one big consideration of you are running steam engines, getting a realistic close coupling between the engine and tender requires that you have wider curves. It is a choice that needs to be made when planning a layout, it would be lovely to add tight curves on a layout, but then you must open out the space between loco and tender, the same for any stock that does not articulate easily.
 

With diesel locomotives and any bogie traffic it is generally far easier to use tight curves and have good looking trains.

As for what may cause the derailments though I am sure others know far more than me, more of a physics issue than a film one.

 

Jamie

Edited by Jamiel
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/08/2019 at 22:31, t-b-g said:

 

I may be a bit sad to even think about such things but I have often wondered what causes a train to pull off the rails on a curve. I have seen videos of model trains wrapped several times around a very small radius spiral where the whole thing stays on the rails, so why should trains pull off on the inside of a relatively large radius well laid curve like Retford?

 

The science says that it should stay on the rails as the forces are acting in an almost straight line along the train, from one vehicle to the next via the coupling. I wonder if it is the couplings not being at exactly the same height, so when there is a very strong pull on a wagon with a slightly low coupling, the wagon is lifted slightly, enough to cause a wheel to ride up the inside rail.

 

The ones that I saw on the video on the spiral were American and probably had Kadees, which have no element of pull up or down if they are correctly set up. The couplings we used on Tickhill (home made Spratt & Winkle type) didn't pull anything up or down either as all the bars were set at the same height with a gauge.

 

I may have been there that day that Tom's  DP1 went round Retford with that load. I certainly saw it running on the layout at least once with a big load. I think Roy was hoping that it would end up on there permanently when it was finished. It was very impressive!

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I think the intention was for Tom's DP1 to end up on Retford, until 'How much!' was mentioned. I don't think for one moment Tom was out to 'fleece' Roy (impossible, anyway), but he must have spent in excess of 200 hours scratch-building the mechanism for it, not to mention the cost of two O Gauge motors, plus all the gears. 

 

As it happened, events overtook it, with Bachmann's RTR DP1 (which Pete Hill re-gauged?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/08/2019 at 22:31, t-b-g said:

 

I may be a bit sad to even think about such things but I have often wondered what causes a train to pull off the rails on a curve. I have seen videos of model trains wrapped several times around a very small radius spiral where the whole thing stays on the rails, so why should trains pull off on the inside of a relatively large radius well laid curve like Retford?

 

The science says that it should stay on the rails as the forces are acting in an almost straight line along the train, from one vehicle to the next via the coupling. I wonder if it is the couplings not being at exactly the same height, so when there is a very strong pull on a wagon with a slightly low coupling, the wagon is lifted slightly, enough to cause a wheel to ride up the inside rail.

 

The ones that I saw on the video on the spiral were American and probably had Kadees, which have no element of pull up or down if they are correctly set up. The couplings we used on Tickhill (home made Spratt & Winkle type) didn't pull anything up or down either as all the bars were set at the same height with a gauge.

 

I may have been there that day that Tom's  DP1 went round Retford with that load. I certainly saw it running on the layout at least once with a big load. I think Roy was hoping that it would end up on there permanently when it was finished. It was very impressive!

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I think the intention was for Tom's DP1 to end up on Retford, until 'How much!' was mentioned. I don't think for one moment Tom was out to 'fleece' Roy (impossible, anyway), but he must have spent in excess of 200 hours scratch-building the mechanism for it, not to mention the cost of two O Gauge motors, plus all the gears. 

 

As it happened, events overtook it, with Bachmann's RTR DP1 (which Pete Hill re-gauged?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how my last post appeared twice - obviously my incompetence. 

 

Many thanks for all the comments on train lengths/friction/derailments/anomalies/etc. 

 

Clive, I've based my goods train make-ups/lengths on contemporary prototype pictures. 

 

Returning to the theme of making things..........................

 

1543186321_DJHA16015702.jpg.fc6622975016b34e2af3175be845f1e1.jpg

 

My latest DJH A1 is complete, body-wise. Just the motion/valve gear (just!) to erect and fit now.

