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

9 hours ago, 45609 said:

Hi Tony

 

Regarding A4 cylinders on the Hornby body you may or may not recall that I bought this along to a running session at your place a few years ago now.

 

post-118-0-40986100-1411984188_thumb.jpg

 

Yes there is a line visible on the cylinder side but I felt it was an acceptable compromise to get a good looking turn under.  Below the line the cylinder side is part of the chassis.  A fuller description of the model and constituent parts is at the end of this link (page 97 of your thread).

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588616

 

 

Along with some of your excellent photos of my and David West's work

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588196

 

Cheers...Morgan

It was a few years ago Morgan,

 

And many, many pages ago!

 

And it's still one of the best A4s in model form I've ever seen!

 

Just one thing (and I've probably mentioned this before), at least on the off-side for a time, the lining on the bottom of 60012's tender was not parallel with the soleplate. It was higher at the front. The same phenomenon was also apparent on 60010's tender, but earlier. Two painters of different heights? in the case of 12's case, it was after being fitted with a double chimney and repainting after shopping (1958?). 

 

Reproduce it on the model, and, though 'accurate' for the period, it would look very odd indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It was a few years ago Morgan,

 

And many, many pages ago!

 

And it's still one of the best A4s in model form I've ever seen!

 

Just one thing (and I've probably mentioned this before), at least on the off-side for a time, the lining on the bottom of 60012's tender was not parallel with the soleplate. It was higher at the front. The same phenomenon was also apparent on 60010's tender, but earlier. Two painters of different heights? in the case of 12's case, it was after being fitted with a double chimney and repainting after shopping (1958?). 

 

Reproduce it on the model, and, though 'accurate' for the period, it would look very odd indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It is like bent handrails, footplates and wrinkles in the sides of tenders. All there on the real thing and if you are modelling a prototype at a date when they had them, you should include them.

 

Yet they are rarely done at all and when they are, it ends up looking like sloppy modelling.

 

I once noticed that on certain GCR period photos, the double white lines on cab and tender sides were not spaced equally on some locos. When you see the corner of the lining, it is clear that the radius of the two curves were not drawn from the same centre as the lines get closer together as you go round the curve. So the vertical white lines are closer together than the horizontal ones. Was that deliberate to keep proportions on shorter and longer lines or was it faulty work? Either way, do it on a model and it will look like somebody can't get their line spacing consistent. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/01/2020 at 11:53, Tony Wright said:

Very impressive Andy,

 

No running problems there.

 

I must admit I've never tried propelling a full rake of carriages at high speed on LB (there is no need), but those from the kick back sidings come out without any trouble.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

There are a few rarely talked about factors here. And they apply to exhibitions as well as home layouts

 

1. I'm deliberately testing at the very extremes of whole train operation. That way I know that there will be a big safety factor if exceeding normal operation, even if someone unintentionally pushes the envelope a bit. Nothing is just barely working on the very edge of reliability.

 

2. Every vehicle is heavy. Nothing keeps vehicles firmly down on good track like weight. If it's very heavy, then it takes a lot more energy in a potential rail climbing situation to get a wheel to lift than it does for a light vehicle.

 

3. None of the wheels in the entire train are sprung. It's not well known, but the effectiveness of springing track holding for model trains is mostly cosmetic and varies greatly with speed and weight. Apparently working springing on light vehicles is often a source of "bouncing" at higher speeds. Instead all the track holding shown is managed by equalizing beams. And the theory for those works independently of both speed and weight. And the really good news is that your track no longer needs to be perfect.  In fact for my "00-P" 16.5 mm gauge, I can use almost all commercial track with just some simple and easy modifications.

 

4. "Good" track holding in "00" is significantly helped by "00"'s deep flanges.  When you start modelling with scale depth flanges, then all the common model design flaws and weaknesses "got way with" by having deep flanges become very serious factors to overcome.

 

5. There is a psychology factor at play in a "proto-scale". Very much like the often spoken of here obvious "but it's backwards" link in RTR steam models. Once you have one vehicle fitted with scale wheels, it becomes impossible not to notice the "steam roller" appearance of the remaining wheels in your vehicle roster. For most that try it, there is no going back.

 

Andy

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 23:08, drmditch said:

I believe the actual quotation was 'Pepp, if you design an express locomotive with five driving wheels your name is made!'

 

Now I will have to look up my source for that - but please may I get some sleep first!

 

Allegedly contained in a letter from J F Harrison to Col H C B Rogers, quoted in the latter's "Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers".

