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
8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The centre of the dynamo should be level with the centre of the bogie axles.

Not always on bogie vehicles, Tony, due to the presence of the bogie headstock. Mike Trice has shown one solution to this. Other vehicles have the dynamo mounted higher, as Baz has done, with the drive belt passing both under and over (or through a hole in) the headstock.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, robmcg said:

Just a note Tony so say how brilliant your modelling and photographs are,  never better demonstrated than in this crop of your recent post.

 

Truly beautiful.

 

An inspiration.  I won't add smoke!  

 

61832_K3_Image1ab.jpg.0fb4da3fe143cad784852d7553dbde90.jpg

 

Cheers, from one who while not being a modeller can recognise brilliance,  I think. :)

That's very kind of you Rob,

 

But remember that nothing regarding the locomotive and the carriages is my work (apart from the re-gauging of the four-set). 

 

In fact, not a lot visible in any of the three pictures is my work, except for some details, the point rodding, some of the scenery and general weathering. 

 

I'm not happy with taking 'praise' for the work of others, especially by omission (that is viewers assuming that the models are the work of a poster because proper provenance is not given - at all times). 

 

If there is any 'brilliance' on LB, it's due to a team of highly-skilled and experienced modellers. I'm the 'happy snapper' for a lot of the time!

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Not always on bogie vehicles, Tony, due to the presence of the bogie headstock. Mike Trice has shown one solution to this. Other vehicles have the dynamo mounted higher, as Baz has done, with the drive belt passing both under and over (or through a hole in) the headstock.

 

 

I agree John,

 

But none of the LMS carriage drawings I've looked at has the dynamo that high up...............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

61832 was built by me Tony, a Proscale knife and fork job! The cab windows had to be modified among other things as they were for the earlier lower style. Good to see it still in service, it was a one time Woodford engine. Allen Hammet built at least three Proscale V2's, he moaned about those of course...

 

'None of my engines disobey a command', - no they daren't!

 

Best Regards

Tony

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree John,

 

But none of the LMS carriage drawings I've looked at has the dynamo that high up...............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think it is an optical illusion. If you consider the dynamo is on the far side of the underframe then the height is about right.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dibateg said:

61832 was built by me Tony, a Proscale knife and fork job! The cab windows had to be modified among other things as they were for the earlier lower style. Good to see it still in service, it was a one time Woodford engine. Allen Hammet built at least three Proscale V2's, he moaned about those of course...

 

'None of my engines disobey a command', - no they daren't!

 

Best Regards

Tony

I do apologise Tony,

 

There I go insisting that credit be given (always) where credit is due, then I credit the wrong chap!

 

It still sees regular service on LB (now with your characteristic squeak removed - I should have known!) and I'm delighted she's part of the stud.

 

'None of my engines disobey a command', - no they daren't!

 

Am I that much of an ogre?

 

Actually, I probably am. At one show a youngster took a long time to talk to me. He claimed I was a bit 'frightening'. And, I haven't taught for nearly a quarter of a century -  nice to know I've still got it!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

The dia 86 general van that currently awaits completion, a D&S kit with a few additions. An image taken after the fitting of the roof, the cornice and roof gubbins is yet to be fitted. The second photo is after painting, the internal screens and glazing is still to be fitted.

 

 

Dia 86 General van.jpg

LNER dia 86 General van.jpg

This is beautiful work, Andrew,

 

Glad to have you back.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BlackRat said:

Flying anything RC is always great fun.......mate has a buddy box and I recently was able to say......."I have control," on his newish £5k turbine!!! I was actually shrieking with joy.

 

Im also into AFV modelling.....,RC now and have 3 RC Tigers in various scales.

 

Theres about 50 plus various other models ohhhhhh and I've a Billings tug as well.

 

The best is what we would call (I guess) detailed RTP or But it's had that many mods.......chassis, gearbox, tracks, barrel etc all done by me that it's a different model from what came out of the box.

 

Its 1/16th and will tear the carpet up....literally.

 

When a few of us get together fun ain't the word........especially if it's been snowing!

 

You do still get the odd rivet counters........one show years ago in Plymouth I had one punter telling me all about my 1/35th Land Rover which was based around a Tamiya ambulance, but with quite a bit of it scratch built.

 

He'd never been in the mob or driven one but knew all about what was wrong with it.........he asked me what did I know.......then I told him it was actually a model of MY own LR....... 10 GX 10.

