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

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Without being personally critical, why do folk buy stuff made by others (unseen in the flesh), particularly off ebay? There must be some 'success' stories, but most such stuff which has passed through my hands is rubbish! 

 

 

Well, probably much is not up to your standards and requirements. But presumably every model was once someone's pride and joy and isn't it good that people are attempting to make things? And hopefully they will improve with practice. No doubt that as they do improve it is the worst of their earlier efforts that get sold on (second-hand, on ebay, etc.,) which is probably why much of it is 'rubbish'.

 

Let the buyer beware. Or at least one who is capable of correcting and improving.

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

The rails in the  V are so close together, some wheels touch both rails creating a short. If the loco does not do the same on a large radius electro frog point, this could be the reason. To test put a bit of thin plastic tape or paint over one of the rails. The loco will lift slightly, but if it doesn't short out/stutter, then you know it is not the loco. I had the same issue, but when I replaced a double junction with code 75 electrofrog, I had no further problems. The early pre RP25 Romfords gave me lots of trouble on code 100 diamonds.

 

Good luck

 

Mike Wiltshire

Thanks Mike,

 

I’m 100% sure that it is not a short because I use DCC. If it was a short I would have a loud buzzing noise. I also tested that I can run another loco up to this one one the same piece of track. I’m aware that this can be an issue on all metal locos, particularly with the American pick ups, but I’ve got used to the normal problems and how to avoid them. For example, this came without front footsteps and I made mine out of plasticard to avoid any shorting issues.

 

I will try your test when its warmed up in the loft this afternoon.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Mike,

 

I’m 100% sure that it is not a short because I use DCC. If it was a short I would have a loud buzzing noise. I also tested that I can run another loco up to this one one the same piece of track. I’m aware that this can be an issue on all metal locos, particularly with the American pick ups, but I’ve got used to the normal problems and how to avoid them. For example, this came without front footsteps and I made mine out of plasticard to avoid any shorting issues.

 

I will try your test when its warmed up in the loft this afternoon.

 

Andy

Do your test with the lights out. You will see even the tiniest, briefest spark.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My experience of the 'American' system of pick-ups is it rarely works to 'my' satisfaction (actually, never). It's unreliable, the risk of short-circuits is ever-present and it isn't DCC-friendly (the last-mentioned irrelevant to me, of course).

 

A solution to your problem? As I see it, all the tender wheels are picking up/putting down on one side (that's four points of contact), yet on the loco there are only three points of contact - the drivers. You need to make the bogie/pony wheels 'live' to the same side of the drivers which are conducting electricity. How? By replacing them with Markits 'live-to-one-side' 3' 2" (just over 12mm) LNER bogie wheels and 3' 6" (14mm) pony wheels. To totally obviate shorting in the vicinity of the cylinders, 12mm bogie wheels (generic) might be advisable. 

 

How to short-out the existing ones? Drill a small hole through the insulated bush between the wheel and the axle (it's important the bit bites into the wheel's metal boss and the axle). Then push a piece of brass wire through which is an INTERFERENCE fit, snipping it off at both ends. You'll have then breached the insulation.

 

A further solution is to fit wiper pick-ups on the 'other side' of the loco and tender.

 

Looking at the loco, one thing you'll also need to change are the positions of the smoke deflectors - they're way too far back (the builder might have used the Beattie drawing!). The front edges of the deflectors should be the tiniest twitch behind where the footplate drops down in its curve to the buffer beam. The rear edges should 'split' the superheater header covers. 

 

You'll also need to move the grate-operating rod (beneath the cab) to the other (fireman's) side. 

 

Without being personally critical, why do folk buy stuff made by others (unseen in the flesh), particularly off ebay? There must be some 'success' stories, but most such stuff which has passed through my hands is rubbish! 

 

I hope all this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony, that’s the help I was looking for regarding the wheels.

 

Personally I find the American system creates less problems than wiper pick ups - yours are great, but those made by others can be pretty rubbish and I generally have to replace those I’ve bought second hand. Before you tutored me, mine were equally rubbish! Shorts can be an issue, but your smear of araldite trick works wonders and I’ve learnt where the common problems are.

