Wright writes.....

[Herbert Nigel]

Martyn,

I used a thin smear of Araldite on the underside of the rail (as insurance) where the rodding passes under it and have had no problems to date. The rodding should, of course, be clear of the bottom of the rail in any case and pass through a slightly opened out ballast crib between sleepers, just as it does on the 12” to the foot real thing. 

Herbert.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, mullie said:

Can anyone help with the following question please?

 

I want to add point rodding to my EM test plank but as the track work is PCB sleeper based, if I want to use MSE parts which I would always be inclined to do, how can I avoid a short with any wire under the track? Is there something I can coat the wire with or could I use plastic rod instead and if so which size and where do I get it from.

 

Why add point rodding to such a small layout - because I can!

 

Any advice gratefully received. There is no plastic based track on the layout.

 

Martyn

Good morning Martyn,

 

My advice is to never pass metal strip/rod beneath rails where a short circuit could be caused (insulated with epoxy or not).

 

 

 

I've shown these images before, showing the rodding heading out from Bytham's 'box on the west side.

 

Any rodding going underneath any rails is made from Slater's microstrip (of the appropriate size), painted beforehand to suit. Anything between tracks (not rails) is made from MSE's nickel silver square-section rod, sold for the purpose. I just took a piece of the nickel silver rod and matched it to a pack of Slater's microstrip (sold by Eileen's Emporium at a show). The two systems just butt up together. Even if they don't exactly, it's difficult to see. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Friend, Geoff West, visited yesterday, bringing more 'fruits of his labours'.

 

 

This is a suburban five-set, made up of detailed/weathered/re-wheeled Bachmann Mk.1 non-gangwayed carriages. A couple had been picked up very cheaply SH because of minor damage - busted buffers, etc. 

 

I think the weathering brings these to life. Granted, the too-deep window reveals are still apparent, but certainly as a 'layout train' the whole lot 'works', or at least it does to me. 

 

Which brings me back yet again to how the 'wise' modeller (and there are many on here) exploits what's available RTR and uses it to his/her advantage. But only by doing some personal modelling. 

 

It also saves time - time to be used on making what one cannot get straight from a box. 

 

Here's another example of 'wise' modelling by Geoff...............

 

 

Time was when the original Airfix N2 was the RTR offering in OO (if one discounts Hornby-Dublo/Wrenn, which are best left to collectors). Body-wise, it was quite good, but the chassis was dire (or it was in my experience). 

 

Now much-improved by Hornby, the new chassis is exceptionally-smooth. I might advise changing those pony wheels, though. 

 

He's detailed (I love the shovel in the handrail) and heavily-weathered this one, changing the number as well, basing the appearance on a prototype picture. A 'perfect' 'layout loco' in my view.

 

 

Displaced from their work in the London area, many N2s ended up at Peterborough and Grantham, though this line-up at the latter shed, in August 1962, cannot be expecting much to do - other than be towed off for scrapping! 

 

 

I have one, on LB. It represents a running-in turn from Donny Plant, light engine. It's an old Airfix body which I've detailed/renumbered/very slightly weathered, and built a Comet chassis for. There's no need to build a new chassis now! 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[mullie]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Martyn,

 

My advice is to never pass metal strip/rod beneath rails where a short circuit could be caused (insulated with epoxy or not).

 

 

 

I've shown these images before, showing the rodding heading out from Bytham's 'box on the west side.

 

Any rodding going underneath any rails is made from Slater's microstrip (of the appropriate size), painted beforehand to suit. Anything between tracks (not rails) is made from MSE's nickel silver square-section rod, sold for the purpose. I just took a piece of the nickel silver rod and matched it to a pack of Slater's microstrip (sold by Eileen's Emporium at a show). The two systems just butt up together. Even if they don't exactly, it's difficult to see. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

Thanks everyone for the help. I did think it would be best to resort to plastic under track.

 

Will get the parts ordered and hope to show progress soon.

 

Martyn

[Lecorbusier]

An update on my Johnson 1F tank build. .... a fair few firsts going on here so fingers crossed!

 

It is my first attempt at an etched loco kit - though I have built an etched wagon and an etched coach previously.

 

I am building my own chassis using some Gibson frames as the start point (the kit chassis is somewhat dated and difficult to convert to P4). I am also having a first go at CSBs for springing - . I am fitting it for use with Protocab meaning the motor will need to house within the boiler section to allow the battery to sit between the tanks. I am also breaking it down to sub assemblies to allow me to better detail and paint the cab.

