Wright writes.....

[robmcg]

5 hours 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!

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations Tony. I concur with your general feelings about creating things, and look forward to seeing this slightly fraught construction being painted and gracing LB. Having been recently creating pictures of A4s I certainly know a little about complex curves, and the dramas you encountered with the firebox of that 0-6-0!

 

That said, I would never get all the details right on an A4, especially tenders!  A curve here, beading there, invisible welding...   and as for tumblehome, I won't go there. (About to create' a teak Gresley post-war train with A4 in experimental blue,   where most men fear to tread!)

 

Best,

Edited May 19, 2020 by robmcg
typo

[Clive Mortimore]

Even in the real word drawings are not always as one would expect.

 

I worked at Marconi's in Chelmsford and as an inspector if something wasn't right a trip to the drawing office for a copy of the drawing had to be made. One of the very skilled wiremen came up to me one day and asked me to check some covers for the box of gizmos he was making. They didn't fit despite being the right part number. I came back with the drawing, a simple flat rectangular cover with four holes in the corners. There was a table with the various part numbers giving the length, width and where the holes should be located, and I think the hole size. I am sure we have all seen this type of drawing. I measured the covers and the reason they didn't fit, was they had been made wrong. The thing that has made this drawing so memorable was the notes towards the bottom . "All dimensions in mm"and the next one below, "To be made with 1/8 inch steel plate".    

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

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!

I've done exactly that on several six-wheeled diesel bogies that had the old-style stub axles on the middle wheelset.

 

I've also taken the middle wheelset out altogether on some troublesome six-wheeled vans and milk tanks...

Edited May 20, 2020 by St Enodoc

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Congratulations Tony. I concur with your general feelings about creating things, and look forward to seeing this slightly fraught construction being painted and gracing LB. Having been recently creating pictures of A4s I certainly know a little about complex curves, and the dramas you encountered with the firebox of that 0-6-0!

 

That said, I would never get all the details right on an A4, especially tenders!  A curve here, beading there, invisible welding...   and as for tumblehome, I won't go there. (About to create' a teak Gresley post-war train with A4 in experimental blue,   where most men fear to tread!)

 

Best,

Thanks Rob,

 

And a very good morning to you. It's a glorious one here!

 

I think what this J17 build has shown is the value of constructive criticism. I thought I could get away with just 'fudging' something (that firebox!), but I'm glad my transgression was pointed out; and the model is the better for it. Deep down, I probably knew I'd be rumbled.................

 

Which illustrates the value of RMweb. Because so many post pictures of what they're doing, and expose what they do to critical analysis, then the end result should be more-accurate models. Or, at least I hope so. 

 

I suppose it comes down to 'give and take'. I've always been 'quick' to offer my opinion (if asked, usually), so I should be prepared to listen to those of others (and, I hope, I am).

 

What's the phrase? 'Put up, or shut up'? It certainly applies to me!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Michael Edge]

9 hours 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.

That reminds me of wThey had the contract to rebuild hat was going on at LH when we went to measure up the MoD Vanguards and Steelman Royales in 2004. They had the contract to rebuild them all and when we got there the yard looked like this.

All the locos had been dismantled and there were parts of them all over the place. Talking to the man who had taken them to bits he was bitterly regretting not marking numbers on them all as he did, he was having great difficulty piecing them back together with very few dimensions exactly the same.

He had eventually learned the lesson of this though.....

They all went back together in the end of course (and then got painted in DLO purple).

[Bernard Lamb]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The thing that has made this drawing so memorable was the notes towards the bottom . "All dimensions in mm" and the next one below, "To be made with 1/8 inch steel plate".    

That seemed to have been a fairly common situation at one time, probably in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Drawing office people had adopted metric, but the poor souls at the sharp end were still using imperial micrometres and other measuring equipment. For a long time steel plate came in metric widths and imperial thicknesses. I can probably if prompted recite my 76.2 times table up to a figure of around 5000. (For setting out holes on a three inch pitch). 