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

There are a few rarely talked about factors here. And they apply to exhibitions as well as home layouts

 

1. I'm deliberately testing at the very extremes of whole train operation. That way I know that there will be a big safety factor if exceeding normal operation, even if someone unintentionally pushes the envelope a bit. Nothing is just barely working on the very edge of reliability.

 

2. Every vehicle is heavy. Nothing keeps vehicles firmly down on good track like weight. If it's very heavy, then it takes a lot more energy in a potential rail climbing situation to get a wheel to lift than it does for a light vehicle.

 

3. None of the wheels in the entire train are sprung. It's not well known, but the effectiveness of springing track holding for model trains is mostly cosmetic and varies greatly with speed and weight. Apparently working springing on light vehicles is often a source of "bouncing" at higher speeds. Instead all the track holding shown is managed by equalizing beams. And the theory for those works independently of both speed and weight. And the really good news is that your track no longer needs to be perfect.  In fact for my "00-P" 16.5 mm gauge, I can use almost all commercial track with just some simple and easy modifications.

 

4. "Good" track holding in "00" is significantly helped by "00"'s deep flanges.  When you start modelling with scale depth flanges, then all the common model design flaws and weaknesses "got way with" by having deep flanges become very serious factors to overcome.

 

5. There is a psychology factor at play in a "proto-scale". Very much like the often spoken of here obvious "but it's backwards" link in RTR steam models. Once you have one vehicle fitted with scale wheels, it becomes impossible not to notice the "steam roller" appearance of the remaining wheels in your vehicle roster. For most that try it, there is no going back.

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

Very sound reasoning, with which I cannot disagree.....

 

However, why is that some who cannot tolerate 'steamroller' wheels, cannot then get their trains to stay on the track when they change them to ..... bicycle wheels? 

 

It's been recorded before, but some guests who operated the 'coarse' standards of Little Bytham, thought it 'wonderful', until one looked at the loco/stock wheels (and by analogy) and narrow gauge trackwork. They were 'impressed' when a P2 I'd built took 14 (heavy) bogies round at near 100 scale mph, without fuss, failure or derailment, but couldn't have lived with the steamroller wheels. 

 

Yet, when I saw the layout they were operating a month or two later at a show, they couldn't get a 2-6-2T with only two carriages from one end to the other of a terminus-fiddle yard layout, without it falling off all over the place! 

 

'No going back'? It's 'no going forward' for me if the finest scale/gauge standards can produce such poor running. 

 

The last said, I've also seen some pretty grim running on layouts with 'steamroller' wheels. But, we have been here before...........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

After too long, the Nu-Cast K2 I started in the autumn is now complete......

 

1969991493_NuCastK102.jpg.53a58bc97797ce8fa9194ec8bf4762a6.jpg

 

It was built really to test the new DJH/motor combination. This a beautifully-smooth prime-mover.

 

The un-prototypical joggles in the radius rods clear the valve guides, and they all but disappear with the body on. 

 

786273729_NuCastK103.jpg.d62415965b7d7eb3f1a5ac535d45afe1.jpg

 

Ready for the paint shop (after much in the way of cleaning up!). 

 

785458696_NuCastK104.jpg.c7f864d8b4a83b231de1179a64bd8a74.jpg

 

On test this afternoon, near 50 wagons (some white metal) were no problem. Why didn't I notice the twisted front coupling? 

 

1493532079_NuCastK105.jpg.f87faeeddcc695d5d1b93f7f49be73a3.jpg

 

Bytham's three K1s together (three's enough). From left to right: Nu-Cast, built/painted/weathered by John Houlden (ex-Gamston Bank), DMR, built/painted by me, weathered by Tom Foster, and the new, Nu-Cast one (still with twisted coupling). 

 

Are any of these better than a Hornby equivalent? A frequently-asked question regarding RTR/kit-built. In all honesty, I don't really care. There is still something 'special' about an all-metal loco, than no plastic equivalent can achieve.

 

In a way (in every way?), the current RTR stuff should be better - it's the product of far newer technologies and it's factory-finished. But, speaking as a model-maker, so what? At least two of these are 'mine' in a way impossible with just a possession. 

