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

54 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Contagious indeed, David,

 

And why not? In this case Mike Trice V2 contagion is a good thing. 

 

Can one have too many V2s for an ECML steam-age depiction? 

 

I've got over a dozen (not counting the new ones), and probably need more. But, he-ho, with Little Bytham effectively completed now, what else do I use my modelling time for? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The quick answer is no you can never have enough. I'm with you all the way. I've still got 5 split-chassis V2s (bought when I didnt know better) with no sign of them falling apart. And I'll  replace the bodies with Mike's in due course. When the chassis collapse replace with comet. The branchlines chassis is almost done but not easy as I'd hoped.

Which running numbers will they be?

Edited by davidw
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That's the paradox, Stewart,

 

For me, the most enjoyable thing in this hobby is actually making things. Though I do enjoy running my trainset (one word, please - 'train set' describes what I had from Tri-ang as a kid), I derive little pleasure from it by running it by myself. However, I do get a real 'buzz' from operating it with friends/visitors, but Lockdown has meant nothing of that. 

 

As soon as I've finished a model, it's thoroughly-tested (at all stages of its build), then it's off to make the next one.

 

Is this some kind of ' creative syndrome'? I'm very aware that my faculties are not what they were. Though my eyesight is still good, older-age floaters do make me squint at things more than before. Luckily, my hands are still dead-steady and are not afflicted by crippling conditions. That said, the tendency to drop things increases almost daily! And, forgetting where I've put things down (after only using them seconds before!) is now of epidemic proportions!

 

What I'm trying to say is that my future time is naturally limited (I'm an immediate post-War baby boomer) and unless I build as much as I can, while I still can, my family is going to have to find new homes for masses of kits at my demise! 

 

Some folk get great pleasure out of buying RTR models, or have models made for them; then running them. That's not me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I wouldn't argue with any of that but I would add another category. There a a few of us who enjoy both aspects and like operating a layout running what we have built. Certainly a minority but I know a few. Both Buckingham and Narrow Road are very much layouts designed for intricate and complex operating but both have a tiny number of RTR items (nothing at all straight out of the box) and certainly nothing that we have commissioned from others.

 

So you don't have to be a builder or an operator, you can be both.

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

And, in the spirit of friendly debate, did I detect the characteristic 'wobble' to the tender in motion caused by its traction tyres? And also that characteristic 'whirring'? 

 

 

 

Tony. 

 

Guilty on both charges, m'lud.

 

The traction tyres are overdue for replacement, so (since they were slipping) I just dabbed a bit of cyano between them and the wheel tread and hoped for the best, but I think I added to the wobble.

 

As for the whirring, I'm not sure why some Hornby tender drives are noisier than others. I've a Duchess unit from 1979 that is virtually silent, and starts/tops with very little

cogging. I must admit I wasn't bothered by the whirring back in my earlier modelling days because every other loco on my layout made a racket, whether it was grindy

Hornbys, squealy Mainlines or grumbly Limas. The first time I saw a model move along without making noise (or nearly none) I was amazed such a thing was possible.

 

Al

Edited by Barry Ten
  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Atso said:

 

Thanks Geoff. There really are a lot of lines for LNER green livery, but not as many as for some of the pre grouping liveries! The red lining needs a little tidying up in places - it's actually Humbrol 20 and not red at all. I've also just noticed that the front frame of 3286 isn't lined so I'll have to correct that tomorrow... Your current batch of commission looks to be coming along nicely.

 

I'm intrigued, just what noises are you inflicting on these folk???

At one stage I was borrowing a CD from my brother to see if I could get into it. It did rather sound like a record that had got stuck. I will have to ask what it actually was.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Case for the defense, sir?

 

I'm not saying this 9F runs as well as it would with a Comet chassis, but at the time I did the detailing on it, building such a thing was far beyond my skills. In fact, I've

still never built anything longer than a six-coupled chassis. The model is a Margate-era Hornby 9F with the 3-pole tender drive. I swapped the wheels and valve

gear for the finer, Chinese-era varieties at relatively low cost, and they were an easy fit. The rest of the work involved lowering the body and adding Comet detailing

parts, again relatively inexpensive. The brake gear and some additional details around the valve gear and cab were scratch built for the cost of materials. Pickups

were added to all eight flanged drivers and then wired through to the tender with a two-pin plug. As a "legacy" model I'm still happy to run it.

