Wright writes.....

[Barry Ten]

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Best moment? Taking a couple of kids and their respective dads to talk to Simon Kohler, taking with them a non-working Thomas and a wee Caley 0-4-0T, and his promising to have them repaired. What a great guy!

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite the experience I've had with the Hornby repairs department...

 

They wouldn't look at a pair of West Country/BoBs with split gears, despite both models being relatively recently in production, claiming they were too old for servicing. Luckily Ian (Redgate Models) of this parish was able to take them in for me and did a fine job. 

 

Al

 

[LNER4479]

45 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Having not long returned from the Glasgow Show, a brief appraisal/comment might be of interest?

 

Speaking of running, I loaned a 'Britannia' of mine for use on Shap. This is one of the best layouts on the circuit at the moment, and I also have the privilege of some other locos I've built running on it. 

 

Shap certainly proved popular, but what spoils the illusion for me is the plethora of tension-lock couplings, many on passenger stock; resulting in a daft gap between adjacent cars. Concertina gangways chaps? Or, better still, junk the tension-locks. I know it's 'work in progress', but think of all that time spent on somewhat dubious TV programmes! That said, don't miss seeing Shap next at York. It's well worth 'watching the trains go by'. 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

Not photographically to your standard but to say that the pleasure is all ours to host such a magnificent locomotive as this. 46245 'City of London' was reputedly one of the best Duchesses and, not surprisingly, highly-prized by its home shed of 1B Camden. I've certainly seen pictures of the loco on the prestige 'Caldeonian' working so, although the loco is well within itself hauling this up the bank, it's an obvious train to allocate her to.

 

One erudite observer over the weekend 'knew his stuff' and immediately spotted the 'right loco on the right train' and did indeed confirm that it was a popular choice for the working. So its use on the layout isn't just about it being a lovely model, for me it goes beyond that in being able to create a little vignette of the past in model form.

 

Yes - better inter-vehicle arrangements a completely fair comment. I'm just concentrating on getting the formations themselves 'correct' and the locos at the front in non out-of-the-box condition ... then we can hopefully move on to improving other aspects as you highlight.

 

[69843]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Not photographically to your standard but to say that the pleasure is all ours to host such a magnificent locomotive as this. 46245 'City of London' was reputedly one of the best Duchesses and, not surprisingly, highly-prized by its home shed of 1B Camden. I've certainly seen pictures of the loco on the prestige 'Caldeonian' working so, although the loco is well within itself hauling this up the bank, it's an obvious train to allocate her to.

 

One erudite observer over the weekend 'knew his stuff' and immediately spotted the 'right loco on the right train' and did indeed confirm that it was a popular choice for the working. So its use on the layout isn't just about it being a lovely model, for me it goes beyond that in being able to create a little vignette of the past in model form.

I have noted over the years that the locomotive on the train is something often forgotten about-it might be all well and good to have the train modelled perfectly, but the effect is lost as soon as a locomotive that was not anywhere near the allocation for that train is used.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Thanks Tony,

 

Not photographically to your standard but to say that the pleasure is all ours to host such a magnificent locomotive as this. 46245 'City of London' was reputedly one of the best Duchesses and, not surprisingly, highly-prized by its home shed of 1B Camden. I've certainly seen pictures of the loco on the prestige 'Caldeonian' working so, although the loco is well within itself hauling this up the bank, it's an obvious train to allocate her to.

 

One erudite observer over the weekend 'knew his stuff' and immediately spotted the 'right loco on the right train' and did indeed confirm that it was a popular choice for the working. So its use on the layout isn't just about it being a lovely model, for me it goes beyond that in being able to create a little vignette of the past in model form.

 

Yes - better inter-vehicle arrangements a completely fair comment. I'm just concentrating on getting the formations themselves 'correct' and the locos at the front in non out-of-the-box condition ... then we can hopefully move on to improving other aspects as you highlight.