 

 

Hi Tony. That motor/gearbox assembly looks just right, doesn't it? I'm actually putting together a Nucast K1 myself, another eBay bargain from a few years ago that was in the roundtuit pile. Sadly it came without a chassis - one of the reasons why it was cheap - but I had obtained a set of Dave Alexander's K4 frames from the gent himself at a cost of, if I recall, only £3, and with a little fiddling about they have been adapted well to fit the body. I was looking at a way of marrying a High Level gearbox with a Romford Bulldog which I have - probably with some sort of UJ or a simple rubber sleeve and the motor well up in the boiler so as not to have to cut the frames & spoil the look of the loco - but looking at your power source, I am very tempted to use one of those instead.

 

Cheers

Mark

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

However, why is that some who cannot tolerate 'steamroller' wheels, cannot then get their trains to stay on the track when they change them to ..... bicycle wheels? 

I fully accept that this may be an over reaction so apologies .... but .....

 

'steamroller wheels',  ..... bicycle wheels?  The term steamroller wheels has always seemed to me to be a tad rude even in jest .... bicycle wheels doesn't quite cut it as a commensurate riposte! Furthermore, steamroller is a bizarre description for a finally crafted and elegant piece of modelling - which is what Markits 00 finescale wheels are.

 

00 fine scale might have deeper flanges, but these are hardly visible on a layout. As far as wheels are concerned, when comparing fine scale 00 with P4, I contend that on a layout you have to look hard to see the difference and even then you need to be close up. When stock is moving, the differences become irrelevant. Perhaps it is the close up Photograph which should be held responsible for the bruhaha.

 

If you are creating a model for a display cabinet or placing a loco wheeled in P4 directly next to one using 00 Finescale for detailed comparison, you might choose the P4 due to visual preference -  but that is not the comparison being made on layouts.

 

I do think that 18mm track work is visually better than 00 and that a loco viewed head on has a better (more prototypical) stance within the wider gauges, but neither of these things has anything at all to do with 'steamroller wheels'. I also contend that as far as the wider gauges are concerned,  you are going to be very hard pushed to tell any difference visually between EM and P4 on separate layouts - unless again you artificially set one directly next to the other - and even then many will struggle.

 

For what it is worth I model in P4 primarily because I find it intellectually satisfying, in much the same way that I model details which often you would be hard pushed to see and arguably add not one bit to the overall impression. I do this purely for my own enjoyment. It does not effect one jot my admiration and enjoyment of other layouts in other gauges ... and interestingly there are a fair few P4 modellers who model at the same time in other 4mm gauges ..... horses for courses?.

I for one would be extremely happy never to hear the pejorative term 'steamroller wheels' again. :senile:

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MarkC said:

Hi Tony. That motor/gearbox assembly looks just right, doesn't it? I'm actually putting together a Nucast K1 myself, another eBay bargain from a few years ago that was in the roundtuit pile. Sadly it came without a chassis - one of the reasons why it was cheap - but I had obtained a set of Dave Alexander's K4 frames from the gent himself at a cost of, if I recall, only £3, and with a little fiddling about they have been adapted well to fit the body. I was looking at a way of marrying a High Level gearbox with a Romford Bulldog which I have - probably with some sort of UJ or a simple rubber sleeve and the motor well up in the boiler so as not to have to cut the frames & spoil the look of the loco - but looking at your power source, I am very tempted to use one of those instead.

 

Cheers

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

Ironically, though the frames for the K1 were in etched brass (rather than the usual, Nu-Cast white metal lump for a chassis), they actually have a large cut-out in them to accommodate an X04/Bulldog/MW005-style, open framed motor.

 

You can see how I've filled this on the completed chassis posted above by using Plastikard cheeks. 

 

 

 

427452751_DJHnewgearbox01.jpg.dd2407c042cd153a5fdb3960632cc0e6.jpg

 

You can see the cut-out here, designed for an X04-type motor to drive off the rear axle. 

 

I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending these latest DJH motor/gearbox combinations. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Of course, nothing can beat the appearance of P4 wheels in tight perspective........

 

1308923487_LondonRoad02.jpg.be16f56955654ed6b0208ba5a8dd36b4.jpg

 

London Road.

 

1580012838_SandfordBanwell02.jpg.ea19c7e1940a01f3b7a9c8c23e223b64.jpg

 

1042471313_SandfordBanwell19.jpg.5353cd039f912f6390ea22a310e634c9.jpg

 

And Sanford and Banwell.

 

I might also add that the running on both these P4 layouts is impeccable. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Whilst this is true, The excellent photographs massively magnify the fact .... and even then I contend that it is the width of track which makes the main impression and not the wheels themselves.

