Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

But at least your temporary Airfix adaptation of the real thing was properly supported at both ends on and within substantial brickwork - as per prototype !!

 

 

Brit15

Thanks Mr. Apollo...

 

You might also like to know that those grossly-over-scale loco lamps have also been replaced! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Hitchin Junction]

 

16 hours ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

That's known as "false equivalence". A hobby that assumes that buying Peco track is the normal and acceptable way to achieve routing of model railway vehicles between locations has a completely different end goal that one that assumes they are builders of a similarly to the prototype working model of a railway. Furthermore, like Schrodinger's cat, if you can't see some hidden or internal part of a model, you can't claim that it is or isn't part of a scale model.

 

And if two people are working to achieve quite different things, they are probably following different hobbies, even if some of the materials are common to both.

 

Tim

 

6 hours ago, PMP said:

Tony's Little Bytham must fall in to the first category then, due to the Peco track used in the fiddle yards, RTL track in fiddle yards being a very common and acceptable way to achieve routing of model railway vehicles between locations.

 

Nope, clearly the third sentence.  Fiddle yards AKA  Hidden sidings.

 

Tim

[Bulwell Hall]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have often wondered what the timescales and involvement of the various people was. Did the Manchester gang devise the standards and Guy Williams adopt them later or were they developed separately with both coming up with similar answers. As far as I know, Ultrascale still supply Pendon with the wheels, I just don't think they advertise them to the wider world. Somebody I know is building a replacement mechanism for a worn out Guy Williams loco and is arranging to obtain new wheels.

 

Ultrascale wheels to EMF standards are available to order from the manufacturer - you simply need to specify them when placing the order.  To me they certainly make a difference to the appearance of the model and my locos have been mistaken for P4 models - we are after all talking about only fractions here. Below is my recently completed GWR 54xx built from a Bachmann 64xx body - modified and detailed to suit - on a High Level chassis running on Ultrascale wheels to EMF standards.

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, Bulwell Hall said:

 

Ultrascale wheels to EMF standards are available to order from the manufacturer - you simply need to specify them when placing the order.  To me they certainly make a difference to the appearance of the model and my locos have been mistaken for P4 models - we are after all talking about only fractions here. Below is my recently completed GWR 54xx built from a Bachmann 64xx body - modified and detailed to suit - on a High Level chassis running on Ultrascale wheels to EMF standards.

 

Thanks for that. I must say that the appearance of the wheels is more like P4 than EM. If anything, the present trend of using "normal" wheels, even RTR ones, opened out to EM may be easy and entirely practical but I don't think it gets the best out of EM. Are you using 18mm or 18.2mm gauge and what check rail gaps do you have? I am sure the EMF wheels will work well on 18.2mm with a 1mm check gap because I have tested it but they do give an opportunity to tighten up the check gaps slightly and I wonder if you have tried that.

 

ps. Nice modelling! The track, building, loco and carriage all look top quality.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

 

 

Nope, clearly the third sentence.  Fiddle yards AKA  Hidden sidings.

 

Tim

Nope, clearly the third sentence. Tony’s fiddle yards aren’t hidden, they’re plainly visible, so you can’t argue if they’re there or not. They are.

 

Game set and match. Back to modelling.

[Headstock]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

 

With respect, there is over specialisation. Model Rail decided not to proceed with the Wisbech and Upwell coaches for the J70 tram locomotive because all indications were the market wouldn't stand the end price for a high quality model of such a restricted prototype. The market will stand high prices for some vehicles however depending on what they are, Rail's dynamometer car for example.

I care about the greater industry of our hobby, many close friends work within it, and I'm a small shareholder with Hornby, (because I like their products, like the people, want to support the company, and, and one day make money from those shares. No pressure Mr K). Some of those friends within the trade have family, kids, reliant on their employment, and in my history I was made redundant at a similar age to them now. I care that they never have to go through that experience. I know small suppliers (fewer) in a similar position, I wouldn't wish the same on them either.

 

Evenining PMP,

 

With even greater respect and a bit more with brass knobs on, you are talking about the major manufactures again, not the small suppliers. Why should I show any loyalty to the former? They are businesses selling products, not a public service. More importantly, they don't offer enough products that I want so badly that I would gladly sell my house and all my possessions to support them. The brave cottage industry folk, with their innate abilities for specialisation, have supplied me with more than I could ever wish for during my time in the hobby and I have even made my own 'products'. Whisper it low, should it catch on.

