Wright writes.....

[gr.king]

If you stick, as you properly should, to one set of wheel and track standards, then it is easier to follow pure principles.

 

The trouble with OO, despite its many advantages, is that it is a family of standards rather than a single standard, and if you want to try to run guest stock on your layout, or run your stock on a friend's layout when you don't use exactly the same standards, then it becomes rather difficult to apply pure principles successfully. Slightly impure, or downright rough and ready methods may be more practical.

 

I suppose that properly executed springing ought to allow a loco with fine wheel standards to cope more effectively when traversing unexpectedly large crossing gaps, while keeping all wheels on uneven rails as much of the time as is possible, but springs can't possibly keep exactly the same load on a wheel at all times, irrespective of their degree of compression, so presumably that method fails the test of purity too.

 

On another matter, we don't see many 'Ull and Barnsley locos on here do we? Might we see more in due course?

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, CXW1 said:

 

I pretty much use the same technique today. The RCTS books provide known dimensions like wheel size, wheelbase, length over buffers, boiler diameter, boiler pitch etc. A decent side-on photograph and the key dimensions can then be used to produce a reasonably accurate scale drawing like the one below that I produced for a LNER N12. 

 

Like Tony says, I am well aware that this is not going to be a 100% accurate scale drawing but, with a bit of imagination and good luck, the drawing can be used to produce something that looks like an N12. The drawing looks distorted in the picture but it was just taken quickly on my phone and it has been folded up a few times. 

 

Is the model 100% accurate? Probably not.

 

Does it look like an N12? I think so, and it's good enough for me and you can't buy one from Hornby or Bachmann. 

 

My dad was a metalwork and technical drawing teacher, so I have picked up a fair amount from watching him do things when I was younger.

 

I wouldn't know where to start looking at a GA but some of the recent comments on here would make me more confident in looking at one in the future. 

 

Thanks

 

Chris 

 

This is splendid work.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[CXW1]

14 minutes ago, gr.king said:

If you stick, as you properly should, to one set of wheel and track standards, then it is easier to follow pure principles.

 

The trouble with OO, despite its many advantages, is that it is a family of standards rather than a single standard, and if you want to try to run guest stock on your layout, or run your stock on a friend's layout when you don't use exactly the same standards, then it becomes rather difficult to apply pure principles successfully. Slightly impure, or downright rough and ready methods may be more practical.

 

I suppose that properly executed springing ought to allow a loco with fine wheel standards to cope more effectively when traversing unexpectedly large crossing gaps, while keeping all wheels on uneven rails as much of the time as is possible, but springs can't possibly keep exactly the same load on a wheel at all times, irrespective of their degree of compression, so presumably that method fails the test of purity too.

 

On another matter, we don't see many 'Ull and Barnsley locos on here do we? Might we see more in due course?

 

There's a bit more 'Ull and Barnsley stuff on my workbench thread over in the kitbuilding and scratchbuilding section. 

 

You will also see some hornblocks and single compensation beams, so I might have to duck for cover.....

 

Cheers

 

Chris 

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

This is splendid work.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

I have had the opportunity to see them close up and to give them a run on Buckingham (they are EM Gauge) and they run as well as they look.

 

As Chris says, there are plenty more on his thread.

[micknich2003]

Chris, you mention GA drawings, here's part of the H&BRly Class J, you should find the details useful. Yours, Mick.

[Tony Wright]

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection. 

 

I think as long as a model 'captures' the 'flavour' of the prototype, runs well and is the product of personal workmanship then that is 'enough'. Enough for me, though one should try and get it as 'right' as possible; as my building of the Crownline J17 of late has illustrated.................

 

 

I think the addition of boiler fittings makes a huge difference to the overall 'look'. To have raised the smokebox/boiler/firebox up by 2mm, would have blanked off the bottom of the spectacles. There's a cladding band just ahead of the spectacle plate, which might have given a false impression. 

 

 

Now packed with lead, it'll pull over 50 wagons with ease!

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Someone was asking on Jesse's thread about how I disguised the going on/off stage curves on the MR/M&GNR bit of LB. 

 

This topic has been aired before, but I'll explain again..................

 

 

After I'd photographed the prototype for this bridge taking a private road to Grimsthorpe Castle, Ian Wilson produced this computer-generated mock-up of the west elevation. 

 

 

I made the deck and arches.

 

 

And then reinstated the elevation (the Hornby Gresley has long-gone!). There's just a hint of cutting/foliage behind, but only to give an impression. 

 

By cutting the 90 degree curve effectively in half, the too-tight geometry is slightly disguised. To have carried the scenery on behind, would have militated against the effect. 

 

 

Once we were happy with the 'feel' of the bridge, Bob Dawson made a 'proper' elevation. 

 

 

The curve is obviously still very tight - too tight for realism, but it does give me an extra working railway. 

 

 

On the western side, a modified Hornby resin girder bridge provides the scenic break. 

 

The trick is to tighten the curve in increments going on/offstage, so that the tightest section isn't seen. 