 

Why do people buy stuff off eBay? That’s easy. This cost me £100 with a GB1 motor gearbox and painted to a pretty good standard - certainly better than mine and I’m too mean to pay for someone to do it professionally! Even if I have to do quite a lot of work, I’ve saved £150 on the DJH kit price and I quite enjoy sorting these things out  and rescuing a kit built loco (with help from others for which I’m very grateful). If I’d started from scratch, I would probably have got the grate operating rod right, but could easily have made the same mistake with the deflectors, and would probably have made other mistakes.

 

You certainly do have a valid point about kits not being built correctly. This one had many other errors which I’ve already corrected. E.g. single chimney, banjo dome (one of your favourites I know!), no front footsteps, front handrail not split. Thanks to David W for helping spot the problems. I’ll endeavour to correct the issues you raise.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Well, probably much is not up to your standards and requirements. But presumably every model was once someone's pride and joy and isn't it good that people are attempting to make things? And hopefully they will improve with practice. No doubt that as they do improve it is the worst of their earlier efforts that get sold on (second-hand, on ebay, etc.,) which is probably why much of it is 'rubbish'.

 

Let the buyer beware. Or at least one who is capable of correcting and improving.

 

 

'Well, probably much is not up to your standards and requirements.'

 

Thanks Grahame,

 

I don't know if these are 'my' standards, but I'll list the imperatives which I consider when observing (say) a kit-built (steam-outline) locomotive.

 

1. It must run smoothly/quietly, without jerking, stuttering, shorting or derailing (the last-mentioned, interdependent on the trackwork).

 

2. It must be able to negotiate curves. This is highly-subjective, I admit, but I'd expect any kit-built Pacific to be able to take 3' radius curves (OO/EM Gauge, don't know about P4) with ease without contravening any of the imperatives listed in 1. 2' 6" radius can be taken at a push, but is not desirable. To expect large kit-built locos to negotiate 'Setrack' is unfair.

 

3. It should be able to haul a prototype-equivalent (maximum) load; meaning anything built in etched brass/nickel silver MUST be well-ballasted, even some white metal ones.  

 

4. The builder MUST have consulted prototype source material when erecting the loco. This will ensure that detail is correct and it's appropriate to date/location. If someone then wishes to subsequently alter/repaint/renumber/rename a loco, then that imperative of 'observing the prototype' must be paramount (sorry, that's tautology!).

 

5. The paintwork should be well-applied and finished. Poor paintwork can ruin an otherwise good model. 

 

6. It must be robust. By that I mean, bits should not fall off in handling and use (meaning it must be soldered together). 

 

7. Occasionally, good running must take precedence over the fiddliest detail. I know this is also subjective, but where, say, the finest sandpipes or brake shoes, set at prototypical distances from the drivers, cause shorts or interference, then a (sensible) compromise is necessary. They must be placed further away, or, in the case of some sandpipes, omitted. 

 

8. It should be able to be dismantled easily for routine maintenance, and any nuts/bolts/screws should be able to be undone (and re-tightened) with ease. Looking at Andy Sparkes' A3 shown earlier, the bogie and the pony are held on by the useless (in my view) 8BA (or near-sized) nuts. These will work loose in service unless they're anchored - paint, glue? No, a shouldered screw is what's required. Often, when I've been asked to examine a kit-built loco using this system, when trying to remove a bogie/pony, the whole thing just revolves in the box spanner, because the bolt has not been secured properly in the frames! Sound familiar? And, one needs to take the bogie off to get at the body-retaining screw (which is equally loose!). 

 

I'm sure others have their own imperatives, and, I hope, will list them. 

 

Though this will come as no surprise, folk say I'm particularly 'blunt' (or 'sharp') in my assessments of their loco building or what they've bought built by others. It's a testament to their characters that all but one has 'taken it on the chin' (Geoff West, take a bow, please), thought 'bug**r it, I'll show him!', and succeeded. In many cases, so much so that they no longer need my help. It's all well and good being 'sensitive' to folks' feelings (believe it or not, I'm told I can be!) but telling them that something is 'right', when it clearly isn't does no good. Tony Gee quite rightly pointed out the errors in the D9 I'd built of late. Nobody should be exempt from 'criticism'. 

