Wright writes.....

[coronach]

7 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

I use Lanarkshire Models (Dave Franks is a member on here)

 

http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/index.html

 

No connection other than satisfied customer and co-rmwebber

Thank you - an order has gone in

[micklner]

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Could the use of Bachmann V2s be because the layout owner is not lococentric ? Could in the overall scheme what you see as major inaccuracies be minor to them? Could they have other priorities, like operation, the scenery or just having fun?

 

Yes enjoying one's hobby is a serious part of it. 

Tony

 

Pimple for a Dome , tad overkill/exageration , the body is of its time 20 plus years or more ? When you look at what else was available at the time it was the normal standard, Hornby were no better , XO4 motors and Tender Drive.

 

Still a shame Hornby didnt do a V2  , much prefer their r.t.r Locos in general.

Edited June 25, 2020 by micklner

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, coronach said:

They spend a lot of time contemplating.  You will have observed the 'Baaa' code in the sky above the bridge

 

It moved! Or is it nailed there? There's more life in that barcode than in the sheep!

Edited June 25, 2020 by Headstock

[Barry O]

there was a song sung at York Show which Tony may remember as part of the "Music Man"  it included the words "counting rivets, counting rivets, one, two , three, four , five.....! making a reference to someone modelling in the track gauge as noted by this page number.. things have changed..for the better!

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, coronach said:

Yes, Tony - based on the Waverley Route.  it provides an excellent excuse to operate LNER pacifics on 4/5 coach trains and long freights.

 

I note your point about loco lamps/ headcodes.  Work in progress.    Can you recommend a supplier of lamps that don't look too big?

ModelU

 

They're perfect.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

Here's where I've got to with my Fowler tank, following much useful input from Wright Writes:

 

 

 

The bunker and rear cab-cutout was reworked on both sides, taking the paint right back down to the original red plastic. I masked off the rest of the loco and resprayed the bunkers, then redid the lining using the same HMRS pressfix I'd used for the tank sides. I do find waterslide transfers easier to use, but in this case, the only BR mixed traffic lining I had in my supply was the HMRS stufff, and since I was happy with most of the lining on the tanks and boiler, I decided to keep with it for consistency and just do a selective reworking of some of the poorer areas.  Finally, the later BR emblem, which had been incorrectly applied to begin with, was removed and replaced with the earlier one, and I redid the numbers going one size up on the HMRS sheet as the originals were a bit on the small side. I also removed the electrification flashes as I presume they don't suit the earlier period.

 

Observations: the ride height's still not quite there, especially at the front end, and as Andrew noted, the valve spindle guides are the Stanier type, so wrong for a Fowler loco. The chimney needs to be changed, water fillers looked at, and cylinder drain cocks fabricated. But it is what it is and mainly it runs much more nicely than with the Hornby chassis, which was the main objective. Thanks all for the helpful comments.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

16 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Could the use of Bachmann V2s be because the layout owner is not lococentric ? Could in the overall scheme what you see as major inaccuracies be minor to them? Could they have other priorities, like operation, the scenery or just having fun?

 

Yes enjoying one's hobby is a serious part of it. 

'Could the use of Bachmann V2s be because the layout owner is not lococentric ?'

 

I really don't have the least idea, Clive. In fact, to be brutally honest, I don't really care! 

 

I did qualify my statement by mentioning 'serious' model railways.  Perhaps I'd better qualify it more. 

 

I don't have the slightest problem with folk having fun (which seems to be almost an obsession for you). After all, if a hobby isn't fun, then what's the point of pursuing it? How we get that fun is dependent on the individual. I can only speak for myself, but I derive great pleasure (fun?) from my research, and, as a result of that, try to make my models as accurate as possible (within limits). I rarely succeed (fireboxgate!), but, for instance, it's important that the V2 I'm making has the right type of GS tender for my modelling period. It would be no fun at all if I stuck that 'correct' tender behind an overly-porcine, lumpy, poor-running, almost domeless V2, the like of which describes the original Bachmann V2. 

 

Now, back to the main question - what's a 'serious' model railway (this is not to claim that 'serious' model railways are better than any other)?

 

A possible list (irrespective of scale/gauge)............?

 

1. One that represents a specific prototype at a specific period of time. Obviously, given my inherent bias, it's better if it's an actual prototype.

2. One where everything is consistent throughout, even if it's the work of several people.

3. As a link with '2', one where nothing is incongruous - citing the original Bachmann V2, where it's on a layout where everything else is accurate. 

4. One which operates like a real railway. By that I mean fully-signalled, and either run to a timetable or a sequence; either/or based on actual WTTs and PTTs.

