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

19 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Oh that Farish would rework the abysmal effort that they produced a few years ago.  I’ll say it quietly, but these have never been my favourite Gresley engine, but a good one on CF would be welcome!

 

Tim

Good morning Tim,

 

I have no idea whether Farish will revisit their V2 (your description of it is apposite) but who knows?

 

When I next meet up with the Bachmann chaps, I'll ask them.

 

Many others consider the V2s to be Greseley's best-looking (and overall best) loco. The design has an elegance, even a purity which makes it one of the most-handsome big locos of all time. I say 'big', because, apart from THE GREAT BEAR, it was bigger (or at least heavier) than anything ever built by the GWR. 

 

I have to admit that (as a trainspotter), after some members of the class received separate cylinders (replacing the previous mono-block arrangement), with the necessary large outside steampipes, as they approached in tight perspective they were mistaken for A3s. A disappointment, since so few were named. Surely there was a case for naming the lot. Perhaps many of the LNER directors whose names were on the much-lesser B1s would have preferred to see them on the V2s.

 

Oh to see them in numbers again!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

1 hour ago, Clem said:

There could be real mileage in this. So, so many photos published for the locomotive subject have a more intriguing background feature. A book gathering up some of these with identifications/explanations would be tremendously educational/inspirational for modellers and enthusiasts such as those on here (myself included) who have a thirst for knowledge and analysis of past railways. Just thought I'd add my 'thrupence' worth.

I'll put it to Irwell, Clem.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Lovely photos, Grahame, of some very impressive machines.

 

This is my only photo of a Shinkansen:

 

japan1.jpg.042d56bc5eb7f90ae98d31383cf091a5.jpg

 

I took it on my one day off on my only visit to Japan, in 2012. With an afternoon and evening to myself I decided to take

a Shinkansen journey for the sake of it. I calculated that I could take a train from Shin-Yokomaha station to Nagoya

and back and have time for a cake and coffee in Nagoya. Using my virtually non-existent Japanese I explained my intended

ticket requirements and was very pleased to be eventually on my way to Nagoya. As we were approaching the destination

I took out my ticket to refresh my memory about the return time and realised that my outbound train was departing

Nagoya about 5 minutes after my arrival! Not only did I have to run like hell, but I also had to leave the concourse and

return through the barriers to validate my ticket. I'd barely caught my breath before I was back in the train and heading

away from Nagoya, none the wiser about the delights Nagoya had to offer. Despite all that was I still enormously 

impressed by the Shinkansen, the punctuality and the on-board service.

 

Al

 

I was there some years before you and caught the Nozomi service (Shinkansen) from Tokoyo to Hiroshima. I had to change trains along the route and the second was one of the original series O bullet train (1964 - 2008) which are rumoured to have the nose design based on the DC9. These things were racing around at 140mph while we were still messing around with steam trains in the UK.

 

Japan has a huge range of interesting train and tram types and a great service. Here's just a few of those that I used:

 

100_0088.JPG.f555547cca0dd171954545c0c14cbbe2.JPG

 

100_0131.JPG.f098d7dc39fc6fee0e4a4bfbf690baa8.JPG

 

100_0356.JPG.045ffaa6c57d479cc0bef1e70aea49f3.JPG

 

100_0382.JPG.e85fb4ce5b42bcdb072f36d3f3506969.JPG

 

And how about these great 'toys/models' for kids to drive at a railway museum. The Japanese society is very train oriented and fanatical - even girls spot trains at stations:

 

100_0320.JPG.09d1960adb8f753458b99e521e00992c.JPG

 

 

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll put it to Irwell, Clem.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Remember the "Bazzing Around" pictorials in the seventies Model Railways?  Superb photographs dissected as an instruction aid for modellers-something along those lines could be considered by a publisher.

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

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Lovely looking model of a very distinctive prototype.  I will be delighted if it starts a trend for empty tenders and bunkers, something I think will be a big improvement on the plastic coal.  Real locos spent most of their working days with less than a full load of coal, and one hears tales of long distance expresses running in to London termini with nothing but dust in the tender; the standard RTR approach is full or nothing, and those of us who like to put real coal on top make them even fuller.  

 

The common RTR practice of modelling an empty bunker but with a removable plastic coal load generally works well.  Several of my locomotives have had the plastic load removed and a part-load of real coal substituted.  Deep bunkers can be a real nuisance though when fitting a DCC sound installation in the tender, especially if you want to fit a good sized speaker to give better quality sound.  The bunker usually requires excision and a full coal load simulated to create enough space underneath.