Bernard

[Blandford1969]

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I think what this J17 build has shown is the value of constructive criticism. I thought I could get away with just 'fudging' something (that firebox!), but I'm glad my transgression was pointed out; and the model is the better for it. Deep down, I probably knew I'd be rumbled.................

 

Constructive being the most important word here. Hearing stories of some members getting personal messages telling them not to bother is quite heartbreaking that such keyboard warriors still can cause such upset. 

 

On the subject of marking out my favored method is to take a plan, if possible purchased from the NRM or elsewhere. import into a word document and manipulate so the drawing visible becomes to scale, print out , cut up and paste using spray mount onto the brass or nickle silver before fretting out. The only downside is the cleaning up once the part is cut out and filed to shape!

[65179]

A while ago I put a photo up of the B16 I'd been working on.  Well, working at nothing like Tony's pace, it is now nearing completion.

 

 

A bit of tweaking, lamps, crew and a DG coupling still required.

 

Simon 

Edited May 20, 2020 by 65179

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, 65179 said:

A while ago I put a photo up of the B16 I'd been working on.  Well, working at nothing like Tony's pace, it is now nearing completion.

 

 

A bit of tweaking, lamps, crew and a DG coupling still required.

 

Simon 

 

There should be a law against it. 2mm models that look better than most 4mm and some 7mm models should be banned. They just make the rest of of us look like novice beginners.

 

To be serious for a moment, that is simply stunning!

[MJI]

My thoughts are this.

 

If you want to make something fine, but if you show it expect helpfull critisism. But rudeness is unacceptable.

 

I do appreciate that closeups make stuff seem worse.

 

But I am very happy to push the use of Tamaya tape and learning to spray.

 

But I do wish I could bow pen, keep trying, keep failing, only use it now for Replica glazing bars.

[Jesse Sim]

I thought I’d show off my very first attempt at painting teak, I’ve used some old Hornby Clerestorys as a demo. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions and if possible some help in making it better or your own methods. I think it doesn’t look as bad as what I thought it would. It’s only a rough go. 

[jwealleans]

I think it's a bit uniform and probably not streaky enough.  There's also no panel variety, which was apparent even on new stock. 

 

Colour is quite subjective, but GN teak (I assume that's what you're after) was always described as orange.   The GE (for example) used a different variety of teak which was yellower in colour.

 

Have you had a look through this thread?

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

That seemed to have been a fairly common situation at one time, probably in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Drawing office people had adopted metric, but the poor souls at the sharp end were still using imperial micrometres and other measuring equipment. For a long time steel plate came in metric widths and imperial thicknesses. I can probably if prompted recite my 76.2 times table up to a figure of around 5000. (For setting out holes on a three inch pitch). 

Bernard

Odd that, every where I worked before I left engineering I had access to both SI and imperial measuring equipment. I was also taught with good drawing practice you never mixed your dimensions.

[Blandford1969]

20 minutes ago, MJI said:

My thoughts are this.

 

If you want to make something fine, but if you show it expect helpfull critisism. But rudeness is unacceptable.

 

I do appreciate that closeups make stuff seem worse.

 

But I am very happy to push the use of Tamaya tape and learning to spray.

 

But I do wish I could bow pen, keep trying, keep failing, only use it now for Replica glazing bars.

Never use mobile phone cameras is what I have learned. On the right my first attempt at a C7 splasher, cut it out, fret out the middle then solver a back on. Looks awful, next try using 1mm strip brass slightly better (albeit not finished) the camera makes it look awful though.

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

A while ago I put a photo up of the B16 I'd been working on.  Well, working at nothing like Tony's pace, it is now nearing completion.

 

 

A bit of tweaking, lamps, crew and a DG coupling still required.

 

Simon 

 

That's stunning Simon and a beautifully natural finish as well. any chance of a couple of sentences on your weathering technique.

 

Jerry

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I think it's a bit uniform and probably not streaky enough.  There's also no panel variety, which was apparent even on new stock. 