5. One where considerable research has taken place to ensure accuracy.

6. One where the locos are the right locos and the trains are the right trains. Regarding the latter, trains which are made-up by using official documents (this usually entails much in the way of kit-building).

7. One where everything runs smoothly, is free from stuttering, jerking, derailments, dividing trains and, inevitably, frustration.

8. One, when it's photographed, looks 'realistic' - much easier if it's actually prototype-based. 

9. One where the 'footprint' is as near to scale as possible in comparison with the prototype; meaning a minimum of 'selective compression' and an avoidance of too-tight curves, particularly going on/offstage.

10. One where a railway/region/time period is instantly recognisable at first glance; and further-substantiated by closer examination. 

 

A 'qualified' top-ten? 

 

Now, if someone's layout satisfies none of those items in my list above, so what? In the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter. However, those ten items matter to me, and if I don't satisfy all those imperatives, then it would not be the slightest amount of 'fun'. 

 

I could also add another (very important) personal imperative ........... 

11. One where a large amount of the work on it has been done by me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Metr0Land said:

 

I use Lanarkshire Models (Dave Franks is a member on here)

 

http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/index.html

 

No connection other than satisfied customer and co-rmwebber

What a realistic scene!

 

Thanks for posting............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

 

Pimple for a Dome , tad overkill/exageration , the body is of its time 20 plus years or more ? When you look at what else was available at the time it was the normal standard, Hornby were no better , XO4 motors and Tender Drive.

 

Still a shame Hornby didnt do a V2  , much prefer their r.t.r Locos in general.

Mick,

 

'Pimple for a Dome , tad overkill/exageration' 

 

Really? How much of an exaggeration do you think I've made?

 

 

 

I agree, the body is 'of its time', but that time has long gone. And with it, (on the arrival of the forthcoming Bachmann V2, which will be brilliant), the 'pimply' dome (how would you describe it?), the over-fat boiler, the lack of rearward slope to the firebox, the incorrect buffers, the 'battleship' cab, the part-plastic motion and the ghastly Cartazzi truck (to be fair, the last-mentioned item has been replaced, as has the whole chassis).

 

My point was how could anyone running a 'realistic' ('serious'?) railway today use either of these? 

 

Or, bringing up a point you made, Hornby tender drives? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

31 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's where I've got to with my Fowler tank, following much useful input from Wright Writes:

 

 

 

The bunker and rear cab-cutout was reworked on both sides, taking the paint right back down to the original red plastic. I masked off the rest of the loco and resprayed the bunkers, then redid the lining using the same HMRS pressfix I'd used for the tank sides. I do find waterslide transfers easier to use, but in this case, the only BR mixed traffic lining I had in my supply was the HMRS stufff, and since I was happy with most of the lining on the tanks and boiler, I decided to keep with it for consistency and just do a selective reworking of some of the poorer areas.  Finally, the later BR emblem, which had been incorrectly applied to begin with, was removed and replaced with the earlier one, and I redid the numbers going one size up on the HMRS sheet as the originals were a bit on the small side. I also removed the electrification flashes as I presume they don't suit the earlier period.

 

Observations: the ride height's still not quite there, especially at the front end, and as Andrew noted, the valve spindle guides are the Stanier type, so wrong for a Fowler loco. The chimney needs to be changed, water fillers looked at, and cylinder drain cocks fabricated. But it is what it is and mainly it runs much more nicely than with the Hornby chassis, which was the main objective. Thanks all for the helpful comments.

 

Al

Great stuff, Al,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

55 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Observations: the ride height's still not quite there, especially at the front end, and as Andrew noted, the valve spindle guides are the Stanier type, so wrong for a Fowler loco. The chimney needs to be changed, water fillers looked at, and cylinder drain cocks fabricated. But it is what it is and mainly it runs much more nicely than with the Hornby chassis, which was the main objective. Thanks all for the helpful comments.

 

Al

 

Good evening Al,

 

time well spent. The big Fowler tanks were handsome looking locomotives in my opinion. Your model does it more than justice. On the valve spindle guide, the alteration is dead simple, all it requires is an L shaped bracket attached to the underside of the running board. The guide just hovers over the spindle and lifts off with the body. I enclose a close up of my Fathers Tebay banker when it was under construction, I hope this may be of use. It shows the simplicity of the arrangement better than words.

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Headstock
add space

[micklner]

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Mick,

 

'Pimple for a Dome , tad overkill/exageration' 

 

Really? How much of an exaggeration do you think I've made?

 

 

 

I agree, the body is 'of its time', but that time has long gone. And with it, (on the arrival of the forthcoming Bachmann V2, which will be brilliant), the 'pimply' dome (how would you describe it?), the over-fat boiler, the lack of rearward slope to the firebox, the incorrect buffers, the 'battleship' cab, the part-plastic motion and the ghastly Cartazzi truck (to be fair, the last-mentioned item has been replaced, as has the whole chassis).