 

This is the model which caused a visitor to last weekend's Pickering Show to ask the question 'Why are you making an A1 when Bachmann makes one?' 

 

901383489_A102Bachmann60157.jpg.cc705cb52d5fcc14ffd1e386e0f12a5d.jpg

 

Well, here's at least part of the answer. My model will also be of 60157 GREAT EASTERN, but, unlike this one, it only has one mechanical lubricator and has round keeps to the Cartazzi truck's and tender's axleboxes. The return cranks on mine will also lean the right way and the loco's footplate and tender's soleplate line up. Oh, will this one pull over 100 wagons as well? 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, it was once again my privilege to have friends visit LB, in this case Mark Coultas (a member of RMweb) and his mate Dave (can't read the writing of his surname in my visitors' book). both from the North East. 

 

Mark brought three locos he's made....................

 

1209916813_DaveAlexanderG5.jpg.f4272b70a85c758b564bd51720028e6c.jpg

 

A Dave Alexander G5. This one just needed a drop of oil and a pick-up tweak and it then ran really well. 

 

1774160646_Kitmaster-KemilwayBR2-6-04MT.jpg.0db75d9c40520a82be0865d5fb3d9b71.jpg

 

As did this Kitmaster/Kemilway BR Standard 4 2-6-0. 

 

872118421_DJHA260532.jpg.da862af61ddd386b5455267d1d2b1694.jpg

 

No such luck for this DJH A2. A dud motor was the diagnosis.

 

Thanks for bringing these most-interesting models, Mark, and thank you and Dave for your most-generous contributions to CRUK. 

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the day; as much as I did! 

 

Geoff Haynes also arrived, bringing with him some goodies he's painted/weathered for me........................

 

584716479_DJHSemi24painted.jpg.b6565466f0af36f3d683392fee39a441.jpg

 

The DJH Semi I've built is now complete, thanks to Geoff's lovely painting. This morning, I gave her a run round LB.

 

234026116_DJHSemi25onlayout.jpg.eaa94bf00409150b14d8039cf43662f3.jpg

 

1577075616_DJHSemi26onlayout.jpg.be858e53676da8b52c280296e23d5a77.jpg

 

1995645635_DJHSemi27onlayoutpanning.jpg.0c71e2e424a12557b741620d5a17d833.jpg

 

I'm writing-up how I built this for the RM, this sort of thing no longer being BRM's material (or so it would seem). Yes, Hornby now makes an excellent RTR equivalent, but so what? It's much more important to me that I've made my locomotives. And, it always will be. 

 

399747164_Nu-CastV26098201.jpg.ba8240d809bcf0e0e225ab8e9ce53cc7.jpg

 

Geoff also brought this V2 which I made from an old Nu-Cast kit on top of a Comet chassis. Once more, lovely paintwork.

 

1746348709_Nu-CastV26098202.jpg.f2c4a9d13ed6ab45963a091b3f129ccf.jpg

 

582617211_Nu-CastV26098203.jpg.c0f939daf2fd49c8f77a591765c2f8a3.jpg

 

It. too, romped around LB this morning. 

 

I also asked Geoff to weather a couple of other locos, neither of which were built by me............

 

1127353375_DJH9F92037.jpg.743c107984cfc319166acecb938c9ed1.jpg

 

This DJH 9F was originally-built by Alton Models, and painted by Larry Goddard. Having said that I prefer to make my own locos, this one (on sale by Robert Carroll) was too good to miss. I've detailed it, fitted the correct pony wheels, and Geoff's weathering has brought it to life. Robert is selling it (actually we're bartering!) because it doesn't like Peco slips (though it runs perfectly on LB). 