 

Bachmann's approach with the J11 and O4 is an interesting one, with a 35g metal weight cast to simulate the coal load, but no bunker modelled underneath.  This approach makes a DCC sound install really easy, maximising the space available inside the tender, though I remove the cast weight and replace it with a real coal load, with additional weight placed under the ‘hump’.  If you want to model an empty or part-filled bunker on these models, it requires rather more work.

 

The ideal solution to cater for all users would be to have a removable bunker as well as a removable coal load.  One day, perhaps...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan certainly is an interesting country for the rail fan.

 

I had a week there back in 1993, and had a trip down to Kyoto from Tokyo on the original Bullet train, a superb train back then also. A week in Hong Kong followed, only train trip was on the line up to the border at Lo Wu - we should not have gone that far as the station there is a transit point for China !! - anyway we got sent back straight away with a smile by the guards there - so technically perhaps I've been to China too - for all of five minutes !!

 

Since getting married we've travelled on many trains in Thailand, always an experience, always interesting. 

 

Brit15

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Aha - Little Bytham has just landed on my doormat. Quick skim for now but I'll be reading all 8 pages of the RM article properly a bit later on.

 

And I'll say good to see you again on Saturday Tony, you and Mo are both looking in the rudest of health, long may it continue.

Edited by Richard E
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Oh that Farish would rework the abysmal effort that they produced a few years ago.  I’ll say it quietly, but these have never been my favourite Gresley engine, but a good one on CF would be welcome!

 

Tim

That loco was the tipping point for Bachmann with Farish - once it came out and was compared with Dapol's output we had the beginning of an N gauge renaissance as Farish upped their game.

 

Such a pity it's fallen back a little since then in terms of output though the chaps at RevolutioN has spurred a Modern Image revival, maybe their tie up with Sonic Models will see more steam outline if the 0-6-2 is anything to go by.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Oh that Farish would rework the abysmal effort that they produced a few years ago.  I’ll say it quietly, but these have never been my favourite Gresley engine, but a good one on CF would be welcome!

 

Tim

 

Here's that Farish V2 loco. I understand that steam fans hated the 'skirt' and that it couldn't pull it's own weight along effectively:

 

 V2.jpg.4465a5fc2f0183f3b3c630c49bf04507.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Here's that Farish V2 loco. I understand that steam fans hated the 'skirt' and that it couldn't pull it's own weight along effectively:

 

The skirt is non-ideal, but careful painting can minimise its impact - at the time fitting the loco mechanism in necessitated it.

 

Adhesion doesn't match older Farish, but to say it can't pull its own weight is completely untrue. I have 4, and all can pull 10 free rolling coaches on the level no problem.

 

For those modellers needing more:

- replace the Mazak chassis weight with lead - easy job for any modeller, simple filing a block job

- gently ease the bearing of the tender pickups, to add freedom - easy job for any modeller - dismantle tender

- lower the ride height of the loco body to match the tender - easy job for any modeller - minor filing and adjustment of the body mounting points

- fit real coal - easy job for any modeller

- fit front end vac pipe and coupling hook - easy job for any modeller

 

Going further, one can change the wheelsets for spoked Farish B1 wheels, which bring the model further toward modern standards - a more involved job which I've done on a kit A2/2 powered by a V2 chassis.

 

Cheers,

Alan

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr Al said:

 

The skirt is non-ideal, but careful painting can minimise its impact - at the time fitting the loco mechanism in necessitated it.

 

Adhesion doesn't match older Farish, but to say it can't pull its own weight is completely untrue. 

 

I can't comment about performance but know of modellers who have mentioned very poor pulling power and there are many similar comments to be found on various model railway forums and articles. Consequently, the comment about very poor haulage performance is based on reports from others. Of course there are probably a few models that will pull a reasonable train load (especially if tweaked) but it seems there are plenty of duffers.

 

As mentioned, some simple/easy enhancements will improve the look and performance. Unfortunately many N gauge enthusiasts seem unable or unwilling to make such modelling tweaks, claiming a variety of excuses including potentially messing up a new model.

 

What is needed is some straightforward instruction and demonstration of how to make improvements. And to encourage enthusiasts to become modellers. No doubt they will enjoy the journey and experience, and end up with better models.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grahame said:

 

I can't comment about performance but know of modellers who have mentioned very poor pulling power and there are many similar comments to be found on various model railway forums and articles. Consequently, the comment about very poor haulage performance is based on reports from others. Of course there are probably a few models that will pull a reasonable train load (especially if tweaked) but it seems there are plenty of duffers.