 

Apparently they were never FFR ( fitted for radio) and he would not be told.

 

Happy daze?

You're obviously not grim enough about your modelling :laugh_mini: Rivet counters will be rivet counters whatever sphere they operate in; now there's humorless! Having been on the receiving end, such creatures never seem to let evidence get in the way of pure opinion. 

Shame about FFR: I used to love a nice set of TUUAMs;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, James Fitzjames said:

You're obviously not grim enough about your modelling :laugh_mini: Rivet counters will be rivet counters whatever sphere they operate in; now there's humorless! Having been on the receiving end, such creatures never seem to let evidence get in the way of pure opinion. 

Shame about FFR: I used to love a nice set of TUUAMs;) 

The best rivet counters are those who tell you your model is wrong and when you ask can you compare your model with their model they go all quiet. Or better still tell you are scratchbuilding something the wrong way, then proceed to say in "Fred Blogg's book on ruining plastic card volume 4, he says you should do it this way".

 

I don't mind someone saying "When I built mine I found out XYZ and your model is different". That is great because you can then start to share information to help each other. Or "When building my model I found it easier to do it this way" you can learn off each other.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Fitzjames said:

You're obviously not grim enough about your modelling :laugh_mini: Rivet counters will be rivet counters whatever sphere they operate in; now there's humorless! Having been on the receiving end, such creatures never seem to let evidence get in the way of pure opinion. 

Shame about FFR: I used to love a nice set of TUUAMs;) 

 

I have always been slightly puzzled by the term  "rivet counter" and the disparaging nature of it.

 

If you are building a model should you totally ignore them? If you do not ignore them should you put a few on "for effect"  or do you get closer to the correct number. In which case, why not do it properly.  This attitude does not only apply to rivets, it applies to all details of a model. Surely if you are building something you make an effort to get it right - and this applies to manufacturers too.  It seems ok to castigate an individual modeller for being concerned about accuracy yet the manufacturers will be hauled over the coals if they apply the same attitude as most modellers who criticise a concern for accuracy. 

 

Guy Williams once said something along the lines of "I do not count rivets but if the real thing had 10 then I expect the model to have 10"  

 

If that is good enough for Guy, it will do for me.

 

Craig W

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding rivet counters (whatever that might mean), it can be used as a disparaging term, though I don't know anyone who actually counts rivets. Except me! Nearly 20 years ago, at Didcot, I actually drove (under close-supervision!) an ex-GWR 0-6-0 Tank of some description (probably a little Pannier?). Afterwards, I took a few pictures, some of which showed some riveting. Not all the rivets were in straight lines, and many had distorted the panels as they'd been fixed in. Oddly, the number of rivets on either side of the bunker did not appear to be exactly the same. I asked about this, and one of the Didcot guys just shrugged his shoulders. 'We just drill as many holes as we think are needed!' he said. 

 

I wonder if 'criticisms' are equal on both sides of the 'argument'. I was soundly castigated on Social Media earlier this year for suggesting (in the RM) that observation of the prototype should be paramount, research is vital, personal model-making is very important, helping others should be second nature and that all authors should take full responsibility for the mistakes in their work (especially myself), especially if it's written for beginners. 

 

I was accused of dictating how 'all' railway modelling should be conducted, which, if the critics had actually read what I'd written, was very much untrue. I found it difficult to read some of the responses, or exactly what the correspondents were actually trying to say, but that's another story! 

 

I know I'm 'critical' of many things in this hobby, but I hope my 'criticisms' are seen as constructive. This thread abounds with constructive criticism; which is as it should be. 

 

What I never see (unless I'm not looking hard enough) are 'real modellers' (those who actually make things, for themselves and by themselves) looking down their noses at those who can't (for whatever reason). In fact it's the opposite - they try to help. What I do see (far too often!) are those who never make things, standing as righteous pontificates, often with loud voices, being highly-critical of the work of others. Yet, all they've been able to achieve is to open boxes or get others to do their modelling for them.

 

Very often the sternest critics of those who seek to do things more accurately or actually make things for themselves are on the interweb. Though I'm not much good on the interwebby thing, I don't see it the other way. Unless I'm not looking hard enough.  

 

Despite attending many shows as a demonstrator/loco-doctor since the article was published, if any of those sternest critics have been present at any of these shows, they've not made themselves known to me, face-to-face. Should anyone be surprised? Am I that 'frightening'?

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 7
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Craigw said:

I have always been slightly puzzled by the term  "rivet counter" and the disparaging nature of it.

