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

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am not sure that words like "McGowan kit" and "great loco" belong in the same post!

 

A D9, especially as built (GCR Class 11B) is one of the best looking locos ever built. Sadly, the same praise cannot be given to the dreadful McGowan kit.

Good morning Tony,

 

I assume the 'dreadful' McGowan D9 is unacceptable then? 

 

I'd certainly not call what I built a 'great loco'; far from it. However, is it really that 'dreadful'?

 

1544670615_D9onMGNR.jpg.3e1b7599b0524ff9be9c41e1431788af.jpg

 

This view was taken shortly after I'd built it (please forgive the futuristic van in the foreground). At a distance, as a layout loco; 'dreadful'? 

 

The old bridge might well be!

 

500612017_Trainsrunning11D9.jpg.3406fb77da590434bbd191955bf20497.jpg

 

1702974316_Trainsrunning46D9onMGNRservice.jpg.287e1783b7b7d5f42d8128cc8e455ede.jpg

 

These two shots were taken during the '38 weekend on LB. I think the consensus was that the 'LNER' on the tender is too small (Geoff Haynes will alter this), but it fitted in very well, especially hauling such lovely stock.

 

2137810170_McGowanD9.jpg.9b7c129910c2973cf97d478e683c8bf0.jpg

 

And this shot was taken this morning (it also shows your wonderful signals). 

 

Despite its limitations, if the adjective 'dreadful' were to be universally-applied to this loco, I think I'd give up modelling. 

 

It's not the first D9 to run on Little Bytham.

 

D9.jpg.0ba0c78965eaf6ece778c81bc3583bd1.jpg

 

SAD brought this incomplete one along many moons ago. I think it's scratch-built.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien, now that is a film I can't watch twice! it scared the living daylights out of me and I'm not much of a jumpy sort of person.

  Now the mumbling actors, with you all the way there but I was told to get a hearing a hearing aid you deaf old person. So Tony  off to Specsavers for FOC NHS ones  (only so so) or payout  loadsamoney for private ones.  My modelling fund  took quite a beating, had to sell some stuff!

   Mic

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

So Tony  off to Specsavers for FOC NHS ones  (only so so) or payout  loadsamoney for private ones.

 

My better half had an appointment at specsavers for a hearing test. They should have had belts on the seats as I nearly fell off mine when they told me a pair of 'medium quality' aids would be over £2000!  She ended up getting nearly identical NHS ones free. This is in Scotland. the rest of the UK may have a different policy regarding quality of NHS offerings. 

On Movies, My favourite in the 'Tony Wright' genre would be Get Carter, not least because, as a child, I used to play on the North Blyth staithes where the movie reaches it's climax. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

I assume the 'dreadful' McGowan D9 is unacceptable then? 

 

I'd certainly not call what I built a 'great loco'; far from it. However, is it really that 'dreadful'?

 

1544670615_D9onMGNR.jpg.3e1b7599b0524ff9be9c41e1431788af.jpg

 

This view was taken shortly after I'd built it (please forgive the futuristic van in the foreground). At a distance, as a layout loco; 'dreadful'? 

 

The old bridge might well be!

 

500612017_Trainsrunning11D9.jpg.3406fb77da590434bbd191955bf20497.jpg

 

1702974316_Trainsrunning46D9onMGNRservice.jpg.287e1783b7b7d5f42d8128cc8e455ede.jpg

 

These two shots were taken during the '38 weekend on LB. I think the consensus was that the 'LNER' on the tender is too small (Geoff Haynes will alter this), but it fitted in very well, especially hauling such lovely stock.

 

2137810170_McGowanD9.jpg.9b7c129910c2973cf97d478e683c8bf0.jpg

 

And this shot was taken this morning (it also shows your wonderful signals). 

 

Despite its limitations, if the adjective 'dreadful' were to be universally-applied to this loco, I think I'd give up modelling. 

 

It's not the first D9 to run on Little Bytham.

 

D9.jpg.0ba0c78965eaf6ece778c81bc3583bd1.jpg

 

SAD brought this incomplete one along many moons ago. I think it's scratch-built.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I think it depends a great deal on how well you know the prototype. You could spot the slightest problem on an LNER Pacific as you know them so well. My speciality is the GCR and when you have looked at the locos as much as I have, then the faults jump out at you.

 

The looks of the D9 are all about that lovely double splasher but the kit is completely adrift. The beading on the cab side is in the wrong place and the relationship between it and the cab cut out is quite wrong. The beading should be a true radius on a fixed centre, round, following the wheel but the beading on the rear wheel flattens out at the back. The "dipped" bit between the wheels is too high above the footplate.

 

The cab side sheet cut out isn't correct. The class had two different sizes but most had a large cut out most of the time. The one on the kit is about half way between the two but isn't right for either.