 

I have converted the front end to the earlier Johnson Smoke box profile with flush door ...  and fitted an LRM boiler back plate in the cab. I have also started fabricating some spectacle surrounds from wire for the cab windows, as these are quite crude on the kit and have to be filed out to size using etch marks.

 

Any way ... this is my prototype .... running circa 1903 up the Monsaldale line from Rowsley and will pull my ballast and track maintenance train.

 

 

This is the current state of play ... firstly broken down into the sub assemblies ... and then dry assembled to get a feel . So far so good I think ... but there will be a fair bit of adaptation and extra work to do in the cab which will be pretty visible on this version. Anyway .... might be a bit rough round the edges here and there - but I am certainly having fun and learning a fair bit into the bargain 

 

 

 

 

[grahame]

Nice neat soldering. And good progress for a 'first' - I'd have given up and thrown it in the bin by now.

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

An update on my Johnson 1F tank build. .... a fair few firsts going on here so fingers crossed!

 

It is my first attempt at an etched loco kit - though I have built an etched wagon and an etched coach previously.

 

I am building my own chassis using some Gibson frames as the start point (the kit chassis is somewhat dated and difficult to convert to P4). I am also having a first go at CSBs for springing - . I am fitting it for use with Protocab meaning the motor will need to house within the boiler section to allow the battery to sit between the tanks. I am also breaking it down to sub assemblies to allow me to better detail and paint the cab.

 

I have converted the front end to the earlier Johnson Smoke box profile with flush door ...  and fitted an LRM boiler back plate in the cab. I have also started fabricating some spectacle surrounds from wire for the cab windows, as these are quite crude on the kit and have to be filed out to size using etch marks.

 

Any way ... this is my prototype .... running circa 1903 up the Monsaldale line from Rowsley and will pull my ballast and track maintenance train.

 

 

This is the current state of play ... firstly broken down into the sub assemblies ... and then dry assembled to get a feel . So far so good I think ... but there will be a fair bit of adaptation and extra work to do in the cab which will be pretty visible on this version. Anyway .... might be a bit rough round the edges here and there - but I am certainly having fun and learning a fair bit into the bargain 

 

 

 

 

Very neat work, Tim,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I've no idea where my first etched loco kit is (a Craftsman C12), but it wasn't as well-made as this. 

 

I've made about four more Craftsman C12s (better, I hope) since then, though who now owns that first one I've no idea!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[johnarcher]

6 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

An update on my Johnson 1F tank build. .... a fair few firsts going on here so fingers crossed!

 

It is my first attempt at an etched loco kit - though I have built an etched wagon and an etched coach previously.

 

I am building my own chassis using some Gibson frames as the start point (the kit chassis is somewhat dated and difficult to convert to P4). I am also having a first go at CSBs for springing - . I am fitting it for use with Protocab meaning the motor will need to house within the boiler section to allow the battery to sit between the tanks. I am also breaking it down to sub assemblies to allow me to better detail and paint the cab.

 

I have converted the front end to the earlier Johnson Smoke box profile with flush door ...  and fitted an LRM boiler back plate in the cab. I have also started fabricating some spectacle surrounds from wire for the cab windows, as these are quite crude on the kit and have to be filed out to size using etch marks.

 

Any way ... this is my prototype .... running circa 1903 up the Monsaldale line from Rowsley and will pull my ballast and track maintenance train.

 

 

This is the current state of play ... firstly broken down into the sub assemblies ... and then dry assembled to get a feel . So far so good I think ... but there will be a fair bit of adaptation and extra work to do in the cab which will be pretty visible on this version. Anyway .... might be a bit rough round the edges here and there - but I am certainly having fun and learning a fair bit into the bargain 

 

 

 

 

A lot better than my first was.

And my second come to think of it.

[Headstock]

6 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

An update on my Johnson 1F tank build. .... a fair few firsts going on here so fingers crossed!

 

It is my first attempt at an etched loco kit - though I have built an etched wagon and an etched coach previously.

 

I am building my own chassis using some Gibson frames as the start point (the kit chassis is somewhat dated and difficult to convert to P4). I am also having a first go at CSBs for springing - . I am fitting it for use with Protocab meaning the motor will need to house within the boiler section to allow the battery to sit between the tanks. I am also breaking it down to sub assemblies to allow me to better detail and paint the cab.

 

I have converted the front end to the earlier Johnson Smoke box profile with flush door ...  and fitted an LRM boiler back plate in the cab. I have also started fabricating some spectacle surrounds from wire for the cab windows, as these are quite crude on the kit and have to be filed out to size using etch marks.