 

1976915741_DJHBRStandard42-6-0.jpg.4393105aea2a337ed080430c8742e079.jpg

 

Robert's also selling this DJH BR Standard 4 2-6-0 (builder/painter unknown). I've changed the pony wheels to the correct, nine-spoke type, tweaked the running a bit (it now runs much faster than it did) and Geoff's weathered it to take down the transfer-applied lining a bit. I've also fitted a front, screw shackle. It needs a new front numberplate of the correct font (Ian Wilson's Pacific range will suit perfectly), and lamp brackets. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
47 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I think the intention was for Tom's DP1 to end up on Retford, until 'How much!' was mentioned. I don't think for one moment Tom was out to 'fleece' Roy (impossible, anyway), but he must have spent in excess of 200 hours scratch-building the mechanism for it, not to mention the cost of two O Gauge motors, plus all the gears. 

 

As it happened, events overtook it, with Bachmann's RTR DP1 (which Pete Hill re-gauged?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Roy could be like that when it came to spending money. He was always playing the "poor pensioner" card! To be fair, he hadn't worked for many years and his finances were usually limited.

 

Many people gave huge amounts of their time and modelling skills freely, in return for great friendships and much tea.  I think he got used to the idea that people would just contribute because they were happy to have an input into his project and the idea of paying even a basic rate for people's time just wasn't on his radar. In many cases, the "Retford Mob" even covered the cost of materials and tools that were used on the layout.

 

There were a few times when he asked people "Would you fancy doing one for Retford?" and the the line between a model being commissioned or expecting it to be freely given was never really defined.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PJT said:

Thank you for that.  I shall, once I've got the layout back here next week.

 

Pete T.

 

 

It concerns me rather Pete that you may ultimately suffer financially for your efforts in saving M.East should you end up donating it to

a museum. Now that may or may not concern you, however I, for one, and I suspect quite a few others would  be willing to contribute a few

quid  on a  purely unofficial basis ( i.e. not crowdfunding etc)  to ameliorate any financial loss you incur. 

 

I trust I am not breaking web rules or upsetting  TW or AY in proposing. 

 

Chris Knight

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Yesterday, it was once again my privilege to have friends visit LB, in this case Mark Coultas (a member of RMweb) and his mate Dave (can't read the writing of his surname in my visitors' book). both from the North East. 

 

Mark brought three locos he's made....................

 

1209916813_DaveAlexanderG5.jpg.f4272b70a85c758b564bd51720028e6c.jpg

 

A Dave Alexander G5. This one just needed a drop of oil and a pick-up tweak and it then ran really well. 

 

1774160646_Kitmaster-KemilwayBR2-6-04MT.jpg.0db75d9c40520a82be0865d5fb3d9b71.jpg

 

As did this Kitmaster/Kemilway BR Standard 4 2-6-0. 

 

872118421_DJHA260532.jpg.da862af61ddd386b5455267d1d2b1694.jpg

 

No such look for this DJH A2. A dud motor was the diagnosis.

 

Thanks for bringing these most-interesting models, Mark, and thank you and Dave for your most-generous contributions to CRUK. 

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the day; as much as I did! 

 

Geoff Haynes also arrived, bringing with him some goodies he's painted/weathered for me........................

 

584716479_DJHSemi24painted.jpg.b6565466f0af36f3d683392fee39a441.jpg

 

The DJH Semi I've built is now complete, thanks to Geoff's lovely painting. This morning, I gave her a run round LB.

 

234026116_DJHSemi25onlayout.jpg.eaa94bf00409150b14d8039cf43662f3.jpg

 

1577075616_DJHSemi26onlayout.jpg.be858e53676da8b52c280296e23d5a77.jpg

 

1995645635_DJHSemi27onlayoutpanning.jpg.0c71e2e424a12557b741620d5a17d833.jpg

 

I'm writing-up how I built this for the RM, this sort of thing no longer being BRM's material (or so it would seem). Yes, Hornby now makes an excellent RTR equivalent, but so what? It's much more important to me that I've made my locomotives. And, it always will be. 

