Wright writes.....

[The Fatadder]

27 minutes ago, Flood said:

I assume their argument regarding freight stock would be "if a manufacturer doesn't make a wagon then just have the excuse that it wasn't needed to run on the particular day being modelled". I have the opposite thought, I find a photo and work out how to make the vehicles in the train to make something interesting (and unique).

 

The following have been posted on another thread before but as I am particularly chuffed with the results I will post them here. Suffice to say that, apart from the lime wagons, the weathering is not my work and significantly adds to the finished product.

 

PSA lime wagons from Bachmann 45 ton tank

 

 

 

VTG slurry tank from Dapol silver bullet:

 

ECC TDA from Bachmann 100 tonne tank

 

The two slurry tanks together after weathering

 

 

Molasses tank

 

 

 

 

Happy modelling to you all.

Love the VTG tank, something that is on my to do list for the future.  Also good to see another TDA, having finished off my own last year (having been in progress for the best part of a decade) 

 

 

[robertcwp]

I believe this, or at least the body, was also a Malcolm Crawley design:

 

E3059_Euston_3-8-73 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[Michael Delamar]

My Mousa models 04/7 boiler on a Bachmann loco converted to EM using Markits wheels and parts.

 

I wish I had known about these Mousa models boilers before I started my 04/8.

 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Not ignorant at all Grahame,

 

My OED defines 'chassis' as 'Base-frame of gun-carriage, motor car, etc.' From the 'etc' might we infer locomotive as well? I don't see why not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

Are you referring to the trail?

 

The carriage of a gun (or howitzer) is suspended in the saddle by the trunnions. It houses the recoil system and the moving parts, namely the ordnance.  Between the saddle and the carriage is the elevation gear which enables the gun layer to adjust the range. For correcting azimuth he has the traversing gear that is connected to the saddle and the trail. It is the trail of the gun that makes contact with the ground via the wheels and the spades.

 

Yours

 

Clive, ex REME fitter-gun.

[Tony Wright]

26 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Are you referring to the trail?

 

The carriage of a gun (or howitzer) is suspended in the saddle by the trunnions. It houses the recoil system and the moving parts, namely the ordnance.  Between the saddle and the carriage is the elevation gear which enables the gun layer to adjust the range. For correcting azimuth he has the traversing gear that is connected to the saddle and the trail. It is the trail of the gun that makes contact with the ground via the wheels and the spades.

 

Yours

 

Clive, ex REME fitter-gun.

It's not my reference, Clive,

 

It's the (Concise) OED's. 

 

One learns something every day. I've never heard of a gun's 'trail'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Not ignorant at all Grahame,

 

My OED defines 'chassis' as 'Base-frame of gun-carriage, motor car, etc.' From the 'etc' might we infer locomotive as well? I don't see why not.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and I've never been an employee of the railways), when I build a loco, I start by assembling the frames. By the time I've got the motor/gearbox in place, plus the wheels, pick-ups and rods on (and it works) it's then definitely a chassis. The frames (as the dictionary describes) are the base. 'Frames' is plural, whereas the chassis is a singular entity, so describing the full working part of a (model) loco as a chassis makes much more sense to me. The frames by themselves would just not 'work', as you describe. 

 

I suppose it's down to semantics. With regards to all the loco kit instructions I've ever read (and that's not many, to be fair), without fail they split into two - chassis construction and body construction. They might suggest assembling the frames as a first bit of advice, but then go on to describe how to make a 'running chassis', never a 'running set of frames'.

 

RTR manufacturers always state 'How to separate body from chassis' in their instructions.

 

Anyway, how would the two pictures below be described?

 

 

Frames? I think so. 

 

 

Still just frames? I think not. This is a chassis; much more than a set of frames. 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

You haven't read any of our instructions then. Once the wheels and electric motor etc are added to the frames I prefer the word mechanism as tbg suggested above. This has a long history in the model field and the "mechanism" is were we differ completely from full size practice as a rule (not always though if we are modelling electric locomotives). I do prefer to use terminology which is intelligible to railway engineers as well as modellers wherever possible.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I believe this, or at least the body, was also a Malcolm Crawley design:

 

E3059_Euston_3-8-73 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

You are right. He designed the bodywork. I wonder if he was unique in designing both a real locomotive and loco kits for model railways.

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Not ignorant at all Grahame,

 

My OED defines 'chassis' as 'Base-frame of gun-carriage, motor car, etc.' From the 'etc' might we infer locomotive as well? I don't see why not.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and I've never been an employee of the railways), when I build a loco, I start by assembling the frames. By the time I've got the motor/gearbox in place, plus the wheels, pick-ups and rods on (and it works) it's then definitely a chassis. The frames (as the dictionary describes) are the base. 'Frames' is plural, whereas the chassis is a singular entity, so describing the full working part of a (model) loco as a chassis makes much more sense to me. The frames by themselves would just not 'work', as you describe. 