 

Any way ... this is my prototype .... running circa 1903 up the Monsaldale line from Rowsley and will pull my ballast and track maintenance train.

 

 

This is the current state of play ... firstly broken down into the sub assemblies ... and then dry assembled to get a feel . So far so good I think ... but there will be a fair bit of adaptation and extra work to do in the cab which will be pretty visible on this version. Anyway .... might be a bit rough round the edges here and there - but I am certainly having fun and learning a fair bit into the bargain 

 

 

 

 

 

Evening Tim,

 

that's really beautiful work on a smashing looking engine, the cab interior detail looks very effective. I asume that you will be painting the side tanks teak as in the photo?

[Tony Wright]

I've just been taking photographs and I'm writing a review on Bachmann's latest J72.

 

 

 

It looks to be an absolute beauty, with running to match its looks.

 

 

 

A prototype still exists, of course. This is at Leeming Bar about four years ago. 

 

One thing I cannot establish is whether red or black is the correct colour for the buffer stocks in any LNER livery. The official spec' would appear to be black, but Darlington had a habit of being different. 

 

Does anyone know? 

 

 

[micklner]

A similar comment can also be made re the Red Coupling Rods ? I have seen previous comments where it is stated/claimed  they were'nt Red but they are rusty in the photos?  . The same question for lined out driving wheels as well , correct ?

Darlington did paint Buffer stocks Red at least in the early years of the LNER , the same for the class designation on the Bufferbeam, they continued using the NER Letter system in this case E1at that time.

Shame they have used the same running number as a previous model. I wonder why ?

https://www.hattons.co.uk/472583/bachmann_branchline_31_054_po08_class_j72_0_6_0t_2313_in_lner_lined_black_livery_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx

[Woodcock29]

Hello Tony

My understanding is that it was only black ex NE locos that had their buffer stocks painted red by Darlington in LNER Days. This has only been deduced from study of colour photos taken in LNER days not anything I've seen written down.

 

Incidentally this weekend we're at the annual BRMA Convention which is in Canberra this year.

 

Regards Andrew

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, micklner said:

A similar comment can also be made re the Red Coupling Rods ? I have seen previous comments where it is stated/claimed  they were'nt Red but they are rusty in the photos?  . The same question for lined out driving wheels as well , correct ?

Darlington did paint Buffer stocks Red at least in the early years of the LNER , the same for the class designation on the Bufferbeam, they continued using the NER Letter system in this case E1at that time.

Shame they have used the same running number as a previous model. I wonder why ?

https://www.hattons.co.uk/472583/bachmann_branchline_31_054_po08_class_j72_0_6_0t_2313_in_lner_lined_black_livery_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx

Thanks Mick,

 

'Shame they have used the same running number as a previous model. I wonder why ?'

 

Presumably it was a popular choice, although it's quite a tight timescale (1937-'40) and quite a limited geographical spread (Newcastle Central). 

 

This new model owes next to nothing to its Palitoy/Mainline/Bachmann predecessors. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Hello Tony

My understanding is that it was only black ex NE locos that had their buffer stocks painted red by Darlington in LNER Days. This has only been deduced from study of colour photos taken in LNER days not anything I've seen written down.

 

Incidentally this weekend we're at the annual BRMA Convention which is in Canberra this year.

 

Regards Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

My best wishes to all at the Convention. Can it really be a year ago since I was the guest speaker?

 

We'll return - if not necessarily as guests, but because you live in such a great country!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

My scratch roof is about ready for fitting, at present it is just sitting in place. I had a slight wrinkle were the two laminates of 10 thou had done something funny. Some sort of expansion or contraction issue, perhaps were the glue didn't quite take, I'm learning as I go. Anyway, it was rubbed out with a bit of wet and dry and a spray of undercoat revealed a nice smooth surface. There's the tiniest bow over the van compartment as can be seen on the edge. Once the roof is glued in place and is left to harden it should disappear. Either way, it will be hidden by the cornice. Once the roof is in situ, the cornice, rainstrip and roof board brackets can be fitted and bobs your uncle. Good news, no roof vents to fit.

 

I also painted the under gubbins.

[gr.king]

If there was a previous point at which this roof making method was described, I'm afraid I missed it, and there's rather a lot of this thread to look back through in order to determine whether there's anything to find. Can you give any pointers please?

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andrew,

 

My best wishes to all at the Convention. Can it really be a year ago since I was the guest speaker?

 

We'll return - if not necessarily as guests, but because you live in such a great country!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Simo’s Towers always had vacancies.  