 

399747164_Nu-CastV26098201.jpg.ba8240d809bcf0e0e225ab8e9ce53cc7.jpg

 

Geoff also brought this V2 which I made from an old Nu-Cast kit on top of a Comet chassis. Once more, lovely paintwork.

 

1746348709_Nu-CastV26098202.jpg.f2c4a9d13ed6ab45963a091b3f129ccf.jpg

 

582617211_Nu-CastV26098203.jpg.c0f939daf2fd49c8f77a591765c2f8a3.jpg

 

It. too, romped around LB this morning. 

 

I also asked Geoff to weather a couple of other locos, neither of which were built by me............

 

1127353375_DJH9F92037.jpg.743c107984cfc319166acecb938c9ed1.jpg

 

This DJH 9F was originally-built by Alton Models, and painted by Larry Goddard. Having said that I prefer to make my own locos, this one (on sale by Robert Carroll) was too good to miss. I've detailed it, fitted the correct pony wheels, and Geoff's weathering has brought it to life. Robert is selling it (actually we're battering!) because it doesn't like Peco slips (though it runs perfectly on LB). 

 

1976915741_DJHBRStandard42-6-0.jpg.4393105aea2a337ed080430c8742e079.jpg

 

Robert's also selling this DJH BR Standard 4 2-6-0 (builder/painter unknown). I've changed the pony wheels to the correct, nine-spoke type, tweaked the running a bit (it now runs much faster than it did) and Geoff's weathered it to take down the transfer-applied lining a bit. I've also fitted a front, screw shackle. It needs a new front numberplate of the correct font (Ian Wilson's Pacific range will suit perfectly), and lamp brackets. 

 

 

Hello Tony. Thanks again to you and Mo for a very pleasant day from me and Dave (Hollingsworth). It was also nice to meet Geoff.

 

I will investigate 60532 and report back; if it is the motor that has failed beyond 'fettling' then a new motor and gearbox, instead of the 1994 vintage direct drive (I have improved my techniques since then!) will be fitted.

 

Thanks again.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Roy could be like that when it came to spending money. He was always playing the "poor pensioner" card! To be fair, he hadn't worked for many years and his finances were usually limited.

 

Many people gave huge amounts of their time and modelling skills freely, in return for great friendships and much tea.  I think he got used to the idea that people would just contribute because they were happy to have an input into his project and the idea of paying even a basic rate for people's time just wasn't on his radar. In many cases, the "Retford Mob" even covered the cost of materials and tools that were used on the layout.

 

There were a few times when he asked people "Would you fancy doing one for Retford?" and the the line between a model being commissioned or expecting it to be freely given was never really defined.

Thanks Tony,

 

I think Tom, as a student at the time, was even poorer!

 

Though LB is a much smaller project than Retford, because of that, and given my resources, it's just about complete now. I'm also privileged to have a 'Little Bytham Mob', many of whom contribute to the project for no monetary gain whatsoever - yourself included. It's a privilege indeed.

 

I think the 'line' you mention wasn't defined at all in Tom's case. I believe he just liked the idea of being a contributor to the great Retford project, but didn't realise how much time it would take, nor how much it would cost. It would be nice to think it would be finished one day; but for where? 

 

I think the notion of a 'mob' building any model railway is a great idea; all members contributing and helping each other in a practical and/or like-for-like manner. I'll mention again how privileged I've been to be part of a mob, building several exhibition layouts down the years, and culminating in Little Bytham. The alternatives are doing everything for oneself (laudable, but very time-consuming) or becoming what's called (occasionally in a pejorative sense) a 'chequebook modeller'. I don't have the slightest problem with the latter definition (after all, both you and I have been paid by cheque for model-making for others), as long as the writer of cheques never claims (even by omission) that what he's (or she's) got is his/her own work. Though the idea might be theirs (and there's merit in the necessary research, if done properly), do they qualify (in the practical sense) as modellers? 