 

Presented in a spirit of friendly debate.

 

Al

I'd be very pleased with that, Al.  I'd be interested in how you lowered the body, the old Hornby 9Fs do "ride high".

One minor niggle - 92006 should have a single chimney.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, davidw said:

The quick answer is no you can never have enough. I'm with you all the way. I've still got 5 split-chassis V2s (bought when I didnt know better) with no sign of them falling apart. And I'll  replace the bodies with Mike's in due course. When the chassis collapse replace with comet. The branchlines chassis is almost done but not easy as I'd hoped.

Which running numbers will they be?

Good afternoon David,

 

The first one (the one already completed) will be 60828. 

 

The one I'm just building will be 60845 (seen by me at Retford in 1958). One thing it won't have is the copper-capped chimney, fitted when the loco was on test at Swindon!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I wouldn't argue with any of that but I would add another category. There a a few of us who enjoy both aspects and like operating a layout running what we have built. Certainly a minority but I know a few. Both Buckingham and Narrow Road are very much layouts designed for intricate and complex operating but both have a tiny number of RTR items (nothing at all straight out of the box) and certainly nothing that we have commissioned from others.

 

So you don't have to be a builder or an operator, you can be both.

 

'So you don't have to be a builder or an operator, you can be both.'

 

I'm sure one can, Tony.

 

My problem is I can only do one thing at a time, and that not always very well - especially operating. 

 

I've mentioned this (several times) before, but model railway operation doesn't really interest me. I've always been of the view that one should do what one's good at (or least-worst at, in my case), and operating a model railway has never been on my 'good at' list. I don't concentrate you see. That's why, whenever the likes of Stoke Summit or Charwelton were at shows, where would I be? Outside the layouts at one end - wind-bagging! See, doing what I was good at! 

 

It was not my intention to be 'disparaging' about RTR (most of LB's Mk.1 cars are modified Bachmann ones), nor about those who commission models. In the latter case, the commissioners probably can't build things for themselves, anyway, and derive their pleasure from operating their 'possessions'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I'd be very pleased with that, Al.  I'd be interested in how you lowered the body, the old Hornby 9Fs do "ride high".

One minor niggle - 92006 should have a single chimney.

'92006 should have a single chimney.'

 

Not when it moved from the Western Region - perhaps even before. It had a double chimney when it was on the S&D in 1961. 

 

It was one of a few of the earlier builds which were retro-fitted with double chimneys.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

I'd be very pleased with that, Al.  I'd be interested in how you lowered the body, the old Hornby 9Fs do "ride high".

One minor niggle - 92006 should have a single chimney.

 

I seem to remember filing away a bit of the chassis casting at the front, eliminating the locating lugs, and it looks

as if I altered the cab floor to help it sit lower at the rear. It was done about 15 years ago so that's all I  remember,

unfortunately. At the time the Bachmann model hadn't been announced so I saw this as the easiest way to get

a not-terrible 9F. The identify was indeed chosen to match 92006 during its time on the S&D.

 

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

I've been reading the debate on the Bachman split chassis V.2 & Hornby tender drive with interest .

 I have four early V.2's which all still run very well ( smooth & quiet even at a crawl ) & , having been modified with new dome , Cartazzi truck etc. I feel make good layout locos despite their faults . Money comes into the equation as well & I cannot justify £200 plus for the new model when it appears .

   Regarding Hornby tender drive , I find that adding extra weight in the tender transforms the running from skittish to controlled even at slow speeds . The noise level is extremely variable so it is a matter of luck , but again , layout loco's it would be difficult to replace due to time & money restraints .

  For the record no. 92006 received a double chimney during a lengthy general at Swindon from 23/2/60 to 21/9/60 according to the Book of the9.F's .

            Ray . 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My own contribution to the 'lockdown modelling' that everyone has been sharing. Aside from building etched wagon kits to practice my soldering, i've also been building some plastic kits for engineers wagons over the past few months. The Catfish and Mermaid are Cambrian kits and the two Grampus are the Parkside kit that has been modified to represent the morton brake version used on the London Midland Region. The mermaid bodies have not been glued on yet for ease of painting.