 

I suppose it's down to semantics. With regards to all the loco kit instructions I've ever read (and that's not many, to be fair), without fail they split into two - chassis construction and body construction. They might suggest assembling the frames as a first bit of advice, but then go on to describe how to make a 'running chassis', never a 'running set of frames'.

 

RTR manufacturers always state 'How to separate body from chassis' in their instructions.

 

Anyway, how would the two pictures below be described?

 

 

Frames? I think so. 

 

 

Still just frames? I think not. This is a chassis; much more than a set of frames. 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Malcolm was always very keen on using correct prototype terminology in modelling and I don't think that Doncaster Plant ever had a "Chassis erecting shop", as the LNER never had a "Coach workshop".

 

Times change and so does language. Chassis has become acceptable as a model railway term through common usage. So have "train lines" and "train stations" to many.

 

It doesn't make it right or wrong.

 

Having worked closely with Malcolm for over 30 years I watched him produce a good number of superb running locos (and a few duds that should have been sorted out before he put them under public scrutiny!).  I feel that I wouldn't be showing respect for the superb education he gave me if I started calling them chassis now.

[The Johnster]

I have never heard any railwayman refer to any railway vehicle having a chassis, and I worked on the railway for nearly a decade.  Underframes, framing, bogies, running gear, solebars.  Vehicles never had bodies either, though they did have bodyshells or bodywork.  Bodies and chassis are very much ingrained in model railway usage, and entirely exceptional for the purpose of communicating such concepts between modellers.  We browse 'Bay for loco bodies, chassis, or rolling chassis, and everyone knows what is meant by this.  The main purpose of words and language is to assist communication.

 

So, terms such as chassis or body are fine for us, but because the real railway needs to define what is being talked about more precisely, it uses the more precise terms.  Both are correct in their contexts.

[polybear]

9 hours ago, gr.king said:

 

The "authority" would presumably assert that the photograph was wrong......

 

Or Photoshopped.  In 1942..... 

[Anglian]

Just an idle comment – in car terms a chassis is just that. Add suspension and wheels and it becomes a rolling chassis. The engine and gearbox can be aded to the chassis but they're not an integral part of it. I do laugh when reviewers of modern cars make statements like 'the chassis could take more power.' These modern cars don't have a chassis at all but are typically built with sub-frames bolted to the floor-pan.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Anglian

[Pannier Tank]

40 minutes ago, Anglian said:

Just an idle comment – in car terms a chassis is just that. Add suspension and wheels and it becomes a rolling chassis. The engine and gearbox can be aded to the chassis but they're not an integral part of it. I do laugh when reviewers of modern cars make statements like 'the chassis could take more power.' These modern cars don't have a chassis at all but are typically built with sub-frames bolted to the floor-pan.

 

A monocoque chassis!

[Lecorbusier]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The late Malcolm Crawley used to say, in his non PC way, that cars, radios and women have chassis, locos have frames.

 

For him, saying a loco, model or otherwise, had a chassis was about as bad as using "train line" or "train station".

 

He could not see why we would use the wrong terms when perfectly good ones were available for use.

 

His locos had frames and so do mine. A set of wheeled frames, with motor and pick ups is a mechanism.

 

Not that it matters what we call things at all but I used to really enjoy his reaction when we were out at a show and somebody would ask how he had built the chassis. "I didn't! It doesn't have one!"

Oh dear .... was unaware I have been committing a faux pas with gay abandon  Flexichass as a system is therefore a complete misnomer I suppose .... and I have always held the late Mike Sharman somewhat in awe !

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Oh dear .... was unaware I have been committing a faux pas with gay abandon  Flexichass as a system is therefore a complete misnomer I suppose .... and I have always held the late Mike Sharman somewhat in awe !

 

Me too!  A nice bloke and very clever engineer and modeller.

 

Sometimes, the need to just be a bit cantankerous takes over and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

I just hope nobody ever makes the mistake of taking me seriously. I certainly don't!

[MJI]

1 hour ago, Anglian said:

Just an idle comment – in car terms a chassis is just that. Add suspension and wheels and it becomes a rolling chassis. The engine and gearbox can be aded to the chassis but they're not an integral part of it. I do laugh when reviewers of modern cars make statements like 'the chassis could take more power.' These modern cars don't have a chassis at all but are typically built with sub-frames bolted to the floor-pan.

 

My car has a separate chassis, and it it rusts for England!

 

New ones are just under £4000, but I am tempted.

[TheSignalEngineer]

12 hours ago, dibateg said:

Lovely picture of 60911 at Amersham, and notice the black and I presume LM lamps. I mixed lamps on a loco on Charwelton once, one black, one white. An 'authority' at a show said 'That wouldn't have happened'. I had copied it from a photograph......