 

An interesting question. On one system I photographed, built by professionals, if the owner did any of the work on it himself, the builders were horrified! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Evertonian said:

 

It concerns me rather Pete that you may ultimately suffer financially for your efforts in saving M.East should you end up donating it to

a museum. Now that may or may not concern you, however I, for one, and I suspect quite a few others would  be willing to contribute a few

quid  on a  purely unofficial basis ( i.e. not crowdfunding etc)  to ameliorate any financial loss you incur. 

 

I trust I am not breaking web rules or upsetting  TW or AY in proposing. 

 

Chris Knight

 

 

You certainly won't upset me by that proposal, Chris.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Hello Tony. Thanks again to you and Mo for a very pleasant day from me and Dave (Hollingsworth). It was also nice to meet Geoff.

 

I will investigate 60532 and report back; if it is the motor that has failed beyond 'fettling' then a new motor and gearbox, instead of the 1994 vintage direct drive (I have improved my techniques since then!) will be fitted.

 

Thanks again.

 

Mark

Our pleasure, Mark,

 

And please arrange a return visit next year.

 

One thing which 'concerned' me was your initial comment about your models being along the lines of 'They're not in the same class as yours or Geoff's'. So what? 

 

I used to be a professional loco-builder and Geoff still is, and a professional painter as well. Neither of us would earn (or have earned) much money if our work had been 'bottom of the class'. 

 

I say again, I see much greater personal merit in the likes of you (and others) doing all your modelling yourself. Though I've seen the 'delight' in the eyes  of those who've commissioned work when it's delivered (as I was, when Geoff showed me the locos he'd painted for me), they'll never experience the same 'joy' as you do - when you've built/painted a model yourself. 'Top of the class', I'd say! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I think Tom, as a student at the time, was even poorer!

 

Though LB is a much smaller project than Retford, because of that, and given my resources, it's just about complete now. I'm also privileged to have a 'Little Bytham Mob', many of whom contribute to the project for no monetary gain whatsoever - yourself included. It's a privilege indeed.

 

I think the 'line' you mention wasn't defined at all in Tom's case. I believe he just liked the idea of being a contributor to the great Retford project, but didn't realise how much time it would take, nor how much it would cost. It would be nice to think it would be finished one day; but for where? 

 

I think the notion of a 'mob' building any model railway is a great idea; all members contributing and helping each other in a practical and/or like-for-like manner. I'll mention again how privileged I've been to be part of a mob, building several exhibition layouts down the years, and culminating in Little Bytham. The alternatives are doing everything for oneself (laudable, but very time-consuming) or becoming what's called (occasionally in a pejorative sense) a 'chequebook modeller'. I don't have the slightest problem with the latter definition (after all, both you and I have been paid by cheque for model-making for others), as long as the writer of cheques never claims (even by omission) that what he's (or she's) got is his/her own work. Though the idea might be theirs (and there's merit in the necessary research, if done properly), do they qualify (in the practical sense) as modellers? 

 

An interesting question. On one system I photographed, built by professionals, if the owner did any of the work on it himself, the builders were horrified! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The "Project Leader" role, contributing little or no practical input but financing a project is an interesting one in its own right. They could be dismissed as "cheque book" modellers but in a way we all are. The difference between buying a Peco point or getting Norman Soloman to build you one is just that you get a better looking point and it costs more with Norman. To me, a layout built be somebody from all "off the shelf" and one built by professional modelmakers are very similar in that the input from the person behind the scheme is financial rather than practical. 

 

Now that I earn a crust from helping such people get the layout or model that they really want, I have grown to appreciate how and why they are willing to spend good money to get the model that they really want, rather than settling for a "near enough" that they can get RTR. I have customers who are very good modellers but just don't have the time to do everything and I have others who freely admit that they have no skill themselves but have the resources to get somebody who has involved. I enjoy building things for both types but putting a model I have made onto a top quality layout made by the owner or by others still gives me the greatest "buzz". I always think of it it as "little old me" actually managing to build something good enough to be on there.

 

I am quite lucky in that everybody I have built things for have been appreciative, patient (I am not always as quick as I would like to be) and has always been very willing to give due credit.