 

 

[CXW1]

26 minutes ago, micknich2003 said:

Chris, you mention GA drawings, here's part of the H&BRly Class J, you should find the details useful. Yours, Mick.

 

Thanks Mick. I was planning to get in touch to ask if you had any pictures or drawings of inside the cab, in particular the arrangement of the splashers, but this is perfect. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by CXW1
typo

[Andy Reichert]

55 minutes ago, gr.king said:

If you stick, as you properly should, to one set of wheel and track standards, then it is easier to follow pure principles.

 

The trouble with OO, despite its many advantages, is that it is a family of standards rather than a single standard, and if you want to try to run guest stock on your layout, or run your stock on a friend's layout when you don't use exactly the same standards, then it becomes rather difficult to apply pure principles successfully. Slightly impure, or downright rough and ready methods may be more practical.

 

I suppose that properly executed springing ought to allow a loco with fine wheel standards to cope more effectively when traversing unexpectedly large crossing gaps, while keeping all wheels on uneven rails as much of the time as is possible, but springs can't possibly keep exactly the same load on a wheel at all times, irrespective of their degree of compression, so presumably that method fails the test of purity too.

 

On another matter, we don't see many 'Ull and Barnsley locos on here do we? Might we see more in due course?

 

At 1:76 scale, I don't think we have the affordable miniature technology capability for even loosely matching the 1:1 prototype springing functionality. But beam equalisation does scale down, even if  time and the locomotive mass and inertia doesn't.  Mike Sharman was right, but he didn't have the modern inexpensive bearings and parts to make chassis building simpler and straightforward.

 

Andy

[Headstock]

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection.

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Headstock

[t-b-g]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection. 

 

I think as long as a model 'captures' the 'flavour' of the prototype, runs well and is the product of personal workmanship then that is 'enough'. Enough for me, though one should try and get it as 'right' as possible; as my building of the Crownline J17 of late has illustrated.................

 

 

I think the addition of boiler fittings makes a huge difference to the overall 'look'. To have raised the smokebox/boiler/firebox up by 2mm, would have blanked off the bottom of the spectacles. There's a cladding band just ahead of the spectacle plate, which might have given a false impression. 

 

 

Now packed with lead, it'll pull over 50 wagons with ease!

 

 

 

 

 

That does look so much better now.

 

Did the coupling rods come with the kit? If they did, the designer missed a trick. The J17s didn't have a knuckle joint next to the crankpin on the centre wheel. The rods were pivoted on the crankpin, just as most modellers do. I built a J17 mechanism for somebody a few years ago and looked to see if the joint was in front of, or behind, the crankpin and there just wasn't one at all. It took me by surprise, as I know little about the GER.

[Andy Reichert]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

 

 

Andy

 

 

[Orion]

10 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Not if the 40-odd pages on the Rails Terrier and the ones on the Hornby Terrier topics are anything to go by

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

 

 

Andy

 

 

 

Are you advocating running normal OO wheels and P4 standard wheels not only on the same layout but on the same loco? So in a side view, one bogie wheel would appear bigger than the other? 

 

Where would you put the checkrails?

 

I am sure you mean to be helpful but that is really not a practical suggestion.

 

Those views are not representative of how the layout is viewed by anybody there. They can only be got by blocking the tracks with a camera!

 

The visual aspect of the bogie wheels is really not a problem when viewing the layout, as I have had the pleasure of doing several times.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Are you advocating running normal OO wheels and P4 standard wheels not only on the same layout but on the same loco? So in a side view, one bogie wheel would appear bigger than the other? 

 

Where would you put the checkrails?

 

I am sure you mean to be helpful but that is really not a practical suggestion.

 

Those views are not representative of how the layout is viewed by anybody there. They can only be got by blocking the tracks with a camera!

 

The visual aspect of the bogie wheels is really not a problem when viewing the layout, as I have had the pleasure of doing several times.

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The 0.015" was to raise the flanges above the rail heads.  I.e they clear all check rails. Steering mechanism to be invented Sideways on it's only the flange depth that should be different.  And although I'm no UK expert, doesn't the 9F Have flange less centre drivers and reduced flanges on driving axles 2 and 4?

 

This is the "musings" section. Practicality is a different department

 

Andy

[Headstock]

28 minutes ago, Orion said:

Not if the 40-odd pages on the Rails Terrier and the ones on the Hornby Terrier topics are anything to go by

 

About Tony's firebox?

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

 

The 0.015" was to raise the flanges above the rail heads.  I.e they clear all check rails. Steering mechanism to be invented Sideways on it's only the flange depth that should be different.  And although I'm no UK expert, doesn't the 9F Have flange less centre drivers and reduced flanges on driving axles 2 and 4?

 

This is the "musings" section. Practicality is a different department

 

Andy

 

I did see a model of a six wheeled vehicle that had a fixed centre wheel with the bottom edge of the flange filed off, so perhaps you are onto something!

[Tony Wright]

57 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I think you're being very unfair on pragmatists, seeing that they treat things in a matter of fact manner. I've been described as one by the RM, and I certainly don't buy RTR.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That does look so much better now.