 

I have to comment  when peoples livelyhoods are used to beat people into supporting products that they may not like or don't have any interest in. When I was made redundant many years ago, I didn't rage against the consumer for not buying shares in the company, I got another job. Unfortunately, terrible things happen to people, and I have plenty of sympathy for people when caught up in such circumstances but that doesn't translate into an unconditional love and support for the company that they work for. You are welcome to do so but I can guarantee you this, that coumpany will never truly love you back.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Headstock
Add full stop

[Tony Wright]

The name Sid Stubbs has been recently mentioned.

 

Some little time ago, I had the privilege of photographing some of his work, sitting on Geoff Kent's EM layout. I believe some of Sid's work is now in the care of Tony Gee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exquisite workmanship.

 

Speaking of exquisite workmanship, I acquired the two vehicles below this morning. They were built by Dave Scott of the North East from Dan Pinnock kits. 

 

 

An ex-NER Newspaper Van.

 

 

And an ex NER Semi-Corridor Lavatory non-gangwayed Third.

 

I'm told some of this ex-NER stock ended up on the ex-GE Section. I'll use them on the M&GNR bit of LB. 

 

At the price, they were really too good to miss. I usually prefer to make my own carriages, but I couldn't make anything as good as these. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[t-b-g]

The model railway retail situation is not as cut and dried as it is being made out to be. The vast majority of "cottage industry" businesses were often set up to enhance or fill gaps in the ranges produced by the "big boys". Early loco kits often needed a RTR mechanism of dubious accuracy to make them go.

 

Without the likes of Peco, Hornby, Bachmann etc. the hobby would be so insignificant in size that nobody would have ever bothered creating kits, detailing parts or suchlike.

 

Without the bigger businesses, the smaller ones wouldn't have enough sales to survive.

 

So we need them to do well and yes, do that dreadful thing that businesses have to do to keep going, make some profit!

 

 

 

 

 

[LNER4479]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

May we return to making things, please?

 

Mo and I came back from Hartlepool this morning (what a charming town - I've never met such friendly folk; though I'm not a monkey!). 

 

I managed to get some more pictures of Shap, which was at the show.

 

I couldn't help but be a complete smart@rse when the 'Semi' I'd built from a DJH kit just walked away with its train................

 

 

Granted, it was only on 'The Caledonian', but it was rather wasted. 

 

 

This Hornby one had to be helped out the fiddle yard, such was its propensity to slip. Admittedly, it had a longer train, but 11 cars should be a doddle for a Semi. 

 

Good to see you at Hartlepool Tony and thanks for the new photographs (of some proper locos!). A pleasure to host 46245 in her natural environment; needless to say she ran faultlessly all weekend.

 

Re my (currently) gutless blue Hornby 'semi', may I share a certain puzzlement surrounding this? Having spent some time super-detailing, etc I would rather like her to be capable of hauling 11 coaches without looking ridiculous. Here's the puzzlement.

 

She's a Hornby Duchess from the previous era, ie 15-20 years ago, let down appearance-wise by the swinging rear frames attached to pony truck (this is one of the main things I have attended to in my recent work). Otherwise it's loco drive, reasonable adhesion weight to which I have added some extra lead weight, directly over the driving wheels - but still slithers around.

 

Meanwhile, Tom Dewdney has treated himself to one of the latest Hornby Duchesses, No. 46232 in green, which handles the train perfectly OK. My Hornby 46256, from 2017, is also a competent climber of Shap bank. So what is it about these newer Hornby Duchesses that makes them superior in pulling power with no modifications at all compared to an older one with additional lead added? The two genres of model are not THAT different in terms of their overall mechanical specification. Do the newer models have wheels with a different grade of metal with a higher coefficient of friction that gives them better grip?(!)

 

Puzzled of County Durham 

[gr.king]

You need something with three cylinders for smoothness of torque and eight coupled wheels for maximum application of adhesive weight.....

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

She's a Hornby Duchess from the previous era, ie 15-20 years ago, let down appearance-wise by the swinging rear frames attached to pony truck (this is one of the main things I have attended to in my recent work). Otherwise it's loco drive, reasonable adhesion weight to which I have added some extra lead weight, directly over the driving wheels - but still slithers around.