 

Thanks Graham,

 

But didn't CITY OF LONDON derail going into the fiddle yard on one occasion?

 

Investigation (close investigation) is needed at York.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Not quite the experience I've had with the Hornby repairs department...

 

They wouldn't look at a pair of West Country/BoBs with split gears, despite both models being relatively recently in production, claiming they were too old for servicing. Luckily Ian (Redgate Models) of this parish was able to take them in for me and did a fine job. 

 

Al

 

Interesting, Al,

 

I must say, I'm now not surprised at the number of (newer) Hornby locos brought to me at shows where the drive train (steam-outline) has failed completely (split gears?). At first I thought this was a phenomenon, but it's now not rare.

 

It's almost as large a number as the Replica/Mainline/Bachmann split-chassis locos which are brought to me, which (with regard to the driven axles) have literally 'split'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

Tony,

 

I'm in the process of converting a DJH A1 (eBay bought I'm afraid) to 60154, Bon Accord, with roller bearings. Could you remind me which washers you use to represent the roller bearing axle box keeps? I've done it before with my 60156, but I can't for the life of me remember where I sourced the washers - I blame the onset of senility! I've done a search on 'Wright Writes', but I can't find any reference which is surprising given how often the topic comes up!

 

Regards

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

28 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Interesting, Al,

 

I must say, I'm now not surprised at the number of (newer) Hornby locos brought to me at shows where the drive train (steam-outline) has failed completely (split gears?). At first I thought this was a phenomenon, but it's now not rare.

 

It's almost as large a number as the Replica/Mainline/Bachmann split-chassis locos which are brought to me, which (with regard to the driven axles) have literally 'split'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

Are you sure that the gears are split on the newer Hornby locos? I often find that the motor worm disengages from the lower gear attached to the drivers. This is easily cured, sometimes by re-tightening the screw holding the motor in place, and sometimes by wedging a sliver of plasticard into the motor mounting to force the gears to re-engage.

 

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

 

Andy

Edited February 25, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[Tony Teague]

5 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Are you sure that the gears are split on the newer Hornby locos? I often find that the motor worm disengages from the lower gear attached to the drivers. This is easily cured, sometimes by re-tightening the screw holding the motor in place, and sometimes by wedging a sliver of plasticard into the motor mounting to force the gears to re-engage.

 

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

 

Andy

 

Andy

You may be right but the split gear problem on particular Hornby models, especially the BB/WC range is well documented.

 

 

I have replaced a couple using replacements from Peter's Spares but he does tend to sell out because it is such a common problem! - and it is not a simple job because you have to remove the motion on at least one side and then ensure that the quartering is right when you re-fit.

 

Tony

 

[thegreenhowards]

12 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Andy

You may be right but the split gear problem on particular Hornby models, especially the BB/WC range is well documented.

 

 

I have replaced a couple using replacements from Peter's Spares but he does tend to sell out because it is such a common problem! - and it is not a simple job because you have to remove the motion on at least one side and then ensure that the quartering is right when you re-fit.

 

Tony

 

That looks like a much bigger job! 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I'm in the process of converting a DJH A1 (eBay bought I'm afraid) to 60154, Bon Accord, with roller bearings. Could you remind me which washers you use to represent the roller bearing axle box keeps? I've done it before with my 60156, but I can't for the life of me remember where I sourced the washers - I blame the onset of senility! I've done a search on 'Wright Writes', but I can't find any reference which is surprising given how often the topic comes up!

 

Regards

 

Andy

Good morning Andy,

 

They're Romford brass crankpin spacing washers (not the retaining ones). I tin them (which fills the hole), then solder them to the keeps. 

 

 

I think the technique is effective enough......

 

Is there a problem? Yes, along with the fibre equivalents, they seem to be no longer available. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

On 22/02/2020 at 09:04, ecgtheow said:

Though it's written in jest let's be careful taking the Micky out of Tony. Nobody has a skin like an armadillo & things can easily get out of hand & hurt people even though that's not the intention.

