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
43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Looking at some the M&GNR locos which had Midland influence, why was the beautiful, original smokebox door replaced with that nasty 'Midland' thing with dogs instead of two handles to secure it? The smokebox door is the 'face' of the locos, and, in my view, the later Midland style (the like of which the original 'Pats' and 'Scots' received) is rather ugly. It has no 'nose'! 

My dog's (dogs') got no nose...

 

etc., etc.

Edited by St Enodoc
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I don't think it costs thousands to produce a chimney out in China, or anywhere else. 

 

To fit, say, a double chimney on an RTR V2 (in place of a single one) would require (I'm guessing here, I admit) at least a new smokebox moulding or even a whole new boiler! It's a question of if the chimney is separately-fitted, or not.

 

The figure I've quoted was the figure given to me. Now, it could be a fib, but I doubt it.

 

I state again, it's both a pleasure and a privilege to be involved (in a tiny way) with the production of new RTR models. I hope you realise that (I'm sure you do) I'm nobody's puppet!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

A quarter century ago I worked for a certain railway track components company and a new design of plastic insulator was developed.  While dimensionally accurate, they are nowhere near as precise as a 10mm long 1mm thick (-ish) plastic component like a loco dome or chimney.  Two spark-eroded injection moulds to make those insulators cost £24,000.

Kit manufacturers make up some brass or white metal components in very small numbers.  They cost considerably less per item, but you cannot scale up production in the same way plastic injection moulding can.  In any case, many of the manufacturers are almost hobby businesses where they barely account for their own time, but even if you did have to write-off £6 per model (£6k/1000 models), that might wipe out a quarter of the expected profit margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Beatrice there has the built-up chimney which gave way to the one-piece casting that was Johnson's chef d'oeuvre:

 

1174846400_MR115Class4-2-2No.118smokeboxandchimney.jpg.0c5f4e3fa790e2b4e61f207c3afa5cf1.jpg

 

I do agree re. the Deeley smokebox door - a new style for a new century; the seeds were sown with the second series of the Belpaires and the Smith-Johnson Compounds but it was under Deeley that it went to the dogs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

4-4-0_Midland_Beatrice_1757.jpg.3774f8f6a4b747c69883cab862e52d94.jpg

 

What an absolutely beautiful  locomotive, and this comes from an O scale American railroad modeller who loves plug ugly Yank diesels !!!!

 

Last Saturday I went with family on a shopping expedition to Liverpool. The train out was a brand new 331 EMU, a nice looking train but the seats as hard as nails, as was the riding quality over rough track. Coming home at Lime St I closely observed the new Trans Pennine loco hauled Scarborough train, a new something or other diesel electric loco an a new push pull coach set. Coaches looked nice and comfortable, loco looked quite swish & modern but oh !!  what a noise it made. I could hear the noisy bu**er idling when passing through the ticket barriers. Some young uns were photographing it at the end of the platform. Good to see young spotters these days. Brand new locos on brand new push pull coaches - who would have thought that a few years ago !! Anyway home to Wigan on an ancient 319 EMU, swift(ish) quiet and comfortable.

 

Our railways are getting a bit more interesting these days, but oh for a trip behind locos such as the above !!!

 

Brit15

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

You miss my point - the plate covered the hole originally provided for the Salter valves. Locos that had Ross Pop valves fitted had cover plates on their domes - the model of 58072 is missing this plate, as will all models with Ross Pop valves. The cost of including this plate on the dome moulding would be negligible.

 

The plates were welded into the holes left by removal of the bell mouths when the engines were rebuilt with Belpaire boilers so if the weld was dressed properly they would not be detectable. It is possible, of course, that should the plates have needed replacing later for some reason that the welding may not have been as good but even so not all would have been visible.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

4-4-0_Midland_Beatrice_1757.jpg.3774f8f6a4b747c69883cab862e52d94.jpg

 

Not bad!

 

Just going back to what I was saying about domes etc. that is a perfect example. Look how the flare starts evenly all the way round a few inches above the boiler top line and that the curve from the dome to the boiler at the front and back is a smaller radius than the curves down the sides. It is that change in radius that is a) impossible to recreate with normal lathe tools and b) has subtle variations that just don't show on a side, plan or end view drawing. It is the flow of the curve from the small radius to the large one that is so difficult to model accurately.

 

It is not just the Bachmann 0-4-4T that has it wrong. Many models do including some of mine!

 

I will see your Beatrice and raise you an 11B

 

 

image.png.feda613bda075803cd78e929ff8f6247.png

 

 

At least it has a decent cab for going over Woodhead!

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'The only difference is that Robinson improved the look of the locos he inherited. Deeley did the opposite!' 

 

They did indeed.

 

Looking at some the M&GNR locos which had Midland influence, why was the beautiful, original smokebox door replaced with that nasty 'Midland' thing with dogs instead of two handles to secure it? The smokebox door is the 'face' of the locos, and, in my view, the later Midland style (the like of which the original 'Pats' and 'Scots' received) is rather ugly. It has no 'nose'! 