I might be talking complete poppycock (quiet at the back there...) but perhaps in carrying out your mods to the pony track you've inadvertently taken some weight off the drivers?

 

Just a thought.

[Woodcock29]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of exquisite workmanship, I acquired the two vehicles below this morning. They were built by Dave Scott of the North East from Dan Pinnock kits. 

 

 

An ex-NER Newspaper Van.

 

 

And an ex NER Semi-Corridor Lavatory non-gangwayed Third.

 

I'm told some of this ex-NER stock ended up on the ex-GE Section. I'll use them on the M&GNR bit of LB. 

 

At the price, they were really too good to miss. I usually prefer to make my own carriages, but I couldn't make anything as good as these. 

Tony

 

I bought a part built D&S NE Newspaper van a couple of weeks back whilst in Canberra for the BRMA Convention - an interesting vehicle - seems like there was only one built, it was a test case but the NE only built 6 wheel vans for this traffic thereafter. Hope I can build it as well as the one above?

 

I also have one of the 3rds illustrated above which I bought many years ago - its in the roundtuit drawer!  

 

During the convention weekend I also bought an unbuilt D&S non-gangwayed elliptical roof composite. as well a a range of other NE stock, including a part built a D&S NE horsebox and a part built Chivers 4 wheel NE CCT - something I've been looking for for a while.

 

Regards

 

Andrew 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Good to see you at Hartlepool Tony and thanks for the new photographs (of some proper locos!). A pleasure to host 46245 in her natural environment; needless to say she ran faultlessly all weekend.

 

Re my (currently) gutless blue Hornby 'semi', may I share a certain puzzlement surrounding this? Having spent some time super-detailing, etc I would rather like her to be capable of hauling 11 coaches without looking ridiculous. Here's the puzzlement.

 

She's a Hornby Duchess from the previous era, ie 15-20 years ago, let down appearance-wise by the swinging rear frames attached to pony truck (this is one of the main things I have attended to in my recent work). Otherwise it's loco drive, reasonable adhesion weight to which I have added some extra lead weight, directly over the driving wheels - but still slithers around.

 

Meanwhile, Tom Dewdney has treated himself to one of the latest Hornby Duchesses, No. 46232 in green, which handles the train perfectly OK. My Hornby 46256, from 2017, is also a competent climber of Shap bank. So what is it about these newer Hornby Duchesses that makes them superior in pulling power with no modifications at all compared to an older one with additional lead added? The two genres of model are not THAT different in terms of their overall mechanical specification. Do the newer models have wheels with a different grade of metal with a higher coefficient of friction that gives them better grip?(!)

 

Puzzled of County Durham 

It was a great weekend, thanks Graham,

 

Shap ran superbly (though, slightly tongue in cheek of course, just think how much more detailing/lamp adding/coupling changing you'd have been able to do beforehand had you not messed about making rocket ships and defeating the Black Knight!). 

 

As for puzzling as to why RTR locos (other than those fitted with tender drive and/or traction tyres) cannot pull prototypical-length trains, I personally don't bother, as you know. I used to have one or two Hornby Gresley Pacifics and a couple of Bachmann Peppercorn ones, but they're hopeless on 13/14 kit-built bogies on LB (in fairness, the RTR manufacturers never claim their products are designed for such trains). Speaking of that length of trains, I seem to recall seeing Eric Treacy pictures of Stanier's finest taking that amount over Shap, unaided!

 

I'm sure your kit-built Semi could.............

 

 

 

Do you see why I needed to (temporarily) squeeze down the foreground bush? 

 

 

 

 

And I know mine can.....................

 

Worth a try one day?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[bbishop]

By the by, as we are writing about Danny, does anyone have one of his GNR 4mm horsebox kits maturing in their cupboard?  Only I have been tasked with building a h/b train for Southwark Bridge; the 7:07am trip from Kensington (Addison Road).

 

Bill

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, bbishop said:

By the by, as we are writing about Danny, does anyone have one of his GNR 4mm horsebox kits maturing in their cupboard?  Only I have been tasked with building a h/b train for Southwark Bridge; the 7:07am trip from Kensington (Addison Road).