 

William

My skin's not far off that of an armadillo, William,

 

But many thanks. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Are you sure that the gears are split on the newer Hornby locos? I often find that the motor worm disengages from the lower gear attached to the drivers. This is easily cured, sometimes by re-tightening the screw holding the motor in place, and sometimes by wedging a sliver of plasticard into the motor mounting to force the gears to re-engage.

 

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

I know exactly what you describe, but this was more serious than that. I've wedged Plastikard as you describe, but this wasn't the cure in these cases. 

 

The moral (if there is one?), build 'your' own.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Denbridge]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

They're Romford brass crankpin spacing washers (not the retaining ones). I tin them (which fills the hole), then solder them to the keeps. 

 

 

I think the technique is effective enough......

 

Is there a problem? Yes, along with the fibre equivalents, they seem to be no longer available. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Would Alan Gibson crankpin retaining nuts serve as a suitable replacement?

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Andy

You may be right but the split gear problem on particular Hornby models, especially the BB/WC range is well documented.

 

 

 

I have replaced a couple using replacements from Peter's Spares but he does tend to sell out because it is such a common problem! - and it is not a simple job because you have to remove the motion on at least one side and then ensure that the quartering is right when you re-fit.

 

Tony

 

 

I've been lucky so far in that it's only shown up in my BB/WCs (two out of three) but I've also had the motor mount failure in T9s - fortunately easily repairable.

 

Other than that - touch wood - I've not yet had similar failures in any other Hornby models of the last 20 years but I do think they need to be a little more helpful when it does

happen. Both my BBs. by the way, were gifts from my wife. They'd been test-run then put back in boxes pending detailing and weathering, so it was particularly galling to have them

fail in storage - although I wonder if not using them may have been a factor in the failures, as Ian reported that in both models the bearings had seized onto the axles to some degree, which may have strained the gear train. I also had a Black 5 which behaved as it if had split gears, but gradually loosened up and became a good runner again, presumably due to grease hardening on the gears.

 

As Tony rightly says, if you build them yourself you can avoid these problems.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Denbridge said:

Would Alan Gibson crankpin retaining nuts serve as a suitable replacement?

I honestly don't know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

At the Glasgow Show, my 'proving' model of an A2/3 for Hornby was returned to me, with many thanks.

 

 

It's built (obviously) from a DJH kit, and has been with Hornby for 18 months at least. It'd clearly 'been all over the place', because a few bent bits had to be straightened out, but it's served its purpose. I'm told that no matter how many computer simulations might be apparent, to actually have a 'physical' model to examine and handle is invaluable, even though the RTR example will be mainly plastic, not, like this, all-metal. 

 

I'm amused when folk ask me 'Did you know that Hornby are bringing out Thompson Pacifics?'. Clearly, the non-disclosure agreement I had (and have) with manufacturers has worked! 

 

 

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

I know exactly what you describe, but this was more serious than that. I've wedged Plastikard as you describe, but this wasn't the cure in these cases. 

 

The moral (if there is one?), build 'your' own.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Does the need to wedge something up with plastikard suggest either a design or manufacturing issue, or that something (a gear?) is wearing and any remedial action is perhaps delaying the inevitable?  Or hopefully the wedge corrects any issues with gear meshing and prevents further wear....

[31A]

I've just come across a variation of the Hornby split gear syndrome, on one of my A3s.  It's now 60070 but that wasn't its original number; anyway it's quite old.

 

Its running had been 'lumpy' for a while, but eventually it was just as Tony described - motor spinning but producing no locomotion.

 

Yesterday I investigated and took it apart, and found that the small gear which shares a shaft with the worm wheel had split, and moved to one side along the shaft to the extent that it no longer meshed with the gear on the driving wheel axle.