 

The cab roof is wrong, as are many GCR kits. The second one has the correct "gutter" along the edge.

 

There are other faults but the splashers and the beading just spoil it for me and are very difficult to correct. The defining feature of the class is wrong. If you look at a prototype photo and compare it to the model side by side, you will see what I mean. Would you accept an A3 with that level of fault? 

 

Now if, by "layout loco", you mean that you look at it from far enough away that you can't see the faults, then it is fine!

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/03/2020 at 10:27, Tony Wright said:

 

1842192711_HornbyPrincessRoyalLMSR370908.jpg.5d25660e47377f5bd6c603fd7c0cd400.jpg

 

Here's the 'drive'. I have no idea whether this is different from what's gone before, but it's certainly impressive (it also includes a firebox glow). 

 

 

 

The Princess looks a fine model and brings back childhood memories of a  black 'Princess Victoria' (Tri-ang) belonging to a mate. I'm almost sad that I have no need of one. The thing that struck me though is that there is a lot of weight on the front part of the chassis, most of it forward of the driving wheels. I wonder if this actually might tend to take weight off the drivers? Would removing some of this actually allow the loco to pull more?

 

I'm probably talking nonsense as usual!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think it depends a great deal on how well you know the prototype. You could spot the slightest problem on an LNER Pacific as you know them so well. My speciality is the GCR and when you have looked at the locos as much as I have, then the faults jump out at you.

 

The looks of the D9 are all about that lovely double splasher but the kit is completely adrift. The beading on the cab side is in the wrong place and the relationship between it and the cab cut out is quite wrong. The beading should be a true radius on a fixed centre, round, following the wheel but the beading on the rear wheel flattens out at the back. The "dipped" bit between the wheels is too high above the footplate.

 

The cab side sheet cut out isn't correct. The class had two different sizes but most had a large cut out most of the time. The one on the kit is about half way between the two but isn't right for either.

 

The cab roof is wrong, as are many GCR kits. The second one has the correct "gutter" along the edge.

 

There are other faults but the splashers and the beading just spoil it for me and are very difficult to correct. The defining feature of the class is wrong. If you look at a prototype photo and compare it to the model side by side, you will see what I mean. Would you accept an A3 with that level of fault? 

 

Now if, by "layout loco", you mean that you look at it from far enough away that you can't see the faults, then it is fine!

 

 

 

 

I bow to your much-greater knowledge on matters GC, Tony.

 

As for A3s, I doubt if any two models, be they RTR or kit/scratch-built are exactly the same. All have faults in one form or another, particularly ones I've built. 

 

Regarding layout locos, I assume you accept Buckingham's? 

 

799828184_Buckingham09.jpg.7d00616225795137b8c0cbb2e1454049.jpg

 

I assume this is what became a J11 in LNER days? If it is, from my observation, the smokebox/boiler combination is too large a diameter, consequently making the 'apron' at the front too wide, the chimney seems too squat and the shape of the spectacle (on this side) doesn't seem right.

 

Yet, I'd never observe anything on Buckingham from 'so far away that I couldn't see the faults'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

My choice in films is far less 'exciting'. In no particular order - The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, Hobson's Choice, Dirty Harry, Unforgiven, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Cruel Sea, In Which We Serve, I'm All Right Jack, School For Scoundrels, Folly To Be Wise, and so on and so on.

Casablanca, A Matter of Life and Death, White Heat (in fact anything by Raoul Walsh)...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PupCam said:

 

Little Bytham.jpg

 

I'm reminded of that excellent '80s TV series "The Train Now Departing" and its haunting theme tune and opening shot.

 

 

 

 

The google wide-angle lens has distorted the actual view to some extent.

 

1975466093_StationRoadBridge20320.jpg.e0e947cff2fa87237b2b1333b1d1b1ca.jpg

 

I wonder if 'ghost trains' still run?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CF MRC said:

That is a stunning picture, Tony: it could almost be 2mm scale.  One comment, if I may.  The flower pots look very ‘plonked’. They also look to be laser cut - maybe tone then down a bit in the woodwork?
image.jpeg.32149aa325c3dfb86a03cfea2a86564c.jpeg
 

Tim

The thing that first strikes me about this excellent photo? The staining on the footbridge. It's very subtle - and just right, to my mind.

 

Mark

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: An appeal for help.

 

My railway building has been much delayed by a logic/electrical/electronic problem, described ..... here....

 

If any of the clever people who post on this thread can help me I promise that when I have finished the LNER York-built CCTs I am working on I will post pictures here.

 

(Apologies to Tony for using his thread for this purpose - at least I am a modeller who makes (most) elements of my railway myself!)

Edited by drmditch
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I'm not a great fan of science fiction, though Alien was worth watching I thought. I think there was one called Silent Running (with Bruce Dern, or Derne?), which had a most-interesting plot, though the alien special effects were rubbish. 