 

Although Johnson's smokebox doors were nice to look at they tended to leak so Deeley tried to fix that by using the multiple dogs. Even then there were still leakage problems so extra dogs were added at the bottom. Eventually better methods of seating the doors enabled a return to central locking on Stanier engines. Sadly, locomotive engineers were generally more concerned with making their products work properly than with pure aesthetics, even though Johnson and some others did achieve remarkable elegance.

 

Dave    

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

  • RMweb Premium

I wonder why the new 0-4-4T needs traction tyres? If it can pull a pull & push coach with an extra non corridor coach then it will be fine. 

 

Both of my Craftsman 0-4-4t can manage  a 2 coach set without traction tyres..I would think think Bachmann one will be a lot heavier than both of mine

Baz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

The plates were welded into the holes left by removal of the bell mouths when the engines were rebuilt with Belpaire boilers so if the weld was dressed properly they would not be detectable. It is possible, of course, that should the plates have needed replacing later for some reason that the welding may not have been as good but even so not all would have been visible.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

58072_02.jpg.dcdc5b61b31feab95e8c9cf408ffcc99.jpg

 

1368974429_58072_03(BATH).jpg.7f6f1407779809808d1cffebe116116b.jpg

 

58072_07.jpg.ce0126419109d75af29afedf424c5bca.jpg

 

Then there must have been another version - the above is rather more than detectable; (please respect the copyrights indicated).

 

The version that I think that you refer to appears to be a flat circular plate welded into the cut-out for the former dome-mounted valves - I have photos of those type too; they have a distinctive flattened top to the dome.

 

I would suggest that, given that there were two types of dome infill on the Ross Pop-fitted locos, it would have been sensible to model the raised plate type. The flat-topped version could be reproduced with a couple of strokes of a file.

 

What we have is a smooth dome - which appears not to have existed, if we believe the available photographic evidence.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Then there must have been another version - the above is rather more than detectable; (please respect the copyrights indicated).

 

The version that I think that you refer to appears to be a flat circular plate welded into the cut-out for the former dome-mounted valves - I have photos of those type too; they have a distinctive flattened top to the dome.

 

I would suggest that, given that there were two types of dome infill on the Ross Pop-fitted locos, it would have been sensible to model the raised plate type. The flat-topped version could be reproduced with a couple of strokes of a file.

 

What we have is a smooth dome - which appears not to have existed, if we believe the available photographic evidence.

 

 

John,

 

As I wrote earlier,  should the plates have needed replacing later for some reason, the welding may not have been as good as it originally was and the new infill could have been obvious. Since all three of the photographs you show are of the same engine in late LMS/BR days it would seem that 58072 was one of them. The flat top dome cover that you refer to was, in fact, a different type that was introduced when Fowler was in charge and was in one piece; the altered type originally had the round top but once again it is far from impossible that in later days one or more could have been repaired with a flatter top - never say never is a good mantra when discussing locomotives, particularly in the 1940s onwards. However, I stick by my original statement that when the engines were first rebuilt with Belpaire fireboxes, the majority at least had round topped dome covers on which the infill plates were undetectable, or nearly so. 

 

For what it is worth, when I make a chimney or dome cover I start by fly cutting the end of a piece of bar stock to the radius of the boiler clothing then drilling and soldering in a mandrel which is then gripped in the chuck and the item turned to shape with the seat being finished to the radius at the top, leaving a 'shoulder' at the sides. The mandrel is then held in a vice and the shoulders finished to shape with needle files. The mandrel can then be sweated out. A bit long winded but with care a good representation can be achieved. Nearly forgot - at all stages check the shape with card or plastic patterns cut from the drawings.    

 

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

John,

 

As I wrote earlier,  should the plates have needed replacing later for some reason, the welding may not have been as good as it originally was and the new infill could have been obvious. Since all three of the photographs you show are of the same engine in late LMS/BR days it would seem that 58072 was one of them. The flat top dome cover that you refer to was, in fact, a different type that was introduced when Fowler was in charge and was in one piece; the altered type originally had the round top but once again it is far from impossible that in later days one or more could have been repaired with a flatter top - never say never is a good mantra when discussing locomotives, particularly in the 1940s onwards. However, I stick by my original statement that when the engines were first rebuilt with Belpaire fireboxes, the majority at least had round topped dome covers on which the infill plates were undetectable, or nearly so. 

 

For what it is worth, when I make a chimney or dome cover I start by fly cutting the end of a piece of bar stock to the radius of the boiler clothing then drilling and soldering in a mandrel which is then gripped in the chuck and the item turned to shape with the seat being finished to the radius at the top, leaving a 'shoulder' at the sides. The mandrel is then held in a vice and the shoulders finished to shape with needle files. The mandrel can then be sweated out. A bit long winded but with care a good representation can be achieved. Nearly forgot - at all stages check the shape with card or plastic patterns cut from the drawings.    

 

Dave

 

I was once shown how to make a chimney using just that technique by a proper craftsman and it produced lovely results. Whenever I wanted a chimney or dome, I would ask if I could do it under his supervision next time I saw him. When we met again he would present me with a superb chimney or dome he had done for me, so I never did get around to making one for myself. I must try it one day!