 

 

I've seen more that 25 of them over the last 14 or so years, two alone last week, and none performed as you describe - I had one return back in the day due to quartering, not haulage. So while a low sample set, 'can't pull their own weight' seems a potential exaggerated generalisation of any small number that might actually exhibit this extreme - and those would very much be ones that would have been justifiable returns. I can understand this happening on layouts like Copenhagen Fields, where the stock is likely primarily kitbuilt, heavier, but that's not hugely representative of the majority of the market.

 

Moreover, as so often on forums folk complain loudly, but don't approach any methods of solution - some of which I try to constructively outline above. Those who are happy tend to say little, as I am with my V2s subsequent to minor modeller upgrades.

 

Unfortunately, while more modelling instruction would be good as you say, I've simply had that ignored when offering it to appropriate outlets, like the NGS Journal in the past. I've tried once more with the current editor, so we'll see if my submission ends up published.

 

Cheers,
Alan

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

5 minutes ago, Dr Al said:

 

 So while a low sample set, 'can't pull their own weight' seems a potential exaggerated generalisation of any small number that might actually exhibit this extreme - and those would very much be ones that would have been justifiable returns. I can understand this happening on layouts like Copenhagen Fields, where the stock is likely primarily kitbuilt, heavier, but that's not hugely representative of the majority of the market.

 

 

As I said, not my comment, so not my exaggeration but a report of what other have said to me. 

 

Shame you didn't provide any such articles while I was NGS Journal editor but it will nice to see something in a future issue.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did offer to you on NGF but had no response sadly. Maybe it got missed in passing, but it was at the time you were crying out for submissions.

 

We'll see, I have too much modelling to do, so if little interest is shown, willingness to write will evaporate.


Cheers,
Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr Al said:

I did offer to you on NGF but had no response sadly. Maybe it got missed in passing, but it was at the time you were crying out for submissions.

 

 

I'm not on NGF so obviously I wouldn't see it and couldn't respond there. It would have been better with a direct approach to the appropriate NGS editor email. But a shame as my standard  response to all suggestions was to write the article, take the photos and send it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

I'm not on NGF so obviously I wouldn't see it and couldn't respond there. 

 

You were at the time - signing everything as H.

 

Regardless, something has now been submitted, and as I say, willingness to do more will depend on response, as I have far more pressing things to do, including building three Z class 0-8-0Ts, a Caly 0-4-4T, an Ivatt 4MT, LMS's 6202 turbomotive, and a Standard 4MT 4-6-0. The NGS shouldn't underestimate that they are privileged to get content submitted given the effort it takes to generate it.


Cheers,
Alan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

After such a long gestation period and potential promise with Farish under new owners, the arrival of the V2 was bitterly disappointing.  

I therefore de-skirted my V2, converted it to 2mm FS with drop in steel wheels, added better and more weight, thinned the valve gear a bit and re-motored it with a slow running Maxon motor.  It was improved enough to pull a heavy but free running seven car Pullman on the relatively flat main lines on CF: but this is not its ideal train. 

C45FABA2-0EB0-44FE-8E42-527259CC11F3.jpeg.be604fef53afab58eabef3267fac8224.jpeg

The engine was still pretty useless as a freight engine for the Scotch Goods, so I have experimentally coupled it to a Maxon powered B1 tender, effectively making it a new class ‘VB3’.  This hasn’t been that successful as the electrical connections on these locos are Byzantine: who in their right mind would transmit power to a motor via two pickups on the back of the rear loco wheels?  I gave up the will to live with it by this stage and the poor bodywork doesn’t justify a scratch built chassis. 
 

There is no question that the later Holton Heath products were better than this effort.  Boiler skirts went out decades ago.  The chassis could easily have been engineered to minimise their presence.  I’m in agreement with Grahame on this one, the V2 was a dog.  To be fair, it is unlikely that a modern Farish replacement would have much pulling power either. 
 

Tim
 

 

 

 

Edited by CF MRC
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

I therefore de-skirted my V2, converted it to 2mm FS with drop in steel wheels, added better and more weight, thinned the valve gear a bit and re-motored it with a slow running Maxon motor.  It was improved enough to who in their right mind would transmit power to a motor via two pickups on the back of the rear loco wheels?  
 

 

This is easy enough to bypass with direct wiring as has been demonstrated in the past.

 

I can see why it simply would not work on your freights, which presumably have a large number of fairly heavy wagons with metal chassis? Sure, the V2 won't hack that, but for those who run standard RTR stock (what it was designed for), it's much more capable, though certainly not the best.


I'm just surprised you use any RTR on Copenhagen Fields, given the wealth of exquisite handbuilt brass locos and stock you seem to have. Seems a bit like Tony's layout in that respect - one that's mostly beyond using RTR.