Edited September 29, 2019 by Jesse Sim

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, gr.king said:

If there was a previous point at which this roof making method was described, I'm afraid I missed it, and there's rather a lot of this thread to look back through in order to determine whether there's anything to find. Can you give any pointers please?

 

Good afternoon,

It's fairly state forwards, a bit time consuming but cheap as chips. A right angle flange is required at the top of the carriage sides for the roof to sit on. I make a base plate from plasticard that runs the full length of the carriage, butting up against the ends. The base plate is narrower than the sides of the carriage, this can vary a little but is approximately half a mm each side. The base plate is usually made from 30 thou plasticard. openings are cut in the base plate see the white areas on fig 1. I drill holes in the ends of the base plate to take a bolt at each corner.

 

With the base plate in position but not attached, a rough cut of 30 thou plasticard is tack super glued to the rear face of the carriage end. This is then filed to shape using the carriage end as a template. I created twelve of these crossmembers for the roof on the BT 7. Slots are cut in them to accommodate longitudinal bracing. They are glued across the base plate as in fig 2. Notice the two outermost crossmembers but up against the carriage ends.

In figure 3 the longitudinal bracing is glued in to the slots in the crossmembers, level with their tops. This is done with the base plate in position on the carriage.

 

After thoroughly drying, the skeleton can be skinned. As an experiment, I used two laminates of ten thou plasticard on the BT 7 roof, one applied first and then the other over the top. Adequate drying time is the key to this at all stages.

I have tried two methods of skinning. With twenty thou, the sheet was put through the rolling bars first. As an alternative, you could tape it around a rolling pin and add boiling water, I have used the latter successfully in the past. The curved sheet is then glued to the outside edge of the base plate, it is important that the crossmembers give a neat transition into the baseplate and do not stick out beyond it. The sheet is positioned so that it over hangs the sides of the baseplate, this can be cut off and filed flush later. This is then left to dry.

 

I usually trim off the excess sheet before the sheet is then wrapped around the skeleton on the side that has already dried. As I glue, I pause at the two thirds mark to make sure everything has adhered to the top of the curve of the cross members. I then continue glueing and wrapping until the sheet is finally secured to the edge of the base plate on the other side. When secure the overhanging sheet can be cut off and the base plate is then left to dry, to accomodate this, the base plate is bolted to a metal plate, this is slightly narrower than the base plate . If all is well the remaining overhang of the plasticard roof can be cut off and filed flush.

 

With the ten thou sheet, I started glueing the sheet at the top of the curve of the crossmembers by placing the skeleton on its back on the sheet. I let it settle, then I curved the sheet around to both edges of the base plate and secured one edge and then the other, again the excess is cut away. I found that it is important to not be stingy with the overhang of the excess material, if you cut you sheet so that it is too close to the edges of the base plate and the area that requires glueing, you could very easily lose control of the process.

 

The downside of this process is that it's fairly time consuming and I wonder if there is any advantage over the external skeleton method favored by boat builders and recently used by Clive. I intend to use that method next to see how it compares.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Headstock
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

I spent a very pleasant couple of hours today at the Boston MRC exhibition, just north of the town. It was small, but very well-organised, with an interesting selection of layouts, all of which ran well (none better than the vintage Hornby-Dublo three rail system). At £3.00 entrance fee it was excellent value for money, and thanks to John of Caistor Loco, I was able to pick up a couple of wagon kits at a good price. The whole thing was extremely friendly, and the catering was excellent, so may I please thank all those involved with the event? Well done all! 

 

I know several of the exhibitors and indulged in the usual friendly conversation. Before offering any 'criticism', I always make sure I'm talking to the folk involved. The principal layout was in OO and built by members of the host club. It was very well done, quite convincing and it ran well. It represented the immediate post-Privatisation era. What interested me the most (obviously) was an A4 on a special working. However, it was in single chimney guise and a member of the class not preserved - in fact it appeared to be the one destroyed at York in the War! I spoke with one of the operators (a friend) and he said it belonged to a club member who wished to run it (democracy?). I pointed out that there must be several RTR A4s which would have been much more suitable - BITTERN (in its several manifestations), UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, SIR NIGEL GRESLEY, or even MALLARD if they back-dated the layout. Another operator stated that 'We're here to entertain the public'. Which is true, but the public (even if they didn't know) would be just as entertained if the A4 were correct - perhaps even more so. What made it 'worse', was that the A4 in question was an older, tender-drive Hornby example, complete with a huge tension-lock front coupling and, as far as I could tell, completely unaltered. If it had been altered, the tender was incorrect! My comments were taken in good faith (thank you chaps), but it set me thinking - what is happening to 'observation'? Observation of the prototype. 