 

 

 

A possible 'bodging' fix that came to mind would be to put a suitable washer over the shaft, to stop the gear from moving aside - when pushed back into position it did seem to grip tightly on the splined section of the shaft.  However I expect the running would still be 'lumpy', and I have ordered a replacement from Peter's Spares; the part number is X8849.  They advertise two types of this part - their web site explains the difference, and one is out of stock - I have ordered the other sort and think it will fit my loco; I shall find out when it arrives.

 

Prior to investigating I had assumed it was the final drive gear which had split, and I had purchased a complete new driving wheel set intending to replace the driven wheel set complete with gear, which would have avoided quartering difficulties.

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, polybear said:

 

Does the need to wedge something up with plastikard suggest either a design or manufacturing issue, or that something (a gear?) is wearing and any remedial action is perhaps delaying the inevitable?  Or hopefully the wedge corrects any issues with gear meshing and prevents further wear....

In answer to your questions, Brian,

 

I don't know. 

 

I do know that by inserting a sliver of Plastikard underneath the rear of the motor it's 'cured' a 'chattering' drive on a Hornby steam-outline loco. Whether this alters the dynamics so that more wear will then occur, again, I don't know. 

 

I have to say now, I don't really care (other than in my role as 'loco doctor' at shows). I've long-since abandoned the notion of being reliant on RTR locos. Trying (in vain) to fix a 'whirring' Hornby Royal Scot on Shap on Friday and having to add extra ballast to one the same firm's rebuilt Patriot so that it could haul a train up the gradient proved to me (if more proof were needed) the futility of carrying on with RTR loco-usage. In the latter's case, were it DCC, there would have been no chance of fitting extra ballast. Even with it, it still struggled.

 

Granted, as previously mentioned, I had to add extra weight to my Brit, but I could get loads in that (too much, in fact!). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

Here's the latest pair of frames I've put together:

 

 

They call the things in the middle formers rather than frame spacers, but other than that - and copious use of wood glue rather than solder - it's not unlike assembling a massive pair of Comet sides, in that the sides have to be square and parallel and twist-free. And, it'll have an electric motor!

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

I've been lucky so far in that it's only shown up in my BB/WCs (two out of three) but I've also had the motor mount failure in T9s - fortunately easily repairable.

 

Other than that - touch wood - I've not yet had similar failures in any other Hornby models of the last 20 years but I do think they need to be a little more helpful when it does

happen. Both my BBs. by the way, were gifts from my wife. They'd been test-run then put back in boxes pending detailing and weathering, so it was particularly galling to have them

fail in storage - although I wonder if not using them may have been a factor in the failures, as Ian reported that in both models the bearings had seized onto the axles to some degree, which may have strained the gear train. I also had a Black 5 which behaved as it if had split gears, but gradually loosened up and became a good runner again, presumably due to grease hardening on the gears.

 

As Tony rightly says, if you build them yourself you can avoid these problems.

Thanks Al,

 

'if you build them yourself you can avoid these problems.'

 

Which, having said it, I believe it's true. That said, not all can build their own locos and many who try to (from what I observe) fail, especially with regard to getting them running sweetly. 

 

I had a go at trying to fix two kit-built locos over the weekend. Mechanically, they were awful. Who believes that bits of multi-twisted/bent/poked here and there phosphor bronze wire will suffice as pick-ups? I failed! A complete chassis rebuild would be necessary to get the running I insist upon. 

 

So, the majority is left with 'take it or leave it' RTR. Some locos work fine (especially RTR diesel-/electric-outline in my experience), but too many new ones don't represent a mechanical step-forward in my view, with too many failures (and these things are not cheap!). 

 

As for trying to get their bodies off, don't get me going on that! Trying (carefully) to remove the body off a Hornby Royal Scot at the weekend resulted in a smoke deflector breaking off, a front footstep breaking off, both cylinder drain cocks becoming detached, the reversing lever coming adrift, a sandbox filler disappearing (forever!), not to mention ominous cracking noises, and still I failed! 

 

Are these highly-detailed models the 'equivalent' now of modern gadgets? If they fail, junk them and buy another? 