 

My point was how could anyone running a 'realistic' ('serious'?) railway today use either of these? 

 

Or, bringing up a point you made, Hornby tender drives? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

The photos dont help, as they are not side on, anything from below will always make anything look smaller. Still not a pimple perhaps a couple mm low at most.

 

 

It doesnt really matter now as they are obsolete anyway, so I have no idea why they are being still mentioned on here. They are not worth comparing with  the forthcoming Bachmann version or Mike Trice's printed version .Bachmann should have upgraded them years ago, the same method was tried for the just as bad V1/V3 ,which again they tried to offload with a new chassis The one they should have done as the body is still very good is the J39, they then cancelled the J39 upgrade, the sales of the "upgraded" V2 and V1/V3 must have been so poor, they havent bothered.

 

As to whether people want to use them at exhibitions and at home,  that is entirely their choice, the same with fitting lamps etc etc. . Everybody has different standards, otherwise we all become robots.

 

There are a lot of reason why people would run them , it is pointless listing them as its already been covered . Most people who go to shows are not experts, they go to enjoy themselves nothing more or less. I have been to shows, where Locos derail at the first set of points they come too, so a old V2 is about right for those layouts anyway !!. The only shows were most of the viewers are serious enthusiasts (perhaps) if even then I have no idea, I would imagine are those who are seen at Finescale P4 and EM shows . Never been to one, as none are near to where I live.

 

Tender drives simply mentioned, as they were I presumed , were still being at made at the same time, as when the V2 was introduced . It is not important either way.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by micklner

[landscapes]

37 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

The photos dont help, as they are not side on, anything from below will always make anything look smaller. Still not a pimple perhaps a couple mm low at most.

 

 

It doesnt really matter now as they are obsolete anyway, so I have no idea why they are being still mentioned on here. They are not worth comparing with  the forthcoming Bachmann version or Mike Trice's printed version .Bachmann should have upgraded them years ago, the same method was tried for the just as bad V1/V3 ,which again they tried to offload with a new chassis The one they should have done as the body is still very good is the J39, they then cancelled the J39 upgrade, the sales of the "upgraded" V2 and V1/V3 must have been so poor, they havent bothered.

 

As to whether people want to use them at exhibitions and at home,  that is entirely their choice, the same with fitting lamps etc etc. . Everybody has different standards, otherwise we all become robots.

 

There are a lot of reason why people would run them , it is pointless listing them as its already been covered . Most people who go to shows are not experts, they go to enjoy themselves nothing more or less. I have been to shows, where Locos derail at the first set of points they come too, so a old V2 is about right for those layouts anyway !!. The only shows were most of the viewers are serious enthusiasts (perhaps) if even then I have no idea, I would imagine are those who are seen at Finescale P4 and EM shows . Never been to one, as none are near to where I live.

 

Tender drives simply mentioned, as they were I presumed , were still being at made at the same time, as when the V2 was introduced . It is not important either way.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Mick

 

Talking of V3's this is one of Bachmann's, not personally building kit locomotives this is perfectly acceptable to me as a layout locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

[Chas Levin]

On 24/06/2020 at 08:42, Jesse Sim said:

My second attempt at painting teak has worked wonders, I think, Using Mike Trice’ methods. 
 

I think another light coat and some weathering she’ll turn out alright. 

 

Hello Jesse, may I ask whose kit that is please?

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Chas Levin

[polybear]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

Smiths did screw-link and three-link couplings. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Are these of any use - the price is certainly attractive.

 

https://accurascale.co.uk/collections/couplers/products/screw-link-couplings-pack-of-8

 

HTH

Brian

 

edit: Link added (did it disappear?)

 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by polybear

[Chas Levin]

On 24/06/2020 at 12:21, Tony Wright said:

The Mike Trice V2 is all but finished now (apart from building the tender when it arrives).

 

I think a Comet chassis is the best way to go with this..................

 

 

I think I need to adjust the ride height at the front end, lowering it just a twitch (only discovered by taking a picture). The cylinder height is adjustable.

 

 

Thanks once again to Mike Trice and Andrew Hartsthorne for such excellent products. 

 

 

 

 

What a totally gorgeous looking loco! 

 

Mike has done an excellent job with the casting and you have done an excellent job with the chassis and the rest of the assembly Tony, but seeing it like that I have to admire Gresley's original design too: it's so beautiful...

 

Although it's very high on my wishlist, I had pretty much dropped a V2 from my to-build schedule in light of the expected Bachmann re-issue (I saw your running trials on a BRM DVD a while back). There are so many things to build that I'm certain will never appear in RTR form (and I don't yet build as quickly as some on here!) that it seemed like a reasonable choice, but with the future so uncertain and this option available, I'm wondering whether I might have been a bit hasty...