 

I'd better be careful here because I did cause outrage earlier this year by suggesting that observation of the prototype was essential for any model-making. Does this make me a zealot, I wonder? 'Nobody else has noticed the incorrect A4' I was told, but I had. With just a little care and thought, the scene would have been much more convincing, but obviously the A4's owner either doesn't know, or care; or both! 

 

During lunch, Mo and I were sitting next to a very nice ex-GER branch line depiction set in LNER days. Wonderfully, I saw some kit-built locos, including a C12 and a J69. However, during our lunch, the same J11-hauled mixed freight just kept on circulating, even though there were several other trains. When another train did appear, it consisted of just one coach - a non-gangwayed Composite; not a brake. Surely this couldn't have happened in reality? Another passenger train appeared, this time with two/three carriages, but still no brake. Where was the observation here? 

 

Though I'm no farmer, I thought a small field full of a herd of cattle and several horses would be unlikely. Am I right in this assumption? If I am, what about observation, again? 

 

What disappointed me was that, although the overall standard of modelling was very good, lack of prototype observation let the layout down in my book. More zeal? 

 

Speaking of observation, I thought I should 'observe' some things on Little Bytham when I got home. As is known, I have striven to replicate actual prototype trains, getting the consists as correct as possible..................

 

 

 

Trains like 'The Flying Scotsman', appropriately hauled here by a Top Shed A1 (DJH/Wright/Rathbone). 

 

 

Or the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'. Actually, this set represent some incorrect 'observations'. Clearly, the main body of the train is made-up from modified Bachmann Mk.1 cars, the prototypes of which were not introduced until a year after Little Bytham Station was closed and demolished. Rule 1 perhaps? The A4 is SE Finecast/Wright/Haynes. 

 

 

This mixed goods was made-up after looking at a prototype picture. The loco is DJH/Wright. 

 

 

This empty-stock consist was also made-up after looking at prototype pictures. Observation? 

 

 

I found a picture of 'The Northumbrian' which had a Thomson BSK substituting for the usual Mk.1 BSK (not uncommon), so replicated this here. The loco is DJH/Wright/Rathbone. 

 

Finally, speaking of observation (or a complete lack of it!), I'd done most of the processing of these pictures when I noticed this....................

 

 

A dead bluebottle in the 6 foot! 

 

I've Photoshopped it out in the main pictures, but why didn't I see it when taking them? 

 

Is observation of the prototype in model-making not as common as it was? Is it not that important, especially if folk are 'having fun'? 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Buhar]

I see cows and horses sharing a field quite a lot in hilly country.

 

Alan

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Buhar said:

I see cows and horses sharing a field quite a lot in hilly country.

 

Alan

Thanks Alan,

 

The layout represented fenland country. 

 

Perhaps a farmer will tell us chapter and verse on mixing animals in the same field.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[stewartingram]

Just asked my wife - Fenland born & bred, and from a farming family; Yes you do get horses and cows in the same field.

 

Stewart

[Anglian]

I totally agree about observation. Generally speaking I don't have enough knowledge to know if the locomotives and the stock they haul is accurate to fine details but I do find that I tend to notice the natural world. I often see model figures painted with gloss or satin paint and those modelled sitting down frequently have their feet hovering a scale 9" off the ground. I see this kind of thing more often than not, even on otherwise stunning layouts.

 

When it comes to animals so often you see model representations spread evenly around a field. In reality this is very rarely the case. Cattle tend to be found altogether in one edge perhaps in the shade of large tree. Certainly sheep when moving will huddle tightly together especially if being moved by sheep dogs.

 

The cattle in the country scene on Buckingham GC had a wonderful echo of Constable – they were so naturally grouped.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Anglian

[Headstock]

Observation of the prototype is definitely in a state of major decline. I'm talking railways not farming. It's always been a bit patchy but the people who's modeling is driven by observation of the prototype would probably all fit in a medium sized pub and a jolly time they would probably have. There's You, Clem, Greenie Andy of the Howards, Water of Orton and eh, Clive of the plastic genius, though he pretends not to be, the Grantham West end gangster mob and the blokes in the corner with the pipes and fake beards modeling the Midland or in X gauge. That's your lot.

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

Just asked my wife - Fenland born & bred, and from a farming family; Yes you do get horses and cows in the same field.

 

Stewart

Thanks Stewart,

 

My 'observations' in that respect were incorrect. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.