 

 

 

 

I think you might be conflating two films there, Tony. Silent Running does indeed feature Bruce Dern, but there are no aliens in it. There are robots which were worked by amputees, and still look pretty effective today. The effects as a whole were considered good for the time, and done by the same effects wizard who worked on 2001, but to a smaller budget. The main theme of the film is Bruce Dern's character going to extreme lengths to safeguard the last few forests, preserved in space after some sort of environmental breakdown on Earth. The interior shots of the spacecraft were done on a decommissioned aircraft carrier so look appropriately huge. It's one of my favorites.

 

Al

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

6 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

I think you might be conflating two films there, Tony. Silent Running does indeed feature Bruce Dern, but there are no aliens in it. There are robots which were worked by amputees, and still look pretty effective today. The effects as a whole were considered good for the time, and done by the same effects wizard who worked on 2001, but to a smaller budget. The main theme of the film is Bruce Dern's character going to extreme lengths to safeguard the last few forests, preserved in space after some sort of environmental breakdown on Earth. The interior shots of the spacecraft were done on a decommissioned aircraft carrier so look appropriately huge. It's one of my favorites.

 

Al

Thanks Al,

 

My memory must be crumbling.....

 

I thought they had a balloon-like creature on board, which had to be fed from time to time, creating arguments as to whose turn it was. 

 

I wonder which film that was in? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Now I want to watch Lord of the Rings! 
 

Funny enough talking about movies, on the phone last night havIng a yarn with Tony, we have a deal for next time I’m over, if I sit through a whole cricket match with him, he’ll watch a Star Wars movie with me, I wonder who’d be the first one to fall asleep......

 

 

Make sure it is film 4 the original and not one of those junk prequels.

 

I saw the first one in the cinema in the 70s, WOW

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MarkC said:

The thing that first strikes me about this excellent photo? The staining on the footbridge. It's very subtle - and just right, to my mind.

 

Mark

Thanks Mark,

 

It's based on observation of the prototype, and one of the reasons why I always advocate recreating (as near as possible) a real location.

 

Were this made-up, then both areas above the fast lines on the footbridge might well be soot-stained to the same extent. But it's not made-up, and the difference is obvious. 

 

The left-hand side is over the Down fast, which is climbing Stoke Bank (or rather trains are using it to climb the bank). At a ruling gradient of 1 in 200, northbound trains would be working hard, hence the greater degree of staining. The area over the Up fast is hardly marked, because southbound trains would be under easy steam, perhaps with the regulator almost closed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

Alien, now that is a film I can't watch twice! it scared the living daylights out of me and I'm not much of a jumpy sort of person.

  Now the mumbling actors, with you all the way there but I was told to get a hearing a hearing aid you deaf old person. So Tony  off to Specsavers for FOC NHS ones  (only so so) or payout  loadsamoney for private ones.  My modelling fund  took quite a beating, had to sell some stuff!

   Mic

 

I really like most Ridley Scott stuff

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, drmditch said:

Re: An appeal for help.

 

By railway building has been much delayed by a logic/electrical/electronic problem, described ..... here....

 

If any of the clever people who post on this thread can help me I promise that when I have finished the LNER York-built CCTs I am working on I will post pictures here.

 

(Apologies to Tony for using his thread for this purpose - at least I am a modeller who makes (most) elements of my railway myself!)

Never feel the need to apologise for asking questions on this thread. Without questions (and answers) it would have little meaning.

 

And, regarding answers, I haven't the foggiest idea how to help you with the problem.

 

There will, however, be many on here who'll know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mark,

 

It's based on observation of the prototype, and one of the reasons why I always advocate recreating (as near as possible) a real location.

 

Were this made-up, then both areas above the fast lines on the footbridge might well be soot-stained to the same extent. But it's not made-up, and the difference is obvious. 

 

The left-hand side is over the Down fast, which is climbing Stoke Bank (or rather trains are using it to climb the bank). At a ruling gradient of 1 in 200, northbound trains would be working hard, hence the greater degree of staining. The area over the Up fast is hardly marked, because southbound trains would be under easy steam, perhaps with the regulator almost closed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

What a great description - and explains it perfectly. I totally agree - heavy handed weathering is seen far too often. Yes, steam railways WERE often filthy, dirty places, but not always, and this is a perfect example of a location where it wasn't.

 

Brgds

Mark

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I wonder if 'ghost trains' still run?

They do in my head, all the time.  The violinist for the theme was the superb folk musician Dave Swarbrick; check him out on Fairport Convention's 'Crazy Man Michael'; stunning.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Al,

 

My memory must be crumbling.....

 

I thought they had a balloon-like creature on board, which had to be fed from time to time, creating arguments as to whose turn it was. 

 

I wonder which film that was in? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

that would be DarkStar, same writer as Alien. The film was original conceived as a student project, hence the low budget. Though as a black comedy, the Alien was never intended to be taken entirely seriously.