 

If you think all the locos I've seen which contravene my list are those built by beginners/the inexperienced, then, please, think again. Many's the time I've had to 'fix' locos built by professionals - some very well-known. Why? They were built in some cases only for 'the glass case', and rounding curves (even huge ones) was never a consideration. 'Thoroughly-tested' meant it would negotiate a yard of dead-straight Peco Streamline; just! Most of one late Lancashire dealer's kit-built locos were like that - beautifully-painted (Larry Goddard), but hopeless runners. 

 

Even if some I've seen could go round bends, they were noisy, jerky and hopeless at pulling anything (no ballast added). 

 

I think it's dead right that folk have a go at making things, even if the end results fall short of their (high?) expectations. The real value in many of their creations is what they've learned along the way - the journey rather than the destination, so to speak. 

 

And, as long as the asking price isn't too high, then a poorly-built loco can be resurrected by complete rebuilding. I've done that on many occasions.

 

That said, as you advise - 'buyer beware'! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to Andy’s point about ebay rescues being a source of parts, motors, wheels etc, there are sadly many kits that are no longer available.  As such, if you want a particular class, and lack the ability to scratch build components such as smoke boxes and boilers, buying something on eBay might be a viable option.

 

A good example might be the DJH Raven A2.  I’ve seen perhaps a couple in three years on eBay which have then gone for high prices.  Of course in that case, if sufficient of us mailed DJH, it’s possible they might feel its viable commercially to run a batch.  Otherwise, if you want one, your best option might be a glued together non-runner.

 

David

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

If you think all the locos I've seen which contravene my list are those built by beginners/the inexperienced, then, please, think again. Many's the time I've had to 'fix' locos built by professionals - some very well-known. 

 

 

Yes, but of course just because someone is paid to undertake a job doesn't mean it will be of high quality. There's plenty of shoddy 'professional' workmanship in all walks of like. And of course that professional job could still be undertaken by a beginner - their first or early paid professional work.

 

But it's good to have standards and try to adhere to them. Although, of course, your list is pretty stringent and presumably there are few RTR models that would meet them) so I'd guess you see more kit/scratch-builds that fall foul of them. However, it is very pleasing to see models built to such standards. Do keep it up and press and encourage others to aspire to and reach them.

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 hours ago, bbishop said:

I suspect midwives could be busy in nine months time.

 

Bill

 

 

Rather ironic this could cause a baby boom in parallel with making inroads into an earlier one....

 

John (a concerned member of the latter)

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

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

This thread is moving on twice as fast as normal - you can tell everyone’s stuck at home! I love the diesel photos Tony - I don’t think I’ve seen all of those locos before.

 

Could I ask you for a little ‘virtual loco doctoring’? I have a DJH A3 (second hand - not built by me although I have sorted it out a bit see https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135510-coulsdon-works/&do=findComment&comment=3856937

if you’re interested but not relevant to this question).

 

It  is giving me problems with stalling over crossings. It’s fitted with ‘American’ style pick ups which I know aren’t your chosen solution, but I think you agree that they normally work OK. This loco seems to stall at exactly this point on my diamond crossing unless going at a fair lick in which case it still twitches noticeably. If Peco did a code 100 electro frog crossing I’d switch (pun intended!) straight away...but they don’t.

 

30E926A1-0C07-489F-A568-BCFDFE17AFCF.jpeg.e07acab10d256a44acf1eaff316398a6.jpeg

 

The front driver is on the plastic bit but I can’t see why the others two drivers don’t pick up - they are live. Some other locos struggle here as well so there must be some unevenness in the track but I can’t see where. Pick up is on the left for the loco and right on the tender (Right way up and facing forward). Here is the arrangement from below.

 

 

35ADC193-465E-4495-B4E7-E06D5E94DE2B.jpeg.60882b02853ff725cf5896049648365e.jpeg

 

My question is: “Could I improve things by making the bogie and/ or Cartezzi truck pick up as well. And, if so, what is the best way to do this - do I need new wheel sets or can I short out the existing ones?”