 

The "all rounder" who does everything for themselves, including building locos, stock, track, scenics, signals etc. is the modeller that I hold up as the one to aspire to.  Yet such modellers are very much in the minority and those that do rarely build layouts on a grand scale.  So perhaps the "all rounder" isn't as relevant as they used to be and the "mob" approach is the way forward, particularly for bigger layouts.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Our pleasure, Mark,

 

And please arrange a return visit next year.

 

One thing which 'concerned' me was your initial comment about your models being along the lines of 'They're not in the same class as yours or Geoff's'. So what? 

 

I used to be a professional loco-builder and Geoff still is, and a professional painter as well. Neither of us would earn (or have earned) much money if our work had been 'bottom of the class'. 

 

I say again, I see much greater personal merit in the likes of you (and others) doing all your modelling yourself. Though I've seen the 'delight' in the eyes  of those who've commissioned work when it's delivered (as I was, when Geoff showed me the locos he'd painted for me), they'll never experience the same 'joy' as you do - when you've built/painted a model yourself. 'Top of the class', I'd say! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Thank you for those kind words, Tony. I hope to bring the G5 back to LB once she's  painted. Fully lined NER Saxony Green appeals to me for this one...

 

Kind regards,

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh I really love this thread. It is a continual source of inspiration and learning. The Princess Coronation looks superb Tony and a loco you can be rightly proud of. Great Eastern will be another (happens to be my favourite A1 I wonder why?)  There is such wisdom and sagacity amongst those in this parish that it seems there is no question or subject which does not yield a reasoned definitive reply. 

 

Thank you too for the altruism displayed by saving Maindee East; I do hope that you get it to a good home so it will continue to inspire us all in the future. 

 

I often wonder what will become of the likes of Retford and similar large layouts. Will they all end up in landfill sites like Norris's superb 7mm effort in the 1960's?

 

I only spoke to the late Mr Jackson a couple of times and one conversation left me in no doubt as to his feelings on compensation and wiggly chassis. I did not realise that he played the pensioner card to others as due to the size of the layout I thought he was minted!

 

Thank you everyone for the entertainment.

 

Martin Long

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Evertonian said:

It concerns me rather Pete that you may ultimately suffer financially for your efforts in saving M.East should you end up donating it to

a museum. Now that may or may not concern you, however I, for one, and I suspect quite a few others would  be willing to contribute a few

quid  on a  purely unofficial basis ( i.e. not crowdfunding etc)  to ameliorate any financial loss you incur. 

 

I trust I am not breaking web rules or upsetting  TW or AY in proposing. 

 

Chris Knight

Thank you Chris.  Thats a proposal I didn't anticipate at all.  Very kind of you to think of it.  I shall certainly bear it in mind, depending on where Maindee East ultimately goes. 

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

You certainly won't upset me by that proposal, Chris.

And thank you, too, Tony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

For those that enjoy one of Mr Stanier's fine creations:

 

duchess.jpg.3e7c34f6990a220e2624a8a841776039.jpg

 

I made a bid on this DJH Duchess when it came up on ebay, partly because I felt it would make a nice companion to the Ivatt Duchess I've got to build for myself, but also because it looked well made and the price was very reasonable. Fortuitously, the seller turned out to live only a short drive away (what are the odds!) so I saved myself the postage by agreeing to collect it. The paint is very well applied. The lining around the tender (and possibly cab sides) seems to be bow-pen rather than transfer.

 

It runs very nicely, with no tight spots - all it needs is some minor tweaking to get around my curves. I suppose this falls into the category of cheque-book modelling but I'm very happy to have taken ownership.

 

al

That does look well-made, Al,

 

And well-painted.

 

A couple of things (as usual!) if I may? Weather the motion, and change the bogie wheels to the correct, 3', nine-spoke type. With smaller bogie wheels, it should negotiate curves more easily.