 

Have a great Xmas everyone and all the best for your modelling endeavours in 2020.

 

Tony

One black and one white was quite common at New Street in the 1960s. 

I wonder what the 'Authority' would have made of the LM style lamp hanging from the WR pattern smokebox lamp iron of a 9F I  posted earlier in the thread. 

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

You are right. He designed the bodywork. I wonder if he was unique in designing both a real locomotive and loco kits for model railways.

 

 

5 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I believe this, or at least the body, was also a Malcolm Crawley design:

 

E3059_Euston_3-8-73 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

I wish I'd known this 10-15 years ago, we (the AC Locomotive Group) would have invited him for a viewing of the interior of the surviving Class 85.

[Tony Wright]

26 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Me too!  A nice bloke and very clever engineer and modeller.

 

Sometimes, the need to just be a bit cantankerous takes over and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

I just hope nobody ever makes the mistake of taking me seriously. I certainly don't!

Tony,

 

Just as you tutor at Missenden, I used to, with Mike. 

 

He used to demonstrate his 'Flexichass' system, teaching 'pupils' how to use it. To him, I must have seemed to have been the ultimate Philistine. Two 'students' were erecting frames; one assembling them Mike's way, the other (looking at me as if I were mad in the presence of the 'master') making a simple rigid assembly. Both were 0-6-0s and both were in OO. My chap had his chassis (sorry) up and running in under two hours - simple jig assembly, everything square and true. It was very sweet, quiet, no binding and silky-smooth (with a decent motor/gearbox which, to be fair, was ready-assembled). Also to be fair, the floppy chassis (not sorry any more) had a made-up gearbox as well, but it was nowhere near running. In fact, the poor builder was struggling with all that metal 'knitting'. It was the usual weekend course, and he never did get it running by the time the event finished. My chap was well on the way with the body by the end of Sunday. . 

 

Granted, when my chap's chassis was tested on Mike's bit of 'obstacle course (coarse?)' track, it derailed. I was told that, had the flexi one been built, it wouldn't have done. I had no means of knowing if that were true.

 

Without being disparaging to a great modeller's memory, the whole thing looked to me like a solution looking for a problem. I'll never class myself in the same league as Mike Sharman (nor that of Malcolm Crawley), but if anyone laid trackwork so badly on their model railway as Mike's test track(s), I'd suggest they take up another hobby. To be fair, Mike's exquisite, arcane locos needed some form of compensation to get them to run.

 

I'm sure for P4 a more-sophisticated system for making frames is required, but for OO and EM, flexible chassis, in my experience, are of no necessity. Providing the track is laid properly, of course. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[MJI]

I only compensate really long 4W things, such as CCTs.

 

Simple rocking axle, simply because they are so long and even a tiny bit of warping will cause derailment.

 

However not warped yet.

 

And also part of MJT W irons

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Tony,

 

Just as you tutor at Missenden, I used to, with Mike. 

 

He used to demonstrate his 'Flexichass' system, teaching 'pupils' how to use it. To him, I must have seemed to have been the ultimate Philistine. Two 'students' were erecting frames; one assembling them Mike's way, the other (looking at me as if I were mad in the presence of the 'master') making a simple rigid assembly. Both were 0-6-0s and both were in OO. My chap had his chassis (sorry) up and running in under two hours - simple jig assembly, everything square and true. It was very sweet, quiet, no binding and silky-smooth (with a decent motor/gearbox which, to be fair, was ready-assembled). Also to be fair, the floppy chassis (not sorry any more) had a made-up gearbox as well, but it was nowhere near running. In fact, the poor builder was struggling with all that metal 'knitting'. It was the usual weekend course, and he never did get it running by the time the event finished. My chap was well on the way with the body by the end of Sunday. . 

 

Granted, when my chap's chassis was tested on Mike's bit of 'obstacle course (coarse?)' track, it derailed. I was told that, had the flexi one been built, it wouldn't have done. I had no means of knowing if that were true.

 

Without being disparaging to a great modeller's memory, the whole thing looked to me like a solution looking for a problem. I'll never class myself in the same league as Mike Sharman (nor that of Malcolm Crawley), but if anyone laid trackwork so badly on their model railway as Mike's test track, I'd suggest they take up another hobby. To be fair, Mike's arcane locos needed some form of compensation to get them to run.

 

I'm sure for P4 a more-sophisticated system for making frames is required, but for OO and EM, flexible chassis, in my experience, are of no necessity. Providing the track is laid properly, of course. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It was something Malcolm and I never agreed on. He would spend ages getting his sprung or beam compensated locos to run, while I would build mine simple, rigid, square and level.

 

I may have told this tale before but after my fourth or fifth time in a row that I put the wheels and coupling rods into the frames, I put my mechanism onto the test track between us and pushed it along and it ran sweetly first time, with no binding or wobbling, he declared "Jammy Gee strikes again".