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Andy

 

 

 

My guess would be a short on the inside face of the driving wheel rubbing against the opposite polarity rail at the frog, so you might not see a spark from your normal viewing angle.  Also you wouldn’t get a tell-tale buzz if the power supply trips out.  

 

Even if this is the ‘dead’ side of the loco re: electrical pick-up, the wheel can still short out the track circuit in making a passing contact.

 

From the position of the loco on the track, I would check out the back driving wheel on the right hand side.  If this is the source of the problem, adjusting the back-to-back of the offending wheel, and/or gently taking a diamond file to the side of the opposite polarity rail might fix it for you?

 

Phil

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

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

My guess would be a short on the inside face of the driving wheel rubbing against the opposite polarity rail at the frog, so you might not see a spark from your normal viewing angle.  Also you wouldn’t get a tell-tale buzz if the power supply trips out.  

 

Even if this is the ‘dead’ side of the loco re: electrical pick-up, the wheel can still short out the track circuit in making a passing contact.

 

From the position of the loco on the track, I would check out the back driving wheel on the right hand side.  If this is the source of the problem, adjusting the back-to-back of the offending wheel, and/or gently taking a diamond file to the side of the opposite polarity rail might fix it for you?

 

Phil

But Andy has stated that he can run another loco up to this, even when it's stalled.

 

This is the quickest way to see if a loco has stalled because of a short circuit. Leave the offender where it is, put another loco on the same road and see if it will run. If it does, then it's not a short. If it doesn't then it is one. 

 

From what's been described I'd say it's poor pick-up, somewhere. I'm not a user of dead-frog points/crossings, so I have no idea how (and if) they're wired. It might be an idea to check that all metal sections are actually getting a feed. 

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

3 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, but of course just because someone is paid to undertake a job doesn't mean it will be of high quality. There's plenty of shoddy 'professional' workmanship in all walks of like. And of course that professional job could still be undertaken by a beginner - their first or early paid professional work.

 

But it's good to have standards and try to adhere to them. Although, of course, your list is pretty stringent and presumably there are few RTR models that would meet them) so I'd guess you see more kit/scratch-builds that fall foul of them. However, it is very pleasing to see models built to such standards. Do keep it up and press and encourage others to aspire to and reach them.

 

 

Thanks Grahame,

 

I tend to see more RTR locos which need attention when I do my loco-doctoring at shows (sadly, curtailed for the moment, meaning no donations to CRUK). The problems I usually find (often with newer RTR) have been described before. I do see the occasional kit-built item, and, within reason, I'm usually able to fix them - tweak a pick-up, adjust a motor, that sort of thing.

 

It's at home where I usually see most kit-built items, either because they've been bought via ebay, or they're to be sold-on on behalf of a bereaved family. With regard to the latter, I always make sure anything of that type I sell-on works (within reason; I don't have the time to completely rebuild some things). On occasions, I have to ask 'Why did you buy this?'.

 

The notion of resurrecting kit-models, acquired for a low price, has many merits (though are we profiteering from the disasters of others?). 

 

2039613708_A360103Wills.jpg.b69979f785f567d3462ca48383c2fa59.jpg

 

I originally acquired this old Wils A3 from a swapmeet in Gloucester (it used to be the biggest) in the early-'80s. It was part-built (with a white metal chassis), hiding in a mouldering orange box (the box was orange in colour, and never contained oranges). I 'bought' it for the princely sum of a Hornby-Dublo cement wagon box, in perfect condition. Yes, just the box. A night in Nitromores (it was glued together), scratch-build a chassis for it, rebuild it, acquire and build a K's streamlined non-corridor tender for it, paint it, line/letter/number it and weather it, and Bob's your uncle. 

 

It's not dead right, and because it's really out of period for LB (post-'61) it doesn't get used much, but, for a 1960s' cardboard box?! 

 

Here's another resurrection.......