 

Quite a few have had their axleboxes replaced with cast ones to give more prototypical variation to the fleet. The Catfish in particular seems to have been built with at least four different types of axleboxes through their lifespan. Next up is a Dave Bradwell 13Ton hopper kit which looks like a well designed, but finicky, kit.

 

Daniel

20200630_174107.jpg

  • Like 17
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'92006 should have a single chimney.'

 

Not when it moved from the Western Region - perhaps even before. It had a double chimney when it was on the S&D in 1961. 

 

It was one of a few of the earlier builds which were retro-fitted with double chimneys.

 

1 hour ago, Ray Flintoft said:

For the record no. 92006 received a double chimney during a lengthy general at Swindon from 23/2/60 to 21/9/60 according to the Book of the9.F's .

 

Thank you for the polite correction Gents, that serves me right for only consulting the 1959 ABC - I didn't know the earlier 9Fs were rebuilt with D/Cs.

 

You learn every day on Wright Writes....

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

1 hour ago, polybear said:

Mention was made earlier of the Branchlines V2 loco chassis kit.  I was wondering how it compares with the Comet offering?

Thanks

Brian

 

 

Good evening Brian,

 

The basic frames, etc., are comparable in terms of accuracy (the Branchlines one might even have the correct-depth frames). The valve gear is of equal quality, but beware the crossheads/slidebars. 

 

When I built one to go under a Nu-Cast V2 (writing about it in BRM), they were flung across the workshop in frustration! They were replaced with Comet or Jamieson substitutes (I can't remember exactly which now). Making them as supplied was way beyond my skills.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to tender drives if I may?

I have an original Hornby B17, tender drive. Many years ago I did a Crownline conversion on it to make the rebuilt B2 version. The tender body is whitemetal. That loco is quiet, and controllable at very low speeds - I use a homebuilt PWM controller, built to a circuit in Wireless World back in 1972. It matches the present day RTR mechanisms.

I also have another B17 that I purchased as soon as Hornby produced them. That is not quite as good as the B2, I put the better performance of the latter down to the heavy tender body.

 

Stewart

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Cracking action shot of 60501 Tony

 

I loved that photo when Tony posted it before.  I think it's the best portrait of a Thompson pacific I've seen in a long time. 

 

Pete T.

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

Coming back to the V2 debate, I understand that the Bachmann version has a lack of slope down on top of the firebox and a small dome, but I don’t really understand the ‘porcine’ comments and I’m surprised that there is not more mention of the Nucast version which I think is a pretty respectable model - no doubt someone will now explain what’s wrong with it! It has the major advantage of being white metal and therefore nice and heavy.
 

Personally I have seven V2s in working order with a Jamieson/ comet one on the way and a Nucast one unstarted, so I don’t really need any more but will probably be tempted into a Bachmann one if and when it drops to a more sensible price. Here are my seven.

EBAF4DF8-C512-4DFE-89A5-3C0F417D8903.jpeg.ed60e1edda0e65812c6a6eef0c595ab4.jpeg

60869: Nucast on quite an old chassis and Romford Bulldog motor. Bought off eBay and repaired/ detailed. Runs smoothly and pulls well but with some noise.

 

4EDCCF99-227F-4E88-AFD9-7B0660C8DEB6.jpeg.f656bd47585ea96de49672262fb27dbf.jpeg

60850: Bachmann with newer chassis renumbered and weathered by me. Runs smoothly now I’ve added tender pick ups and pulls reasonably well, but not as well as the Nucast versions.
 

E31E460E-E907-4EF1-92B1-C4D20058FC42.jpeg.ee7f92a54d0a1687dda891490dfb2f78.jpeg

Pride of the fleet my namesake, 60835, The Green Howard. Sold to me by Tony on a visit when I spent far too much! Runs beautifully if a little slow and pulls anything thrown at it.