 

Martin Goodall on Burford is modelling his track in P4 whilst using EM wheels for reliability. It would be an interesting exercise (if it were possible which it perhaps isn't) to see who could tell without very detailed study - whilst the layout was operating and running a schedule - if the wheels were P4 or EM, and for that matter  if the track gauge was EM or P4? I suspect very few.

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

4 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

 

Whilst this is true, The excellent photographs massively magnify the fact .... and even then I contend that it is the width of track which makes the main impression and not the wheels themselves.

 

Martin Goodall on Burford is modelling his track in P4 whilst using EM wheels for reliability. It would be an interesting exercise (if it were possible which it perhaps isn't) to see who could tell without very detailed study - whilst the layout was operating and running a schedule - if the wheels were P4 or EM, and for that matter  if the track gauge was EM or P4? I suspect very few.

Thanks Tim,

 

Interestingly, when one buys Gibson bogie/pony/tender wheels, they come with axles of both lengths for OO or EM (meaning, to all intents and purposes, that the clearances are the same for both gauges - assuming OO FS?). 

 

The Gibson P4 bogie/pony/tender wheels are 'only' that. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tim,

 

Thanks (as usual) for your erudite comments. 

 

I don't think the term 'steamroller wheels' is pejorative in describing what the 'models' featured below are carried on; in fact, I think it's entirely apposite! 

 

468089070_Andrianna02.jpg.cddd239945fbbc699972235a3c2d04f2.jpg

 

1804697689_Andrianna04.jpg.507edc5839be4c6aa68696bef06f22cd.jpg

 

2102767836_PeteMarshall12DPS.jpg.32f9784b72a3783e3e87b388cc91de7c.jpg

 

1233506841_PeteMarshall14.jpg.a3683b1987bf110bcdad4ed56b6bc4f6.jpg

 

616440382_PeteMarshall28.jpg.4115336e36e1c4773a18f6f8164af2eb.jpg

 

Coarse (very!) scale 'models from the late Pete Marshall's extensive collection. 'The childhood I never had because my parents couldn't afford it' was what he used to say. 

 

What I find truly astonishing is that these crude examples of bent tinplate can, in some cases, command higher prices than a superb hand-built equivalent (though 'equivalent' is hardly the right description - opposite' might be better!). 

 

In a shot like the one below, it's impossible in this overall view of part of the M&GNR to tell what gauge it is, even given that it's 4mm scale.....

 

1231106558_4Fonlocal.jpg.317ced6a25388c1b7aec56983c650539.jpg

 

One doesn't even notice the treads/flanges.

 

60113.jpg.47a452e0f2ff6c48c980a9e6630b9f1f.jpg

 

Where it is more apparent, a good 'dodge' is to fit finer bogie wheels (which, in a perspective shot like this are most-apparent). The bogie wheels on this Crownline A1/1 are Gibsons, but the drivers are older-style Romfords.

 

284304635_A260538andV260862.jpg.8a0de961213dedbd83d8a3a458380847.jpg

 

It works as well on modified RTR locos. The approaching Bachmann A2 also has Gibson bogie wheels, and the Bachmann V2 (which is not my property) has Markits leading pony wheels. The 'cruder' trailing pony and tender wheels are retained, because they're far more difficult to see from 'normal' viewing angles. 

 

1993158617_Trainsrunning36V2onScotchgoods.jpg.beb254344f4cf5491a5bb3ab2328b03b.jpg

 

This Jamieson V2 has Markits pony wheels, but older-style Romford drivers (which my flash gun has rather highlighted). Seen from this angle, I don't think anyone should call the wheels on this loco 'steamrollers'. The main thing is they work!

 

Of course, nothing can beat the appearance of P4 wheels in tight perspective........

 

1308923487_LondonRoad02.jpg.be16f56955654ed6b0208ba5a8dd36b4.jpg

 

London Road.

 

1580012838_SandfordBanwell02.jpg.ea19c7e1940a01f3b7a9c8c23e223b64.jpg

 

1042471313_SandfordBanwell19.jpg.5353cd039f912f6390ea22a310e634c9.jpg

 

And Sanford and Banwell.

 

I might also add that the running on both these P4 layouts is impeccable. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller

 

For me the 'point' is the pleasure and enjoyment derived from making something rather than any play value, but each to his/her own. Others may well prefer the operational aspect but I'd suggest there is no mandatory directive to follow in any hobby.

 

After all hobbies generally don't have a point or main object, but are an enjoyable way to spend and occupy your leisure time on a subject and activity that is of personal interest.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

Clive,

 

Whilst I enjoy playing occasionally, I do find I tire of it relatively quickly nowadays and do not find it particularly more-ish.