 

As a mere mortal, I'll survive with my decent running RTR V2s for now!

 

Cheers,
Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Dr Al said:

 

 

 

I can see why it simply would not work on your freights, which presumably have a large number of fairly heavy wagons with metal chassis? Sure, the V2 won't hack that, but for those who run standard RTR stock (what it was designed for), it's much more capable, though certainly not the best.

 

Cheers,
Alan

 

Stock built on 2mm Association etched chassis are both light and very free running - often more so than RTR.

 

Jerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Stock built on 2mm Association etched chassis are both light and very free running - often more so than RTR.

 

 

Certainly some of Farish's recent box vans have been very very draggy on wheels for some reason, and not at all easy to free up.


I still feel that the CF example is certainly valid, but a very different usage scenario than your average modeller using standard N standards that the model was made for, and certainly shows the problem manufacturers face due to the breadth of usage cases the models will be put to - clear on Tony's layout too from what he reports of haulage.  The N V2's certainly not the best design, but I can only go with my direct experience that they perform acceptably well for my needs. 

 

If Bachmann do consider re-tooling it now they have fresh OO research in the vault, I wouldn't hold one's breath though - it'd be years off if their current turnarounds are anything to go by!

 

Cheers,
Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Many others consider the V2s to be Greseley's best-looking (and overall best) loco. The design has an elegance, even a purity which makes it one of the most-handsome big locos of all time

I'm one of the many others, then.  I'm not a fan of Gresley's work in terms of aesthetics and reckon the A3 has too big a boiler and the A4 is just pug ugly as are all streamlined locos (I'm not trying to start a debate, honestly, I just don't like the appearance of Sir Nigel's engines).  But the V2 is the exception, and your use of the terms 'elegance' and 'purity' is completely justified; I'd add 'balanced' and 'proportioned'.  

 

One of the benchmarks of a loco's appearance IMHO is that it continues to look good, or even better, in liveries for which it was not designed, and V2s in BR lined black or lined green pass this test easily!

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

The common RTR practice of modelling an empty bunker but with a removable plastic coal load generally works well.  Several of my locomotives have had the plastic load removed and a part-load of real coal substituted.  Deep bunkers can be a real nuisance though when fitting a DCC sound installation in the tender, especially if you want to fit a good sized speaker to give better quality sound.  The bunker usually requires excision and a full coal load simulated to create enough space underneath.

 

Bachmann's approach with the J11 and O4 is an interesting one, with a 35g metal weight cast to simulate the coal load, but no bunker modelled underneath.  This approach makes a DCC sound install really easy, maximising the space available inside the tender, though I remove the cast weight and replace it with a real coal load, with additional weight placed under the ‘hump’.  If you want to model an empty or part-filled bunker on these models, it requires rather more work.

 

The ideal solution to cater for all users would be to have a removable bunker as well as a removable coal load.  One day, perhaps...

 

One day perhaps, but blue box seem to have made progress with this model.  All too often removal of the plastic coal is difficult and seems in some cases to have been deliberately more difficult (Bachmann 45xx and 4575 with the rear lamp iron protection shield moulded with the coal, I'm looking at you...), and Bachmann panniers have a solid mazak ballast weight with the coal represented on the top of the casting and the bunker detail on the front inside the cab.  Removal of this means you have to make good the bunker detail and the model is no longer properly ballasted.  

 

The advent of DCC complicates matters, and because I use DC I find it a little irritating but realise the need for accommodating chips, speakers, and such while retaining space for ballast, and the problem is further worsened by my use of small GW tank locos. but I want to model some of my locos with varying loads of coal, including nearly empty, because this is how locos usually appear in service.  I am old enough to remember the Airfix tender driven Dean Goods, with an impossibly high stack of poorly represented plastic coal in it's tender to hide the pancake motor, but with no attempt to hide the horrible plastic drive cogs.  You were stuck with this mountain of coal and it was difficult to bury it under real coal within the loading gauge!

 

The level of coal in the bunker should IMHO be the modellers choice, and correctly modelled empty bunkers with rivet and other detail like the new V2 offer this.  Good work, Bachmann; now how about doing this on the new 94xx...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

........Removal of this means you have to make good the bunker detail and the model is no longer properly ballasted.  ............. The level of coal in the bunker should IMHO be the modellers choice, and correctly modelled empty bunkers with rivet and other detail  ...........

 

So how are manufacturers supposed to balance their models correctly if they cannot put weight in the bunker?

 

You seem to be arguing against yourself - or wanting your cake and eat it !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
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...