 

Colour is quite subjective, but GN teak (I assume that's what you're after) was always described as orange.   The GE (for example) used a different variety of teak which was yellower in colour.

 

Have you had a look through this thread?

Hmmm, I’ll get going on creating some variety, I’ll use some other brown paints I have here. I’ll see how it goes. 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Odd that, every where I worked before I left engineering I had access to both SI and imperial measuring equipment. I was also taught with good drawing practice you never mixed your dimensions.

It depended at what level.

Try getting the cash for a height gauge and surface plate for equipment calibration rather than just for production measurement and the reason becomes clearer. We had a fully checked and certified set of imperial slip gauges for checking micrometres against. They had to be re-certified, I think, every five years and that cost a packet. We did not get a metric set to the same standard until after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe when we were able to obtain a whole load of stuff from the Russian aero space industry. They "fell of the back of a lorry" in Hungary so the story goes.

Bernard 

[MJI]

2 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

I thought I’d show off my very first attempt at painting teak, I’ve used some old Hornby Clerestorys as a demo. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions and if possible some help in making it better or your own methods. I think it doesn’t look as bad as what I thought it would. It’s only a rough go. 

 

 

OK then, not bad, a bit like my one Ian Kirk Gresley, but you need to have a look at other methods.

 

I would recommend this thread

 

Also he has a few other threads on painting wooden finishes.

[Headstock]

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I've never met a real pragmatist, everybody wants to be one, I don't think that they really exist in model railwayland, everybody gets too dewy-eyed over nostalgia.

[Barry O]

14 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

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.

 

The "refurbished " Nimrod airframes were a lot larger than the original ones. Two were parked side by side on the private airfield on Walney. Cancelation was political expediency The Boing replacements coming into the UK now have the same electronics kit as Nimrod would have had..

 

Baz

[FarrMan]

On 17/04/2020 at 12:07, Tony Wright said:

 

I don't appear to be able to get rid of this bit in my replies box

 

but I do wish I could bow pen, keep trying, keep failing, only use it now for Replica glazing bars.

 

I have noticed several comments over time about not being able to use a bow pen. I wonder if anyone has tried using a Rotring pen such

 

https://www.rotring.com/uk/technical-pens/196-rapidograph-pen-4006856155006.html

 

I have only used it with Rotring ink for drawings on plastic film (long before the days of CAD), and never for modelling. As it produces a fixed width line, it might be easier to use than a bow pen.

 

On the subject of mixing imperial and metric measurements, I was at university during the changeover period, 1968-1971. I remember in one lab, probably a soils lab, the equipment that we had to weigh our samples consisted of a balance where we could put standard weights on one side, and the difference between that and the sample was given by a long pointer reading over a scale. The problem was that the scale was in one system and the standard weights were in the other, so that we had to convert one of them every time.

 

Lloyd

[jwealleans]

Rotring ink isn't as dense as paint and you end up with translucent lines.  

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, 65179 said:

A while ago I put a photo up of the B16 I'd been working on.  Well, working at nothing like Tony's pace, it is now nearing completion.

 

 

A bit of tweaking, lamps, crew and a DG coupling still required.

 

Simon 

Lovely work Simon,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Is it really 2mm FS? On first glance, I assumed it was 4mm! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Wingman Mothergoose]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

 

OK then, not bad, a bit like my one Ian Kirk Gresley, but you need to have a look at other methods.

 

I would recommend this thread

 

Also he has a few other threads on painting wooden finishes.

I watched Mike's videos on YouTube on painting the teak, I'm looking forward to giving it a try, even though I model the BR period

 

Chris

 

[Wingman Mothergoose]

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

I thought I’d show off my very first attempt at painting teak, I’ve used some old Hornby Clerestorys as a demo. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions and if possible some help in making it better or your own methods. I think it doesn’t look as bad as what I thought it would. It’s only a rough go. 

As first attempts go that's not bad at all Jesse. Practice makes perfect, and I look forward to attempt number 2

 

Chris G