 

A7FA7AF6-D12A-416F-AD1A-BBE02935CDA6.jpeg.8c86c7a975fb7b0e842afb0213baea69.jpeg

60862: old Bachmann body on Comet chassis. Bought like this from eBay for ~£50. Will be weathered in due course, but I’m inclined to live with the body. 
FDCD332D-74DD-46EE-AFFA-94E630D2F204.jpeg.3f57e1966927a3ada9f0c809d46e8e20.jpeg

60814: Nucast With Portescap. Bought off eBay and renumbered/ minor detailing. Lovely smooth runner and will pull well.

3B382108-8064-44A2-8A4A-FF249AB61EF0.jpeg.bab3e7ca71866ff912601cc3b9873ffc.jpeg

4830: Nucast with Portescap. Bought like this second hand from a toy and hobby fair. Runs well and will probably stay in LNER livery for pulling some of my ‘fun’ trains. The paint and lining need touching up first though.
FA228290-56F6-4F96-9A7B-E1A449A7FDA3.jpeg.4c4cc369cbb18d8d2e97a511e785dbd0.jpeg

4831: Nucast nicely built but sadly painted in a really horrible lurid green (Ironically very neatly). I bought this from Tony for a very reasonable price - I think because he couldn’t stand the colour!  As well as painting, It will need re-motoring as it has a live motor which is not ‘DCCable’. This is a shame as it is the best runner and puller that I have - it can manage a scale 200mph on 30 coaches if one so wishes!

 

Mike’s resin version looks superb, as did Graeme King’s before, but they’re not going to be cost effective compared with the new Bachmann one, let alone compared with a second hand Nucast example. It’s amazing how quickly the costs add up on this sort of build, but to add to the body, one would need a Comet chassis (~£40), wheels ( ~£50), motor gearbox (£30-£70 depending on approach) plus lots of brass bits (handrail knobs, buffers etc.) not to mention a tender and paint. Obviously one has the fun/ satisfaction of building it, but it’s going to come in at well over £200 unless one has the luxury of a well equipped spares box. I can see it being a good option to replace a Bachmann body if one is so inclined, but personally I’d rather use a Nucast body for the weight.
 

Mike, I hope you’ll forgive this post. I don’t mean to cause any offence as I think your V2 body really looks the business. It sounds like you have more orders than you can handle easily anyway! I’m really just trying to understand what’s wrong with the Nucast version and why people have ignored it in the debate.

 

All the best

 

Andy

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've been asked for comments on the appropriate thread about Hornby's forthcoming RTR A2/2s.

 

I've included the following pictures to illustrate the differences among a class of only six......................

 

1308218880_60505THANEOFFIFEonlayout.jpg.06014b3a9cbb66866f794a7537195678.jpg

 

330413522_60505THANEOFFIFE.jpg.bdf4b9110fdfd5d612f9fb9b2a939f87.jpg

 

60506.jpg.1065f25dd676f68fe6cca71050f6492c.jpg

 

1337781237_A22s02.jpg.4a9245722518e021eb1600611eae3850.jpg

 

1445056598_COCKOTHENORTHpanning.jpg.355cfc3a461a61d217a3c1630cb746ae.jpg

 

A2_2_60502.jpg.5529be1eff452478e565555973b04d2f.jpg

 

 

 

 

Plus the LNER as built variations. None of the Hornby version are any good for the original Locos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, micklner said:

Plus the LNER as built variations. None of the Hornby version are any good for the original Locos.

'None of the Hornby version are any good for the original Locos'.

 

Good morning Mick, 

 

The reason why none of the original A2/2s was considered by Hornby is down to costs - nothing more. 

 

When the A2/3 was first-mooted, I was asked about the A2/2s; 'How much commonality was there between the two classes? '. A simple question and a simple answer. 'You can model the four latterly fitted with a Thompson (one) or Peppercorn (four) boiler with relative ease. If you choose to do the class as original, or the pair which retained the original shortened P2 boilers to withdrawal, then it'll need a new smokebox/boiler/firebox moulding, an new footplate moulding, plus a different cab. Granted, the A2/2 and A2/3 cabs differ substantially, but the extra cost for the other parts would have been prohibitive. It's for the same reason that DJH didn't ever offer the original A2/2 option.  

 

Apart from the need to produce a riveted tender (for the A2/3), the A3-style tender (for 60501) and A4-style tender (for 60505) were already in Hornby's range. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...