 

575762682_O4163585LittleEngineskit.jpg.9e85db0145b250fcea9a937c9716c5eb.jpg

 

This Little Engines O4/1 was a complete muddle when I acquired it from a deceased modeller's estate. It was numbered/lettered late-LNER, but had complete GC features - tall chimney and dome, smokebox fastened by wheel and handle - that sort of thing. It was configured as an O4/1, complete with water pick-up gear on the tender, vacuum standpipe on the front platform, but no vacuum ejector pipe on this side (behind the boiler handrail). Not only that, its running was rather poor. 

 

It didn't seem to sell (because of the items listed?), not even for less than the cost of the bits. In the end, it was donated to me because of all the monies I'd raised on behalf of the bereaved family. So, I took pity on it, put it right detail-wise (though the dome is probably still a bit high), stripped then reassembled the mechanism and repainted, numbered, lettered and weathered it. It should probably have a screw-link front shackle, but, as a layout loco now? It also runs beautifully now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 17
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mullie said:

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

Martyn

 

Martyn,

 

So true.

 

It's the by far the most fascinating period in the entire history of railways, ever. One appreciated by the most sophisticated, discerning, intelligent and best looking modellers, as well as me.

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

1 hour ago, mullie said:

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

I would'nt recomend pulling anything heavy with a coupling wire attached to the Buffers as in the above photo. Hornby sprung ones  (which I presume these are) are only held on by a very thin internal plastic collar. Much better attaching the wire behind the bufferbeam or even better to the frames/chassis area.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

But Andy has stated that he can run another loco up to this when, even when it's stalled.

 

This is the quickest way to see if a loco has stalled because of a short circuit. Leave the offender where it is, put another loco on the same road and see if it will run. If it does, then it's not a short. If it doesn't then it is one. 

 

From what's been described I'd say its poor pick-up, somewhere. I'm not a user of dead-frog points/crossings, so I have no idea how (and if) they're wired. It might be an idea to check that all metal sections are actually getting a feed. 

 

I missed that bit about running another loco up to it... mind you we are talking about DCC here.  It can defy logical assumptions, and surprisingly often!  

 

Phil 

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

A few pages back I mentioned Comet Metal Miniatures of sci-fi cult film/programme vehicles and offered to dig the ones out I had, all assembled and hand painted many years ago, and post up a pic. Well, I've found them, given them a quick dust and here they are. Apologies for the thread drift and not being trains, but I guess it is a bit of modelling:

 

DSC_9240red.jpg.5f8d6e89749475b7e0e95b9b073131f1.jpg

 

 

It should be easy enough (and perhaps fun) to identify them, as they are famous and very recognisable.

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite: Blake's 7, Fireball XL5, Lady Penelope's RR, Star Wars (?), Stingray, ??? , Thunderbirds, ??? , ??? , Thunderbirds, OP's original subject, Orion (Space Odyssey 2001), ???

 

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back row left to right: 'Liberator' Blake's 7; 'Fireball' Fireball XL5; FAB1 from Thunderbirds; Colonial Viper from Battlestar Galactica; 'Stingray' from Stingray; 'Pegasus'  base ship from Battlestar Galactica.

 

Middle row: Thunderbird 1 from Thunderbirds; 'Anastasia' from Dan Dare; Cylon raider from Battlestar Galactica; Thunderbird 2; 'Dark Star' spaceship.

 

Front row: Pan Am shuttle 'Orion' from 2001; and 'El Dorado' from Buck Rogers. I did have a moon bus from 2001 but couldn't find it. There were others in the range of Comet Mini-Metals.

 

I can't recognise most steam locos, but diesels and electrics is another matter

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

I missed that bit about running another loco up to it... mind you we are talking about DCC here.  It can defy logical assumptions, and surprisingly often! 

 

The same will still apply won't it?  

 

If there is a short across the track, the DCC output will be shorted and thus nothing will run.  If there isn't a short then the other loco should operate as normal.   An oscilloscope would prove it if you happened to have one hanging around, unfortunately not many have.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, Philou said:

Ok, I'll bite: Blake's 7, Fireball XL5, Lady Penelope's RR, Star Wars (?), Stingray, ??? , Thunderbirds, ??? , ??? , Thunderbirds, OP's original subject, Orion (Space Odyssey 2001), ???