 

Peter Denny used to use a combination of brass tube, washers and solder and turn the result up in a hand brace.

 

Such methods do allow for the variation in radius round the base but of course you only ever have a front and a side view on a drawing so the changing radius from one to the other has to be judged by eye.

 

The dome on the 0-4-4T does seem to have been made using a constant radius round the base, as you can see the curve rise and fall round the sides and the radius at the sides appears, to my eyes at least, to be the same as the radius front and back.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'll see  your two cylinders and raise you three:

 

2120185197_MR2634.jpg.f3943c455ba812961abf390964b0bafe.jpg

Sorry but in that form, they don't do it for me in the looks department. The proportions are much better as 1000 looks now.

Now if you had gone for a single or an 800 class, you might have won me over!

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

  • RMweb Premium

The mistake often made using the Denny method with a bent washer as the base is to end up with a slightly oval base when viewed from above; real chimneys (or at least MR and LMS ones with which I am familiar) had circular bases in plan view. 

 

Glad to to see you chose one of the second batch of Compounds Stephen.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My good friend the late Jack Braithwaite wrote extensively on locomotive aesthetics (he called S. W. Johnson the engineer artist) and to his eyes the Kirtley single No. 33 as rebuilt by Johnson and used to pull the M.R. directors' saloon was the prettiest engine ever. I'm afraid that I don't have a photograph to hand though.

 

Dave

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sorry but in that form, they don't do it for me in the looks department. The proportions are much better as 1000 looks now.

Now if you had gone for a single or an 800 class, you might have won me over!

 

You'd gone Belpaire, so I had to redouble. It would have had to have been one of the second series, Nos. 2781-2790 in full Johnson fig and with watercart tender. Personally, I think the Smith-Johnson Compounds Nos. 2631-2635 as built take the palm for fin de siècle elegance; they mark the point at which the baton was passed from Johnson to Robinson*. Robinson's compound atlantics show what Johnson might have done next. Deeley's new century look is quite another thing. It is remarkable quite how different locomotives of the same design can look when dressed up differently. For me, the Deeley look only really becomes a satisfying exercise in austere and balanced functionality with the superheated engines.

 

*In the person of J.W. Smith, son of W.M. Smith.

 

26 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

Glad to to see you chose one of the second batch of Compounds Stephen.

 

Only because I had that picture to hand. I would have preferred the three-quarter view of 2632 [R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1988) plate 287] but don't have that in postable form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 hours ago, glo41f said:

Love the new railway crane. The original was made by Ransomes and Rapier, a world renowned Ipswich engineering company sadly no more. I recall that they had their name as a casting along the jib which this one seems to miss. I was interested in Clive's scratch built one which looks fine but is a product of  the rival Cowans Sheldon company. Strange as I had Clive down as an east anglian type! 

 

There are models and drawings of the Ransomes cranes in the Ipswich Transport Museum where I have been known to do the odd stint. The museum has the custody of the Ransomes archives which are available to researchers along with a huge number of official photographs.

 

Martin Long

Hi Martin

 

Cranes spent long periods at the same loco depot so had I made one that in the 1960s was at say March someone would have questioned why it was at my fictitious depot layout. So on finding the crane I have modelled was the Eastern Region spare should anyone have questioned me Hanging Hill's own crane was in works and my model was covering its duties. Sadly no one ever noticed.

 

Sir Fredrick Stokes who whilst at Ransomes and Rapier invented the weight relieving bogies which most cranes over 45 ton had. He also invented the Stokes Mortar in WW1 which is the basis for all modern mortars.

Edited by Clive Mortimore
missing '
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Beatrice there has the built-up chimney which gave way to the one-piece casting that was Johnson's chef d'oeuvre:

 

1174846400_MR115Class4-2-2No.118smokeboxandchimney.jpg.0c5f4e3fa790e2b4e61f207c3afa5cf1.jpg

 

I do agree re. the Deeley smokebox door - a new style for a new century; the seeds were sown with the second series of the Belpaires and the Smith-Johnson Compounds but it was under Deeley that it went to the dogs.

 

I quite like the workhorse look of Deeley and Fowler locomotives. Nothing to fancy, clean and functional. 

 

I wish you have shown more of the photo of the south end of the London bound platform at Midland Road, Bedford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Barry O said:

I wonder why the new 0-4-4T needs traction tyres? If it can pull a pull & push coach with an extra non corridor coach then it will be fine. 

 

Both of my Craftsman 0-4-4t can manage  a 2 coach set without traction tyres..I would think think Bachmann one will be a lot heavier than both of mine

Baz

I have the current Hornby Railroad version of the LNER D49 with the improved chassis, this came with traction tyres. As I wanted Lined out wheels they were replaced with normal Hornby wheels. I added a tiny bit of lead to the body , it now  pulls Five Hornby LNER Suburban Coaches without problem, I tried Six and it just spun the wheels. Five is luckily more than enough for me.

 

Without seeing the Bachmann tank you would presume there is space in the tanks for lead, the only problem is compromising the balance as its the dreaded 0-4-4 set up.

  • Like 2
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...