 

Bill

Phone Dan up Bill,

 

I'm sure he'll have one.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

By the by, as we are writing about Danny, does anyone have one of his GNR 4mm horsebox kits maturing in their cupboard?  Only I have been tasked with building a h/b train for Southwark Bridge; the 7:07am trip from Kensington (Addison Road).

 

Bill

 

There's one on ebay at the moment, but watch the price go to silly money

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/D-S-Models-DS-265-Great-Northern-Railway-GNR-Horse-Box-kit-00-Em-P4-4mm/293281352701

 

[Denbridge]

10 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Good to see you at Hartlepool Tony and thanks for the new photographs (of some proper locos!). A pleasure to host 46245 in her natural environment; needless to say she ran faultlessly all weekend.

 

Re my (currently) gutless blue Hornby 'semi', may I share a certain puzzlement surrounding this? Having spent some time super-detailing, etc I would rather like her to be capable of hauling 11 coaches without looking ridiculous. Here's the puzzlement.

 

She's a Hornby Duchess from the previous era, ie 15-20 years ago, let down appearance-wise by the swinging rear frames attached to pony truck (this is one of the main things I have attended to in my recent work). Otherwise it's loco drive, reasonable adhesion weight to which I have added some extra lead weight, directly over the driving wheels - but still slithers around.

 

Meanwhile, Tom Dewdney has treated himself to one of the latest Hornby Duchesses, No. 46232 in green, which handles the train perfectly OK. My Hornby 46256, from 2017, is also a competent climber of Shap bank. So what is it about these newer Hornby Duchesses that makes them superior in pulling power with no modifications at all compared to an older one with additional lead added? The two genres of model are not THAT different in terms of their overall mechanical specification. Do the newer models have wheels with a different grade of metal with a higher coefficient of friction that gives them better grip?(!)

 

Puzzled of County Durham 

I think wheel profiles make a big difference. I fitted Romford wheels on some RTR chassis a few years back. They were noticeably better haulers than the original models. The more recent Hornby models have better wheels than older models.

[davefrk]

Talking about RTR loco haulage, I think the problem is the shiney chome plated wheels that modern models have. I have a few Bachmann 4Fs which people have complained about their lack of haulage power, mine have Gibson EM steel wheels fitted and they can easily take 60 wagons round Wharfeside. Another model which is often complained about is the Bachmann Jubilee, mine again fitted with Gibson wheels but not yet detailed or weathered (still not!) can be seen below walking away with thirty coaches though I have to say all the Bachmann coaches have had brass bearings fitted due to the sharp pinpoints of the Gibson wheels chewing away the plastic bogie to the point of a couple of wheels rubbing on the coach floor!!! The Hornby coach bogies are a better plastic so they don't need that work yet.

 

I don't like to pile the weight into RTR locos as I feel it is mechanical cruelty but I do make sure the rolling stock is free to roll and I prefer to be kind to loco mechanisms by making sure the scale length trains are well within the loco's capacity. Kit built locos are different, one usually has an idea of what they should be capable of, the record holder for the moment is a fully sprung unweighted DJH 8F  which has taken for a walk all 117 wagons that were on the layout that night so it's more usual load of thirty five wagons should make it last more than a couple of years.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Dave Franks

[The Fatadder]

I haven’t had any luck asking elsewhere on the forum, so hopefully given the number of “builders” who frequent this thread someone might be able to advise on a suitable supplier for these parts.

 

At the weekend I bought a second hand non running GWR Bulldog described as an kit built from an unidentified kit.  It arrived in a sorry looking state, but once the paint was removed it showed what appears to be a scratch build brass model with a pretty good (all be it very basic) core.  I am trying to tidy it up (having already repaired missing steps, added the beading to the cab side cut outs, and carried out a few repairs to damaged joints on the frames).  The key item the model is missing is that there is no detail on the firebox, as such I need to add the mud hole covers and boiler washout plugs.  Once that’s done I am going to need to add a lot of rivet detail from Archers transfers (given there are no rivets modelled on the smokebox or buffer beam).  Finally I suspect the chassis will need a lot of attention to get running up to standard, a decent motor / gearbox to replace the X04 would be a good start...

 

The problem is that the Mitchell product I would have used for the mud hole covers is no longer available, while I have never had to buy the washout plugs before.  A scan through the Finney list on the Brassmasters website didn’t show up anything suitable (though it did tempt me towards buying a replacement chimney).  I am hoping that someone could recommend who makes the best available parts for these two components?  