 

Chequebook modelling? Why not in this case? You're certainly not just a chequebook modeller! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The "Project Leader" role, contributing little or no practical input but financing a project is an interesting one in its own right. They could be dismissed as "cheque book" modellers but in a way we all are. The difference between buying a Peco point or getting Norman Soloman to build you one is just that you get a better looking point and it costs more with Norman. To me, a layout built be somebody from all "off the shelf" and one built by professional modelmakers are very similar in that the input from the person behind the scheme is financial rather than practical. 

 

Now that I earn a crust from helping such people get the layout or model that they really want, I have grown to appreciate how and why they are willing to spend good money to get the model that they really want, rather than settling for a "near enough" that they can get RTR. I have customers who are very good modellers but just don't have the time to do everything and I have others who freely admit that they have no skill themselves but have the resources to get somebody who has involved. I enjoy building things for both types but putting a model I have made onto a top quality layout made by the owner or by others still gives me the greatest "buzz". I always think of it it as "little old me" actually managing to build something good enough to be on there.

 

I am quite lucky in that everybody I have built things for have been appreciative, patient (I am not always as quick as I would like to be) and has always been very willing to give due credit.

 

The "all rounder" who does everything for themselves, including building locos, stock, track, scenics, signals etc. is the modeller that I hold up as the one to aspire to.  Yet such modellers are very much in the minority and those that do rarely build layouts on a grand scale.  So perhaps the "all rounder" isn't as relevant as they used to be and the "mob" approach is the way forward, particularly for bigger layouts.

 

I see a single item like a turnout as only a part of the story, Tony.  A Peco turnout or one built by Norman Solomon is a disappointment if it is not laid well, it forms a small part of a prototypical trackwork formation across the whole layout, hopefully with smooth flowing curves and the right sense of proportion... this assembly is an art form in itself that many modellers don’t get right, but takes skill to do correctly. 

 

How a whole layout is put together, the overall image portrayed and atmosphere created is so important.  Within the whole, the detail of a Norman Solomon point or a Peco one is but a small component of a completed layout.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I wholly agree with you about the skill and pride factor involved in making items yourself.  But surely, the principle of using a purchased turnout as a component of a much greater constructed layout, is no different to using a purchased set of driving wheels or cast white metal dome as a component of a ‘personally built’ locomotive.  It’s the assembly and the skill used in that process that defines the modellers art, be it a kit-built locomotive, or a whole layout.

 

Of course, there are ‘layers’ of self-building... a layout, a locomotive, scratch building a component to go into a locomotive... and accordingly layers of skill.  But the principles involved at each level are the same.

 

Phil

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I also asked Geoff to weather a couple of other locos, neither of which were built by me............

 

1127353375_DJH9F92037.jpg.743c107984cfc319166acecb938c9ed1.jpg

 

This DJH 9F was originally-built by Alton Models, and painted by Larry Goddard. Having said that I prefer to make my own locos, this one (on sale by Robert Carroll) was too good to miss. I've detailed it, fitted the correct pony wheels, and Geoff's weathering has brought it to life. Robert is selling it (actually we're battering!) because it doesn't like Peco slips (though it runs perfectly on LB). 

 

1976915741_DJHBRStandard42-6-0.jpg.4393105aea2a337ed080430c8742e079.jpg

 

Robert's also selling this DJH BR Standard 4 2-6-0 (builder/painter unknown). I've changed the pony wheels to the correct, nine-spoke type, tweaked the running a bit (it now runs much faster than it did) and Geoff's weathered it to take down the transfer-applied lining a bit. I've also fitted a front, screw shackle. It needs a new front numberplate of the correct font (Ian Wilson's Pacific range will suit perfectly), and lamp brackets. 

 

 

They look much better than they have ever done. I think we might be bartering rather than battering though. Interesting that the mogul now runs much better. The only problem I had with the 9F was on the tighter curves and slips. My layout has some 2' 6" curves in the fiddleyard as well as some Peco slips, which are 2' radius and thus too tight for many kit-built locos, although my DJH Black 5 copes with them. My three Bachmann 9Fs have no such problems and can pull any train I need them to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That does look well-made, Al,

 

And well-painted.