 

I just asked him how many more times I had to do it before he might accept that an element of care and perhaps even skill was involved.

 

I have built locos with springing and compensation, just to prove t myself that I could. In EM and OO I have never seen any benefit that was worth the extra work.

 

Of course Mike Sharman was a bit of a "guru" on such things to many and he was working to P4 standards, so perhaps he did need such black magic to make his go!

[Lecorbusier]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure for P4 a more-sophisticated system for making frames is required, but for OO and EM, flexible chassis, in my experience, are of no necessity. Providing the track is laid properly, of course. 

 

As very much a beginner in P4 (alongside any other gauge of modelling) I would only make one observation .... it seems to me to be so much less forgiving as a gauge than 00 and I suspect also EM (having never modelled in EM I don't know).

 

That being the case I need all the help I can get.

 

I assume that were I a track building guru then I might get away with a well built rigid chassis (which is a considerable skill in its own right). Equally, if I were a compensation or springing guru I might well get away with relatively poor track work (Mike Sharman's matchstick test). I am of course neither, but to date my efforts with the simple compensation of an 0-6-0 loco and now a CSB sprung 0-6-0 loco, have proved successful in navigating my less than perfect first efforts in track building. ..... though I hasten to add not under exhibition conditions with all that that entails.

 

Perhaps ... just perhaps, it is this relative lack of skill, which dictates the full gamut of solutions available to prevent disillusionment from the outset - and yes it does take a fair old time to put these chassis together - though if you are methodical and take your time they are relatively simple.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, CUTLER2579 said:

On LT we had Cars not carriages and we never had Coachbuilders but we did have Bodymakers.

Different parts of the railway used different terminology for all sorts of things. In one place I worked they were carriage builders while in another they were coach body makers (CBMs).

 

When I went to work in Scotland it took me a while to work out what a "battery end" was.

[Manxcat]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

There are many more.......................... One day I'll write a book about exhibiting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Oh please do Tony. That could be so cathartic for you !!

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Different parts of the railway used different terminology for all sorts of things. In one place I worked they were carriage builders while in another they were coach body makers (CBMs).

 

When I went to work in Scotland it took me a while to work out what a "battery end" was.

Hi St E

 

Not having worked in Scotland, what is the "battery end"?

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

As very much a beginner in P4 (alongside any other gauge of modelling) I would only make one observation .... it seems to me to be so much less forgiving as a gauge than 00 and I suspect also EM (having never modelled in EM I don't know).

 

That being the case I need all the help I can get.

 

I assume that were I a track building guru then I might get away with a well built rigid chassis (which is a considerable skill in its own right). Equally, if I were a compensation or springing guru I might well get away with relatively poor track work (Mike Sharman's matchstick test). I am of course neither, but to date my efforts with the simple compensation of an 0-6-0 loco and now a CSB sprung 0-6-0 loco, have proved successful in navigating my less than perfect first efforts in track building. ..... though I hasten to add not under exhibition conditions with all that that entails.

 

Perhaps ... just perhaps, it is this relative lack of skill, which dictates the full gamut of solutions available to prevent disillusionment from the outset - and yes it does take a fair old time to put these chassis together - though if you are methodical and take your time they are relatively simple.

 

It all depends what you want from the hobby.

 

I always say that P4 modellers are usually people who want to test themselves and their skills and gain satisfaction from that, rather than people who want an "easy fix" solution to getting a layout up and running as quickly as possible with the least amount of work.

 

I do model in EM, which I see as a middle ground between P4 and OO. I don't use RTR and build everything but as you say, it is more forgiving and in those terms of difficulty, it is nearer OO just with the wheels further apart. There are a few clearance issues around slide bars and splashers but the levels of accuracy you need to work to are more OO than P4.

 

If you don't need dozens of locos and hundreds of carriages, it doesn't matter in the slightest if it takes you months to build one whereas somebody like Tony W knocks them up in an afternoon. If you both end up with all you need, then you have both achieved your different objectives.

 

I know some fine P4 modellers who can produce stunning looking and reliable running models but none of them would claim that it is quick and easy.

 

There are loco projects on my bench that have been in progress for years. I do a bit from time to time but there is no deadline and as far as I am concerned, I do a bit when I am in the mood. If I am building a kit and come across a part that is not quite right and will show to somebody who knows the prototype reasonably well, I will stop and put it in the "thinking about it" pile while I decide if the fault is worth correcting and if so, what is the best way to do it. Sometimes, like with my 4mm Valour, I find faults that I know others may never notice but if I know they are there, I still feel the need to put them right! It means that my loco builds can be very slow but as long as I get there in the end and enjoy the finished model, the speed of construction matters not one jot to me.