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

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Never feel the need to apologise for asking questions on this thread. Without questions (and answers) it would have little meaning.

 

And, regarding answers, I haven't the foggiest idea how to help you with the problem.

 

There will, however, be many on here who'll know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you Tony.  I haven't personally experienced it myself but have seen elsewhere on this forum where someone has asked a "how do I?" question in relation to something being shown off by the thread owner and has been told to go start their own thread and not clutter up someone elses.  I'd always thought RMWeb to be an inclusive club but apparently there are a small minority who think otherwise.

 

Films: "LA Confidential" is the best film I've ever watched on the big screen, a 1950s film with a 1990s budget.  My other favourites often seem to involve manhunts, e.g The Day of the Jackal, The Fugitive, Get Carter (and not just for the ECML cab ride!).

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

War films; Das Boot, All Quiet On The Western Front, Enemy At the Gate, Cross Of Iron.  It is purely coincidence that these are all stories told from a German, enemy, perspective; I have no particular sympathy for the German cause, and the direct opposite of sympathy for the Nazi cause.  The last two films may be influenced by my Sven Hassel stage, during my teens; I had an Airfix Panzer IV with body parts and blood stains on the rollers. all done in the best possible taste...

 

Of the Vietnam flims, Apocalypse Now, though this is based on Heart of Darkness while failing to make the moral point that Heart of Darkness did as a book.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I bow to your much-greater knowledge on matters GC, Tony.

 

As for A3s, I doubt if any two models, be they RTR or kit/scratch-built are exactly the same. All have faults in one form or another, particularly ones I've built. 

 

Regarding layout locos, I assume you accept Buckingham's? 

 

799828184_Buckingham09.jpg.7d00616225795137b8c0cbb2e1454049.jpg

 

I assume this is what became a J11 in LNER days? If it is, from my observation, the smokebox/boiler combination is too large a diameter, consequently making the 'apron' at the front too wide, the chimney seems too squat and the shape of the spectacle (on this side) doesn't seem right.

 

Yet, I'd never observe anything on Buckingham from 'so far away that I couldn't see the faults'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

I don't just accept Buckingham and its locos. I embrace and cherish them, as I am sure you do your D9.

 

Both have their faults but the boiler diameter on the J11 isn't one of them! The boiler is 22mm over cladding, which is spot on! The chimney is the right height too but the washer he used for the top rim is too wide, so it looks shorter.

 

The base of the smokebox is too wide, which creates the illusion.

 

The McGowan D9 is a pretty ancient kit and very much "of its time" rather like Buckingham. When I started modelling, such things were all we had and I built several such kits, like the Wills J39 to fit a Triang mechanism and a Ks Bodyline J50 that went on a Hornby Dublo mechanism. The McGowan D9 and their other kits was that sort of vintage and quality.

 

Hopefully things have moved on and improved. Perhaps my prejudices are coming  to the fore. The rebuilt D9 with the larger boiler was pretty poorly proportioned compared to the original version with the smaller boiler. The one redeeming Robinson feature that remained from the "as built" variety were the splashers, the cab and the beading. Get them wrong and the best looking part of the loco has gone.

 

I would really love to see what you could do with either a scratchbuild or a new kit with the faults remedied. I am sure that you would see what I am getting at. An overlay for the cab side sheet/splasher part, with correctly shaped beading, plus a corrected cab roof, would transform it.

 

I started scratchbuilding a GCR period 11B with the small boiler several years ago. Then rumours surfaced of a 4mm kit, so I stopped. A few test etches appeared from Jeremy Suter for the large boilered version, shot down from a 7mm kit but the project died out. I may go back to the scratch build one day.

 

I do have a 7mm kit (Gladiator or David Andrews) so I may yet get to see one in all its glory!

 

Meanwhile, here is the flawed but lovely 11B on Buckingham, warts and all!

 

11B.jpg.3bba077ffe85ac5ad41fd299d55aeeba.jpg

 

    

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

that would be DarkStar, same writer as Alien. The film was original conceived as a student project, hence the low budget. Though as a black comedy, the Alien was never intended to be taken entirely seriously.

 

Wasn't that the one where the crew of the spaceship have a mission to destroy unstable planets. And there is a suburb and subtle bit of interplay between the feminine voiced male bomb who doesn't want to be dropped on a planet and the husky male voiced female computer who is trying to convince it to release. In the end the resultant explosion destroys 'Dark Star' (the name of the spaceship) and the laid-back hippy crew end up surfing through space. It's a bit of a cult film.

 

Here's a miniature white metal model of 'Dark Star' that I made/painted many years ago. You can see bomb no.20, the reticent one, hanging below:

 

DSC_9224.JPG.8fff407a663771267284a3213796c7a7.JPG

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Like 10
  • Agree 1
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...