 

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Flying Scotsman was an A1, then an A3, then later a different A1 was built so the rest of the old A1 class that were not A3s became A10, apart from Great Northern that became an A1/1 but looked completely different to all the other A1s.

 

The A2s started out as NER types then it got complicated. Lots of different engines ended up being altered or built as A2s and later some other new ones were built but they didn't look like the other ones.

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mullie said:

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

Nice work Martyn,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I think the period depicted is fascinating as well, as well as it being easy to paint unlined black locos. 

 

I have a couple in early-BR condition........

 

1075878364_B123.jpg.194197a0f5aab5e2ec2d90d977d6cb2f.jpg

 

A McGowan B12/3 recently featured. I built/painted/weathered this. 

 

1058045857_D301.jpg.755b94e0365a0d9f666c525e8953bce3.jpg

 

393664651_D302.jpg.5b671275784414e727a2b1058704b40a.jpg

 

And a London Road Models D3. I built this, and, luckily, Geoff Haynes needed some guinea pigs for the book he was writing. Thus, he painted this. It's beautifully-subtle. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Without being personally critical, why do folk buy stuff made by others (unseen in the flesh - the model, not the builder!), particularly off ebay? There must be some 'success' stories, but most such stuff which has passed through my hands is rubbish! 

 

Tony - You are right that Caveat Emptor applies but I have had a couple of real bargains from eBay.  One, which you identified as a K's O4 you resurrected for me at Woking a couple of years ago (and very kindly sent me the correct buffers, chimney and dome for the BR era).  I think it cost about £40 and with a contribution to CRUK for your time curing the tight spot in the motion, it actually runs properly and one day I will actually have space and time to build a layout to run it on.  At some point it will get the paint job, numbers etc. and will be "mine", for less than the cost of a Bachmann O4, which would be very nice but opening boxes is boring.

 

When buying items like this I rely completely on the description and photographs.  If the photographs are poor so that I cannot see what would be obvious faults, I won't bid or bid very low.  If the description is just a couple of lines and says it runs well I also assume it goes OK two feet back and forth.  Likewise when I am selling any locomotives I describe exactly how they have been tested (wires to wheels or on a length of track). 

 

If the seller cannot even describe what the loco is in the title or the listing, I tend to assume the item isn't actually theirs to sell and steer well clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Flying Scotsman was an A1, then an A3, then later a different A1 was built so the rest of the old A1 class that were not A3s became A10, apart from Great Northern that became an A1/1 but looked completely different to all the other A1s.

 

The A2s started out as NER types then it got complicated. Lots of different engines ended up being altered or built as A2s and later some other new ones were built but they didn't look like the other ones.

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

 

 

 

Just to expand, if I may please, Tony?

 

For a short period, FLYING SCOTSMAN was also an A10.

 

A1. Original Gresley GNR 6' 8" Pacific, later developed with long-travel valves by the LNER.

 

A2. Original Raven NER Pacifics, though three were built by the LNER.

 

A3. Gresley 'Super Pacific' development of A1, with higher pressure boiler and larger superheater. 

 

A4. Gresley streamlined locos.

 

A. Original Thompson classification for his first rebuild of Gresley's 6' 2" P2. A2 was vacant anyway, because the Raven Pacifics had been withdrawn before the War. 

 

A2/2. Thompson's rebuilds of Gresley's P2. 

 

A2/1. Thompson's four 'orphans of the storm'. Originally ordered as the last four V2s. Confusing, isn't it, that the A2/1s were built after the A2/2s? 

 

A2/3. Thompson's new-build 6' 2" Pacifics.

 

A1. (More confusion!). Classification for Thompson's rebuild of Gresley's original A1 GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A1/1. Later classification for Thompson's GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A10. What all the surviving Gresley A1s became after GREAT NORTHERN was rebuilt.

 

A2. Peppercorn's new-build post-War 6' 2" Pacific (most built by BR).

 

A1. (Built after his A2s) Peppercorn's 6' 8" Pacifics, all built by BR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...