 

Primarily I love the modelling aspect, which is why I am perhaps more tolerant of iffy running than many.

 

What I do find I like is watching (and I suspect would thoroughly enjoy operating given the chance) is a well worked out time table of running with plenty of real railway interest - maybe this is a form of playing? Again I suspect that this enjoyment is intellectual as much as anything .... along with seeing a job done skilfully and well. From an observers point of view I do find watching skill in whatever form it takes somewhat mesmeric.

 

The great thing about model railways, is that there does seem to be a niche for most tastes, skill levels and approaches. As such, just because tinplate is not for me I don't particularly judge or criticise it .... it is what it is and under its own terms seems to me to be excellent.

 

Time methinks to stop talking about me! .... not really all that interesting to be truthful.

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Doesn't the tin plate layout look like it could be fun to drive, surely that is the main object of the hobby. I know most people who read this thread are interested in getting their models as close to the prototype as possible but if it isn't fun to play with what is the point of being a railway modeller.

Good morning Clive,

 

I used to 'play' cricket, and, as a child, I 'played' with my toy trains. Both were great 'fun'.

 

I now get my fun (among other things) from making models. I have done for many years. Isn't that sufficient a point to be a railway modeller? 

 

I never did drive Pete Marshall's tinplate railways. Why would I? Such stuff interests me not a jot (other than as historical quirks), so I'm afraid I'd never regard it as 'fun'.

 

I rarely operate model railways, unless it's when guests are here. Then it's 'fun'. As is the conversation and banter (as you know). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

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

10 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

I fully accept that this may be an over reaction so apologies .... but .....

 

'steamroller wheels',  ..... bicycle wheels?  The term steamroller wheels has always seemed to me to be a tad rude even in jest .... bicycle wheels doesn't quite cut it as a commensurate riposte! Furthermore, steamroller is a bizarre description for a finally crafted and elegant piece of modelling - which is what Markits 00 finescale wheels are.

 

00 fine scale might have deeper flanges, but these are hardly visible on a layout. As far as wheels are concerned, when comparing fine scale 00 with P4, I contend that on a layout you have to look hard to see the difference and even then you need to be close up. When stock is moving, the differences become irrelevant. Perhaps it is the close up Photograph which should be held responsible for the bruhaha.

 

If you are creating a model for a display cabinet or placing a loco wheeled in P4 directly next to one using 00 Finescale for detailed comparison, you might choose the P4 due to visual preference -  but that is not the comparison being made on layouts.

 

I do think that 18mm track work is visually better than 00 and that a loco viewed head on has a better (more prototypical) stance within the wider gauges, but neither of these things has anything at all to do with 'steamroller wheels'. I also contend that as far as the wider gauges are concerned,  you are going to be very hard pushed to tell any difference visually between EM and P4 on separate layouts - unless again you artificially set one directly next to the other - and even then many will struggle.

 

For what it is worth I model in P4 primarily because I find it intellectually satisfying, in much the same way that I model details which often you would be hard pushed to see and arguably add not one bit to the overall impression. I do this purely for my own enjoyment. It does not effect one jot my admiration and enjoyment of other layouts in other gauges ... and interestingly there are a fair few P4 modellers who model at the same time in other 4mm gauges ..... horses for courses?.

I for one would be extremely happy never to hear the pejorative term 'steamroller wheels' again. :senile:

 

Good morning Tim,

 

I don't think that anybody uses the term 'steamroller' wheels in connection with Markits wheels, or OO finescale. It is usually reserved for the generic bogie wheels fitted RTR locomotives. They are there to do a job, to allow the locomotive to negotiate set track curves laid haphazardly on the kitchen floor. I'm quite happy to use the term, because what it is describing is a product quite deliberately designed to compensate for rough track conditions, they literally ride over anything, just like a steam roller. I don't think that is an insult, more of a description of their function.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tim,

 

I don't think that anybody uses the term 'steamroller' wheels in connection with Markits wheels, or OO finescale. It is usually reserved for the generic bogie wheels fitted RTR locomotives. They are there to do a job, to allow the locomotive to negotiate set track curves laid haphazardly on the kitchen floor. I'm quite happy to use the term, because what it is describing is a product quite deliberately designed to compensate for rough track conditions, they literally ride over anything, just like a steam roller. I don't think that is an insult, more of a description of their function.

Hi Andrew,

 

That seems wholly reasonable.