 

[Bucoops]

ignore

Edited October 21, 2019 by Bucoops
missed quote

[Bucoops]

9 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

I haven’t had any luck asking elsewhere on the forum, so hopefully given the number of “builders” who frequent this thread someone might be able to advise on a suitable supplier for these parts.

 

At the weekend I bought a second hand non running GWR Bulldog described as an kit built from an unidentified kit.  It arrived in a sorry looking state, but once the paint was removed it showed what appears to be a scratch build brass model with a pretty good (all be it very basic) core.  I am trying to tidy it up (having already repaired missing steps, added the beading to the cab side cut outs, and carried out a few repairs to damaged joints on the frames).  The key item the model is missing is that there is no detail on the firebox, as such I need to add the mud hole covers and boiler washout plugs.  Once that’s done I am going to need to add a lot of rivet detail from Archers transfers (given there are no rivets modelled on the smokebox or buffer beam).  Finally I suspect the chassis will need a lot of attention to get running up to standard, a decent motor / gearbox to replace the X04 would be a good start...

 

The problem is that the Mitchell product I would have used for the mud hole covers is no longer available, while I have never had to buy the washout plugs before.  A scan through the Finney list on the Brassmasters website didn’t show up anything suitable (though it did tempt me towards buying a replacement chimney).  I am hoping that someone could recommend who makes the best available parts for these two components?  

 

 

That's lovely! Does Markits, or Mainly Trains (Wizard models) offer anything?

 

[A Murphy]

Markits do washout plugs - I bought mine from Roxey. As a last resort you could consider doing mudhole covers by using a thin slice of plastic or brass rod (to taste) and then layering narrower slices plus filler to produce the required inverted WW1 tin hat shape. That is if nobody knows of an actual; supplier.

 

Alastair M

[Coach bogie]

21 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

 

At the weekend I bought a second hand non running GWR Bulldog described as an kit built from an unidentified kit. 

 

It could be the ex Loddon Models, drawn up by and later sold by Jidenco.  Mine also has the same splasher with nameplate all  as a single etch.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, davefrk said:

Talking about RTR loco haulage, I think the problem is the shiney chome plated wheels that modern models have. I have a few Bachmann 4Fs which people have complained about their lack of haulage power, mine have Gibson EM steel wheels fitted and they can easily take 60 wagons round Wharfeside. Another model which is often complained about is the Bachmann Jubilee, mine again fitted with Gibson wheels but not yet detailed or weathered (still not!) can be seen below walking away with thirty coaches though I have to say all the Bachmann coaches have had brass bearings fitted due to the sharp pinpoints of the Gibson wheels chewing away the plastic bogie to the point of a couple of wheels rubbing on the coach floor!!! The Hornby coach bogies are a better plastic so they don't need that work yet.

 

I don't like to pile the weight into RTR locos as I feel it is mechanical cruelty but I do make sure the rolling stock is free to roll and I prefer to be kind to loco mechanisms by making sure the scale length trains are well within the loco's capacity. Kit built locos are different, one usually has an idea of what they should be capable of, the record holder for the moment is a fully sprung unweighted DJH 8F  which has taken for a walk all 117 wagons that were on the layout that night so it's more usual load of thirty five wagons should make it last more than a couple of years.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Dave Franks

Sorry, but excellent video and excellent music in the back ground! 

[Jesse Sim]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The name Sid Stubbs has been recently mentioned.

 

Some little time ago, I had the privilege of photographing some of his work, sitting on Geoff Kent's EM layout. I believe some of Sid's work is now in the care of Tony Gee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exquisite workmanship.

 

Speaking of exquisite workmanship, I acquired the two vehicles below this morning. They were built by Dave Scott of the North East from Dan Pinnock kits. 

 

 

An ex-NER Newspaper Van.

 

 

And an ex NER Semi-Corridor Lavatory non-gangwayed Third.

 

I'm told some of this ex-NER stock ended up on the ex-GE Section. I'll use them on the M&GNR bit of LB. 

 

At the price, they were really too good to miss. I usually prefer to make my own carriages, but I couldn't make anything as good as these. 

Would they have still been in that colour scheme In the late 50s Tony’? Or will they be undertaking a re paint?