I first came across the term 'rivet counter' on a model aircraft forum, where it was pretty clear that it referred to the sort of person who gets very wound up about whether a Messerschmitt Bf-109E-7/U2 had 112 rivets, or just 111, along the wing leading edge, in spite of the fact that rivets on an aircraft are difficult to see at 12 inches to the foot scale, and all but invisible at any smaller scale. Or indeed insist that the paint used on the model must be mixed in precisely the same way as the prototype paint, totally ignoring the fact that the 'correct' paint may look totally wrong when viewed at 1:72 scale under fluorescent light in an exhibition hall.

 

Certainly, if the real thing has ten rivets, one expects to see that number. But if there are nine or eleven, and the model is convincing, that is surely not so great a sin? As far as Tony's 0-6-0T goes, I'm reminded of the mathematician who, on looking out of the window of a train to Aberdeen, remarked that 'in Scotland, there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black'!

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding rivet counters (whatever that might mean), it can be used as a disparaging term, though I don't know anyone who actually counts rivets. Except me! Nearly 20 years ago, at Didcot, I actually drove (under close-supervision!) an ex-GWR 0-6-0 Tank of some description (probably a little Pannier?). Afterwards, I took a few pictures, some of which showed some riveting. Not all the rivets were in straight lines, and many had distorted the panels as they'd been fixed in. Oddly, the number of rivets on either side of the bunker did not appear to be exactly the same. I asked about this, and one of the Didcot guys just shrugged his shoulders. 'We just drill as many holes as we think are needed!' he said. 

 

For the last 10 years before I retired I was lucky (?) :) enough to be paid to work on locomotives at a preserved railway. In carrying out repairs, safety and reliability were paramount. This was followed as closely as possible by making things as they were 'back in the day' using original drawings where possible. Therein lies the rub because many of  the drawings had been revised several times and it was sometimes difficult to determine the 'optimum' way of making or repairing the part, especially if it had been overhauled before in the early days of preservation - often using the limited funds/knowledge/drawings (often none) that were available then.

 

BR Standard locomotives were often the worst offenders. Standard? No way! 'Similars' we called them.

 

As regards actual BR service, they were machines to do a job. 8, 9, 10 rivets or maybe a fitted bolt. A patch there. A part robbed from another engine there. Get it off-shed and on that train somehow...

  • Like 9
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

For the last 10 years before I retired I was lucky (?) :) enough to be paid to work on locomotives at a preserved railway. In carrying out repairs, safety and reliability were paramount. This was followed as closely as possible by making things as they were 'back in the day' using original drawings where possible. Therein lies the rub because many of  the drawings had been revised several times and it was sometimes difficult to determine the 'optimum' way of making or repairing the part, especially if it had been overhauled before in the early days of preservation - often using the limited funds/knowledge/drawings (often none) that were available then.

 

BR Standard locomotives were often the worst offenders. Standard? No way! 'Similars' we called them.

 

As regards actual BR service, they were machines to do a job. 8, 9, 10 rivets or maybe a fitted bolt. A patch there. A part robbed from another engine there. Get it off-shed and on that train somehow...

Hi Trevor

 

They are "similars" from now on. :locomotive:

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I was accused of dictating how 'all' railway modelling should be conducted, which, if the critics had actually read what I'd written, was very much untrue. I found it difficult to read some of the responses, or exactly what the correspondents were actually trying to say, but that's another story! 

 

What I never see (unless I'm not looking hard enough) are 'real modellers' (those who actually make things, for themselves and by themselves) looking down their noses at those who can't (for whatever reason).

 

Have you thought about going to Specsavers?

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just spent a wonderful afternoon in the company of members of the 2MM FS Association. 

 

Laurie Adams was our usual (and most-welcoming host), and Jerry Clifford was the speaker.

 

What a splendidly-entertaining presentation, Jerry. Very many thanks. 

 

The work these chaps do is really quite staggering. Perhaps Jerry will give us more information regarding the following pictures.......