 

Unfortunately I have heard the term bandied around in jest as a put down of 00 modelling .... and in this context I find it somewhat tiresome. 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

The other comment made about some older type 'finescale' wheels, of course, was/is "pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Mark

"pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Probably an accurate description, Mark..........

 

559543572_B16361448.jpg.0ec04ae77bba4bc617a6291b2a983a1c.jpg

 

This over-40 Nu-Cast B16/3 I built/painted has Hamblings drivers (though Gibson bogie wheels - a much later addition). 

 

305101789_60014passing61448.jpg.03a6e87a81d1deb4d47af76db33c0c79.jpg

 

It used to get a run from time to time on Stoke Summit, but, because its drivers' flanges climb over the C&L chairs on the hand-built pointwork on Little Bytham, it now lives in a box! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Hi Andrew,

 

That seems wholly reasonable.

 

Unfortunately I have heard the term bandied around in jest as a put down of 00 modelling .... and in this context I find it somewhat tiresome. 

 

I can understand how that term could be used as an insult when applied to out of the box RTR OO gauge modelling. Like any insult, it is not a pleasant thing. Beyond that context, the wheels can be identical in OO gauge and EM gauge, with only the axle spacing differing. Anybody using the term in that context would be super dumb.

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

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I can understand how that term could be used as an insult when applied to out of the box RTR OO gauge modelling. Like any insult, it is not a pleasant thing. Beyond that context, the wheels can be identical in OO gauge and EM gauge, with only the axle spacing differing. Anybody using the term in that context would be super dumb.

 

Super Dumb sums it up in a nut shell ..... but there it is!

 

It may be used as a comeback following criticism of poor running .... but that is just silly .... the first is objective fact and the second is not! Want to avoid the criticism of poor running .... sort the running out .... or take it on the chin and move on.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

"pizza cutters". Hamblings were, I think, the main target of this?

 

Probably an accurate description, Mark..........

 

559543572_B16361448.jpg.0ec04ae77bba4bc617a6291b2a983a1c.jpg

 

This over-40 Nu-Cast B16/3 I built/painted has Hamblings drivers (though Gibson bogie wheels - a much later addition). 

 

305101789_60014passing61448.jpg.03a6e87a81d1deb4d47af76db33c0c79.jpg

 

It used to get a run from time to time on Stoke Summit, but, because its drivers' flanges climb over the C&L chairs on the hand-built pointwork on Little Bytham, it now lives in a box! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Cheers, Tony. You can certainly see where that name comes from! Shame about the B16/3 though; it's a useful locomotive, as indeed were all the B16s...

 

I've got a collection of Hamblings drivers in a box somewhere - I <think> they were in a mixed assortment of wheels that I acquired at one point. eBay listing will happen for them, I think :)

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I associate the 'Pizza Cutter' term with the 1980's RTR stock and locomotives from Lima. 'Steamroller' I associate with the RTR products of the 70's, my late father used to use the term, he modelled OO gauge and his stock was predominantly kit built and limited modified RTR using Jackson wheelsets and Romfords. I didn't associate the Hamblings wheels we occasionally sold at Kings Cross and that my father used as Pizza Cutters, probably because they were in any event better looking than the RTR alternatives. I seem to recall the K's wheel sets were quite 'flangy' too.

As someone who uses mostly RTR stock which has been modified, neither term offends me, if as Tim says some other scale/gauge fans use it as a derogatory term, that says more about them than it does about the wheels! I do change bogie and pony truck wheels in particular, and am happy to make concessions where the wheel boss isn't replicated by an after market wheel, and use a fine scale wheel of correct spoke numbers rather than the 'correct' profile rim/boss/hub. I've not tried replacing the RTR tyres on these, it might be worth the experiment.

Edited by PMP
additional stuff
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask some advice on smooth running. On my 1F I got the chassis running nice and smoothly to my satisfaction. I put a small drop of fine clock oil on each of the bearings and also the crank rod bearings, followed by some running in.

 

I then turned my attention to fine detailing the body with the chassis sitting towards the back of my workbench. On completion I assembled everything and had a play. After a while I found the running getting a little 'sticky'.  Now .... as nothing had changed from the original set up I deduced that some of the filing dust/scratch brush dust might well have got in to the mechanism. I stripped the chassis down and gave everything a thorough clean. I seem to have been right in my diagnosis as the chassis is running smoothly again.

 

Should I look to lubricate again? and if so using what? I am pretty sure that the oil attracted the contamination and I can see no reason why this will not happen again over time.

Edited by Lecorbusier
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...