 

Did the coupling rods come with the kit? If they did, the designer missed a trick. The J17s didn't have a knuckle joint next to the crankpin on the centre wheel. The rods were pivoted on the crankpin, just as most modellers do. I built a J17 mechanism for somebody a few years ago and looked to see if the joint was in front of, or behind, the crankpin and there just wasn't one at all. It took me by surprise, as I know little about the GER.

The rods did, Tony,

 

And I wish I'd noticed the incorrect knuckle earlier. It's staying now, though!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

 

 

Andy

 

 

It's an idea, Andy,

 

Though I don't think I'll pursue it.

 

It's a visual 'price' I'm prepared to pay. Both the D9 and the K2 illustrated have 'scale' OO bogie/pony wheels (RTR wheels are much worse!), though the treads are huge compared with reality. 

 

Might chemically-blackening the treads work I wonder?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The rods did, Tony,

 

And I wish I'd noticed the incorrect knuckle earlier. It's staying now, though!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Don't blame you! I have caused you enough hassle with this one already. I only learned about it by pure chance.

 

A bit of chemical blackening on the bogie wheels does help. I have done it on several and it really stops the over scale flange showing. When polished, it makes nickel silver tyres look more like steel too.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

Don't blame you! I have caused you enough hassle with this one already. I only learned about it by pure chance.

 

A bit of chemical blackening on the bogie wheels does help. I have done it on several and it really stops the over scale flange showing. When polished, it makes nickel silver tyres look more like steel too.

'I have caused you enough hassle with this one already'

 

I don't think you have, Tony,

 

It's only by 'critical' observation (often by others) that models are made more-accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'I have caused you enough hassle with this one already'

 

I don't think you have, Tony,

 

It's only by 'critical' observation (often by others) that models are made more-accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Maybe not hassle but perhaps a few extra hours of work, which was well worth it because the end result is lovely!

[Willie Whizz]

6 hours ago, Orion said:

 

The obsession with getting things absolutely right is very unhealthy IMHO. Much safer to model a line for which you can become the only real expert. The Hull & Barnsley is probably getting close - Lancashire Derbyshire & East Coast or some other obscure line that almost no one has even heard of might be even safer. Or some obscure Siberian line in the 1950s when anyone taking photos or information might not live to tell the tale, even if they could ever get that close?  

 

I seem to recall that was Peter Denny's explanation for why in the 1940s he chose to model the Great Central.  Firstly the signal posts, being 'solid', would be a great deal easier to model than the lattice types commonly used by many other railways.  Secondly, he had joined a club that was full of 'experts' on the Great Western Railway who delighted in rubbishing each others' creations and he didn't fancy the grief if he took that path, so decided to go for something (relatively) more obscure.  So there's a good precedent!

 

On the issue of the accuracy of drawings, and the way 'real' locomotives were built by skilled workmen using them as little more than a sketch of what was wanted, this is undoubtedly true, but there are fairly modern parallels.  One major reason for the abandonment - at vast waste of Taxpayers' money - some years ago of the project to rebuild the RAF's elderly Nimrod aircraft for a couple of decades more service was that it was discovered no two sets of wings on the machines, and the positions for fixing them onto the fusilages, were identical, so it could only have been rectified at further huge expense.  That couldn't be justified, so the whole concept had to be abandoned; no money was left to buy anything else, and Britain has been without an effective maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine capability  for years which is only now being rectified.

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I seem to recall that was Peter Denny's explanation for why in the 1940s he chose to model the Great Central.  Firstly the signal posts, being 'solid', would be a great deal easier to model than the lattice types commonly used by many other railways.  Secondly, he had joined a club that was full of 'experts' on the Great Western Railway who delighted in rubbishing each others' creations and he didn't fancy the grief if he took that path, so decided to go for something (relatively) more obscure.  So there's a good precedent!

 

On the issue of the accuracy of drawings, and the way 'real' locomotives were built by skilled workmen using them as little more than a sketch of what was wanted, this is undoubtedly true, but there are fairly modern parallels.  One major reason for the abandonment - at vast waste of Taxpayers' money - some years ago of the project to rebuild the RAF's elderly Nimrod aircraft for a couple of decades more service was that it was discovered no two sets of wings on the machines, and the positions for fixing them onto the fusilages, were identical, so it could only have been rectified at further huge expense.  That couldn't be justified, so the whole concept had to be abandoned; no money was left to buy anything else, and Britain has been without an effective maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine capability  for years which is only now being rectified.

 

I still have the GWR Siphon that Peter Denny took along to the model railway club where he was told that the roof profile and the strapping were not quite right! There were two further reasons for him choosing the GCR. No outside valve gear and he also wrote that he liked the brown and cream carriage livery but I have a doubt about that one. The very first Buckingham was set a few years later than the present one and had teak brown carriages. A short while later they were backdated by about 5 years and changed to brown and cream. The Denny family have letters on LNER headed paper sent by George Dow, then employed as a publicity officer by the LNER, answering Peter's enquiring about GCR carriage liveries, dated 1947.