 

506879329_JerryClifford01.jpg.addb3bb0ef99f7dbd79479d46b13b22a.jpg

 

1993794523_JerryClifford02.jpg.ab050e9c3ef77e41776cc8c4adef8b27.jpg

 

934343731_JerryClifford03.jpg.eaf63a1b1c6e80554f0e190050ea4a7f.jpg

 

1506122269_JerryClifford04.jpg.806e260475fde01931c794b073a4a566.jpg

 

1459420236_JerryClifford05.jpg.c8904f299d404ed0aeb342502eaa8e39.jpg

 

1011687007_JerryClifford06.jpg.f71ca6de84a0b2777261be2a3fdd1a9b.jpg

 

1923468023_JerryClifford07.jpg.8c4276307b120c0bcde6e7dc9d195006.jpg

 

22651437_JerryClifford08.jpg.1aafa08b935ba5f9cc7a847d0da9eff5.jpg

 

1123935371_JerryClifford09.jpg.9e9f3295f0a1b79046d692e6e81ea404.jpg

 

1257485648_JerryClifford10.jpg.98117da110125fa3d9b725e1b526e73a.jpg

 

I was told a few pet hairs might be present on the models; and they were! Nonetheless, aren't these excellent? 

 

Thanks once more to everyone involved............

 

Many thanks for your kind words, Kim and I had a really enjoyable day with the 2mm area group.

 

For those interested;

The shed scene and other buildings are from my model of Bath which is very slowly being built. Its about twenty plus years and counting so far but its a largely single handed project and my desire to stick to the pre-1930 period means little is available commercially. That said, things like the latest generation Jinty and 4F from Farish are very welcome. They are comparatively quick to detail and convert to 2FS which frees up time for me to tackle prototypes that are unlikely ever to appear RTR.

 

The MR 800 2-4-0 was scratchbuilt by John Greenwood in exchange for some of the buildings on his Wadebridge layout. The MR 483 4-4-0 was also built by John G but to N gauge as a 2P. Ive put a 2mm chassis under it and backdated it to a 483 with new boiler fittings, left to right hand drive and a new tender. The SDJR 0-4-4T was also built by John to N gauge but this only required converting to 2FS and a repaint. The Midland 0-6-0T, 1667, is from a shot down set of etchings (Crafttsman I think) on a scratch built chassis - as are the two unfinished half cab 0-6-0Ts shown. The MR 2F and 3F are heavily modified Union Mills bodies with new tenders and 2FS chassis.

One of the 4Fs is built from a Mike Raithby kit, the other is modified Farish.

The coaches are from Worsley woks etches with underframes cobbled together from wire and etch waste running on 2mm Association Fox bogies. They still require final detailing and glazing.

 

The other 'in progress' stuff are a Midland 3P being built as an oil burner to suit my early 1920s period and a Crab from a much modified Farish body. The latter will probably have the spare tender from the John Greenwood 2P. Crabs are a favourite of mine and one spent the summer of 1927 on the S&D undergoing trials. They were well liked by the men but the small turntable at Bath meant that it was the late thirties before anything bigger than a 483 4-4-0 was allocated to Bath for passenger work.

 

Many thanks to Tony for taking the pictures although I must remember in future to bring a soft dusting brush with me if anyone wants to point a descent camera at them!

 

More details can be found on my Bath thread, linked below.

 

Jerry

 

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some lovely 2mm modelling pictured above. I can't match any of that but I have been trying to bash a 3D printed model in to a Titan B15 as featured at an early stage several pages back now. It was rather boxy (and blocky) and lacking in any of the subtle curves, nuances or details:

 

DSC_8234.JPG.42e820bda71d418a7340d43def239638.JPG

 

I've filed the rough finish material (it's horrible hard stuff) as smooth as possible; grafted the front end on from an aborted project of the conversion of a Cars Workshop Fleetline (on which I had added the Titan details) to get the necessary front end curvature, built up the roof with plasticard and filler to replicate the slight doming on it; amended the rear end to make it more accurate; added most of the missing details; and fitted the CW wheels (rather than the 3D printed ones). Despite the photographs being cruel and close-up, and there being errors with it, I'm quite pleased with how far it's come from the boxy, featureless 3D printed model I started. After all it is a small N/2mm model measuring just 2.5 inches long and 1.25 inches tall. It's now looking like a little toy of the actual prototype even if not fully accurate. Hopefully, the rest of the work, tidying up and glazing, will help make it look like a little model.

 

DSC_8260.JPG.6f84319618a58c8e0b77b3651cd6ab8e.JPG

 

However, a package arrived recently with an order of bits from the 2mm SA so I'm now itching to crack on with the project (some planned scratch-built wagons) that will use them. Consequently I'm putting the 3D printed Titan to one side and will have to get back to finishing it, including the glazing, at a later time.

 

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
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...