 

A couple of things (as usual!) if I may? Weather the motion, and change the bogie wheels to the correct, 3', nine-spoke type. With smaller bogie wheels, it should negotiate curves more easily.

 

Chequebook modelling? Why not in this case? You're certainly not just a chequebook modeller! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Please keep on making those observations, Tony!

 

Although it's not so clear in that photo, the front bogie is also set a bit too far forward, which isn't helping with bogie swing on curves. When I change the wheels, I'll aim to reset the bogie back a bit. Ultimately the motion will be toned down, the model given some light weathering and (ducks  for cover) DCC.

 

I know nothing about the loco's origin as the gentleman I bought it from wasn't the original builder. He'd traded up to 7mm and had a beautiful 7mm Duchess of Atholl which I admired.

 

Al

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

I see a single item like a turnout as only a part of the story, Tony.  A Peco turnout or one built by Norman Solomon is a disappointment if it is not laid well, it forms a small part of a prototypical trackwork formation across the whole layout, hopefully with smooth flowing curves and the right sense of proportion... this assembly is an art form in itself that many modellers don’t get right, but takes skill to do correctly. 

 

How a whole layout is put together, the overall image portrayed and atmosphere created is so important.  Within the whole, the detail of a Norman Solomon point or a Peco one is but a small component of a completed layout.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I wholly agree with you about the skill and pride factor involved in making items yourself.  But surely, the principle of using a purchased turnout as a component of a much greater constructed layout, is no different to using a purchased set of driving wheels or cast white metal dome as a component of a ‘personally built’ locomotive.  It’s the assembly and the skill used in that process that defines the modellers art, be it a kit-built locomotive, or a whole layout.

 

Of course, there are ‘layers’ of self-building... a layout, a locomotive, scratch building a component to go into a locomotive... and accordingly layers of skill.  But the principles involved at each level are the same.

 

Phil

 

 

 

I don't think that there are many Norman Soloman points that are laid badly but I have seen plenty of Peco!

 

It is indeed all different degrees of the same thing.

 

I have seen some lovely layouts based on ready to lay track and ready to run locos and stock and some howlers where everything has been made by the layout builder or by others.

 

Yet I will still spend more time looking at the kit/scratch built ones as that is where my interests are. I can learn more, even if it is what not to do, by looking at poor models somebody has made than I ever will observing RTR items.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, robertcwp said:

They look much better than they have ever done. I think we might be bartering rather than battering though. Interesting that the mogul now runs much better. The only problem I had with the 9F was on the tighter curves and slips. My layout has some 2' 6" curves in the fiddleyard as well as some Peco slips, which are 2' radius and thus too tight for many kit-built locos, although my DJH Black 5 copes with them. My three Bachmann 9Fs have no such problems and can pull any train I need them to.

Why did I write 'battering'? I'm losing it more than I thought, Robert! 

 

The 9F will run through a Peco curved point on the tighter radius (I do have a couple in the fiddle yard) with ease, but I don't have anything as tight as 2'. Glazing, detailing (a few more pipes), add a crew, fit lamps (this already had them) and weathering just brings a loco to life in my view.

 

All I did with the Mogul was run it around and around at top speed for five or more minutes, and it just went faster. What I've found with Portescaps (this one has a little one) is that, if not used often, the have a habit of 'gumming-up'. So much so that it requires more than the motor's power to release them. Several have been brought to me at shows, effectively 'locked-up', not having run for (in some cases) years. I'll see what I can get for it, and you can donate to the charity of your choice as a percentage. This sort of thing is really altruistic, and thanks for your recent donation after you sold the A1. Just think; if others made a percentage donation to charity from any of their sales, how good that would be. 

 

And, thanks again for the whole donation of the rebuilt 'MN' (which I've yet to sell).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...