 

Interestingly (unless I've missed something) the recent poll doesn't seem to have a category for loco/rolling stock kits. RTR rules!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Erichill16]

7 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

I've been lucky so far in that it's only shown up in my BB/WCs (two out of three) but I've also had the motor mount failure in T9s - fortunately easily repairable.

 

Other than that - touch wood - I've not yet had similar failures in any other Hornby models of the last 20 years but I do think they need to be a little more helpful when it does

happen. Both my BBs. by the way, were gifts from my wife. They'd been test-run then put back in boxes pending detailing and weathering, so it was particularly galling to have them

fail in storage - although I wonder if not using them may have been a factor in the failures, as Ian reported that in both models the bearings had seized onto the axles to some degree, which may have strained the gear train. I also had a Black 5 which behaved as it if had split gears, but gradually loosened up and became a good runner again, presumably due to grease hardening on the gears.

 

As Tony rightly says, if you build them yourself you can avoid these problems.

I’ve a Stanier 4mt tank which didn’t run very well so I thought a dose of running in would do the trick. Motor became disengaged and on inspection one of the gears had split. After removing some of the gubbins I realised how pronounced a tight spot was. I should have investigated the tight spot first and then perhaps the gear wouldn’t have failed. I’ve a Britannia with a similar tight spot but the drive train is still intact so I’ll sort the tight spot out first. Hopefully I can save the Brit.

regards Robert

[Erichill16]

Tony,

Regarding your comments regarding new models not  representing a mechanical step forward I’d like to mention the following. I have some old Minitrix models in my collection which run fine with brass gear wheels but the newer models have plastic ones. Recently the plastic ones have started cracking so I sent off for replacements and guess what I received, yes brass ones.  So much for progress!

regards Robert

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Al,

 

'if you build them yourself you can avoid these problems.'

 

Which, having said it, I believe it's true. That said, not all can build their own locos and many who try to (from what I observe) fail, especially with regard to getting them running sweetly. 

 

I had a go at trying to fix two kit-built locos over the weekend. Mechanically, they were awful. Who believes that bits of multi-twisted/bent/poked here and there phosphor bronze wire will suffice as pick-ups? I failed! A complete chassis rebuild would be necessary to get the running I insist upon. 

 

So, the majority is left with 'take it or leave it' RTR. Some locos work fine (especially RTR diesel-/electric-outline in my experience), but too many new ones don't represent a mechanical step-forward in my view, with too many failures (and these things are not cheap!). 

 

As for trying to get their bodies off, don't get me going on that! Trying (carefully) to remove the body off a Hornby Royal Scot at the weekend resulted in a smoke deflector breaking off, a front footstep breaking off, both cylinder drain cocks becoming detached, the reversing lever coming adrift, a sandbox filler disappearing (forever!), not to mention ominous cracking noises, and still I failed! 

 

Are these highly-detailed models the 'equivalent' now of modern gadgets? If they fail, junk them and buy another? 

 

Interestingly (unless I've missed something) the recent poll doesn't seem to have a category for loco/rolling stock kits. RTR rules!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I'm confounded by polls or wish lists, they are so boring. If RTR rules, that is fine but it is a kingdom of uniformity and a reign as dull as dish water. Who wants to be a subject of that? Not I. Fortunately, there is still plenty of exciting and creative modellers about. Their modelling provides much more interesting and inspiring work, that is much more in touch with the real railway and its history. A glance through the catalogue of the main RTR manufactures, provides a surprising amount of duds. They would deservedly earn their manufactures the title of 'Feet of clay', in my personal winners poll.

[Headstock]

4 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's the latest pair of frames I've put together:

 

 

They call the things in the middle formers rather than frame spacers, but other than that - and copious use of wood glue rather than solder - it's not unlike assembling a massive pair of Comet sides, in that the sides have to be square and parallel and twist-free. And, it'll have an electric motor!

 

I hope it floats.