[Barry O]

7 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Are these of any use - the price is certainly attractive.

HTH

Brian

seem to work on the loads of wagons I have fitted for use on Carlisle. Just gets a bit repetitive putting them together.

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

What a totally gorgeous looking loco! 

 

Mike has done an excellent job with the casting and you have done an excellent job with the chassis and the rest of the assembly Tony, but seeing it like that I have to admire Gresley's original design too: it's so beautiful...

 

Although it's very high on my wishlist, I had pretty much dropped a V2 from my to-build schedule in light of the expected Bachmann re-issue (I saw your running trials on a BRM DVD a while back). There are so many things to build that I'm certain will never appear in RTR form (and I don't yet build as quickly as some on here!) that it seemed like a reasonable choice, but with the future so uncertain and this option available, I'm wondering whether I might have been a bit hasty...

Thanks Chas,

 

I don't think you've been hasty, just pragmatic.

 

If you're capable of building a Comet chassis (as I'm sure you are), why not take the Trice/Comet route for a V2? I haven't done any sums (Mike very kindly gave me the V2 body to assess), but if he sells them for around £60.00, plus all the bits necessary from Comet/Markits, the overall price will probably still be less than that for the forthcoming Bachmann new RTR V2. A tender will be needed, of course, but I've seen so many dud Bachmann V2s and B1s around, that they can be picked up very cheaply. They might even be available as spares.

 

Granted, the new Bachmann V2 will be fully-painted, and it will be an exceptional model. However, when will it arrive? And, when it does, in the forthcoming (grim!) economic climate, how much will it actually cost? 

 

I don't have the answers. All I would say is that you'll have a unique model when it's finished if you take the Trice/Comet route; something you'll have personally-made. In that regard, it'll be 'priceless'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. I've already ordered a further Comet V2 chassis to go underneath the next one! 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, landscapes said:

Hi Mick

 

Talking of V3's this is one of Bachmann's, not personally building kit locomotives this is perfectly acceptable to me as a layout locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

A perfectly acceptable layout loco, David.

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

I take it it has the later (and far, far superior) chassis?

 

It's very nicely-weathered. Your work?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Atso]

On 24/06/2020 at 12:21, Tony Wright said:

The Mike Trice V2 is all but finished now (apart from building the tender when it arrives).

 

I think a Comet chassis is the best way to go with this..................

 

 

I think I need to adjust the ride height at the front end, lowering it just a twitch (only discovered by taking a picture). The cylinder height is adjustable.

 

 

Thanks once again to Mike Trice and Andrew Hartsthorne for such excellent products. 

 

 

 

 

What a stunning locomotive Tony and far superior to the current Bachmann offering. I see that Mr Trice has set a high bar for when I get around to doing an N gauge version to replace my rather dated Farish offerings.

 

I've been busy with my C1s finishing offer the lining on 3286 and 4435 (wobby boiler lining behind the dome of 4436 has be replaced now) as well as starting to finally add the last details to 4452.

 

 

It is nice to see a few of these locomotives taking shape now although Hadley Wood will eventually require six of seven representatives to work the various services planned.

[landscapes]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A perfectly acceptable layout loco, David.

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

I take it it has the later (and far, far superior) chassis?

 

It's very nicely-weathered. Your work?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony

 

thank you for your kind comments, I do believe this is Bachmann's latest version of the V3.

 

Yes I did weather it but I still need to do the chassis and wheels.

 

Regards

 

David

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Hello Jesse, may I ask whose kit that is please?

 

Hi Chas

Its the D&S ECJS brake. I have a part built one I acquired a couple of months ago to finish shortly.

Andrew

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mick,

 

I agree that the Romford screw-link couplings are too big (though not 'about three times overscale'), but they are very robust.

 

I've had too many of the others fall apart in use to ever bother with them again. 

 

I also agree that the Hornby 'dummy' ones are excellent; ideal for fitting on the fronts of locos which only work one way - big engines, etc.

 

Bachmann also does a decent screw-link coupling.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Nobody's mentioned PC. I don't know how good they would be functionally but I've used them cosmetically and I think they look good (yes. I know you can't get them anymore).

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Barry O said:

there was a song sung at York Show which Tony may remember as part of the "Music Man"  it included the words "counting rivets, counting rivets, one, two , three, four , five.....! making a reference to someone modelling in the track gauge as noted by this page number.. things have changed..for the better!

 

Baz

...and Rupert the Bear.

[Erichill16]

Just a quick question to everyone if I may. Can you/do you need to use decal softener with ‘Methfix’ transfer?
Regards

Robert.