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

This NuCast G5 was a "Lockdown" project. It has the whtemetal chassis filed out to take a Highlevel gearbox/Mashima motor. The brakes were fitted in what I assumed was the usual way -  holes drilled and wire soldered in place to fit the brakes. I added a touch of epoxy as a sort of "belt and braces. I wanted to fit the distinctive outside brake rods - the kit would look very bare without them.  I also spent a fair bit of time adding cab interior despite, as the photo shows, it is largely invisible.

 

Edit - I also, on this kit, cut off the rear of the chassis block to help getting the weight on the front end, and fitted dummy rear frames to the loco body to replace the chassis part - this went into the front of the boiler.

 

If I pick up an old kit with a whitemetal chassis, I tend to try to get it to work. It doesn't always, as todays failure with a NuCast J27proves.

IMG_20200706_211638.jpg

IMG_20200706_211752.jpg

Edited by rowanj
Added info
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theakerr said:

I have sometimes thought about getting a camera primarily for the Model Railway but end up being frustrated by the multitude of reviews each one saying they are the best thing since sliced bread.  Would it be appropriate to discuss this on this thread rather than start a new thread?  The reason I ask is that this thread appears to attract a lot of like minded individuals so any response could be focused and short.

I don't mind a discussion on cameras (I assume you mean still?) on here. 

 

It's been mentioned before, but the various models are always changing. 

 

I certainly don't mind explaining how I get the results I manage to. 

 

Two examples, both in B&W because I think it's more redolent of the time. 

 

1955622899_Dollgelley02.jpg.ba5ca9bad20567990155a3755689963e.jpg

 

1229730317_Hall691101.jpg.90d633a23474eaab3000169ac3d21bf5.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 05/07/2020 at 09:42, Tony Wright said:

I suppose yesterday represented (at least in part) a tentative 'end of lockdown'. This set my thoughts on to what have I 'achieved' since restrictions were imposed towards the end of March. 

 

It would seem that many modellers have used the time to their advantage, building all sorts of things. Traders (supplying by mail order, of course) have told me they've never been busier, especially those providing stuff which has to be made.

 

So, what have I got show for my efforts during the last three months?

 

Terrific effort Tony: efficient use of time is always a pleasure to me and it's great to know that some good has come out of the pandemic. We're very lucky we have such a rewarding hobby and one that can be done at home (with, as you say, some mail order help!).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Barry O said:

IStrangely my Nucast Q6 chassis is fine - it is fitted with an MW005 motor which devours electricity but can pull a house down!

 

Baz

 

It may be able to pull a house down but don't put it alongside  the RTR Q6. You may then realise that it is a Q5 with a bigger boiler. The latter is 6mm short and the underframe is 4mm short. 

If you are happy with it, fine. I assume the dimensions have never been corrected. I couldn't live with mine and I disposed of it.

 

ArthurK

 

 

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

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Not Pittmans?

The Pittman is not the same, John,

 

All those I illustrated (and the Romford 'Bulldog') fit into a chassis in exactly the same way; that is by a pair of lugs at the front of the motor frame engaging into slots in the chassis, with a single fixing point at the rear to take an 8BA screw, adjustment for meshing being obtained by washers underneath this. They're all adaptations of the original Tri-ang X04 motor. 

 

No Pittman motor has the same fixing arrangements. 

 

ECM made a bracket to fit to its motors so that they could be substituted for the X04-style. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The Pittman is not the same, John,

 

All those I illustrated (and the Romford 'Bulldog') fit into a chassis in exactly the same way; that is by a pair of lugs at the front of the motor frame engaging into slots in the chassis, with a single fixing point at the rear to take an 8BA screw, adjustment for meshing being obtained by washers underneath this. They're all adaptations of the original Tri-ang X04 motor. 

 

No Pittman motor has the same fixing arrangements. 

 

ECM made a bracket to fit to its motors so that they could be substituted for the X04-style. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Fair enough. I thought you were referring to open-frame motors generally.

 

I've still got a couple of Airfix 5-poles running around and I used to have some 5-pole X04 conversions that I got from our mutual friend Bob in Stafford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My A3 runs an Airfix 5 pole.

 

I do need to finish the tender lining.

 

Boiler has daylight now.

 

And wire handrails.

 

Yes the old Triang Hornby model as the preserved one.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My K's Garratt was only ever ablevto pull a train after I chopped the base out of the rotary coal bunker and installed an MW5 to assist the appalling K's thing under the front water tank.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Andrew,

 

What do you chaps do when you're no getting white metal lumps for chassis to run; perfectly?

 

Celebrate your birthday on December the 25th?

Turn water into wine?

Raise the dead?

Walk on water?

Resurrect yourselves?

Or perform any other miracles?

 

I can do none of these things, especially getting white metal lumps to work!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Bob Wills seemed to be a master at producing cast chassis that were accurate and matched the coupling rods. I've still got a few locos running on those chassis, complete with various open frame motors. 

They will eventually be replaced, mainly to improve the detail,  but they are still excellent performers.

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

I've had a couple of locos - Q1 and J6 - which had the cast whitemetal chassis blocks.  Both ran very well (do you recall testing the J6 for me at Doncaster the first year you came back there, Tony?) but neither would go round corners.   The J6 had no sideplay whatsoever and the Q1 was hampered by the rigid loco to tender coupling.  Both ended up with replacement sets of frames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Bob Wills seemed to be a master at producing cast chassis that were accurate and matched the coupling rods. I've still got a few locos running on those chassis, complete with various open frame motors. 

They will eventually be replaced, mainly to improve the detail,  but they are still excellent performers.

I think the main differences between Wills' cast metal chassis and Nu-Cast ones were that the former had brass bearings at source and they were much lighter.

 

Significantly, when Dave Ellis took over the old Wills' range (becoming South Eastern Finecast) he made it a priority to replace the original cast chassis with etched equivalents.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

1 minute ago, jwealleans said:

I've had a couple of locos - Q1 and J6 - which had the cast whitemetal chassis blocks.  Both ran very well (do you recall testing the J6 for me at Doncaster the first year you came back there, Tony?) but neither would go round corners.   The J6 had no sideplay whatsoever and the Q1 was hampered by the rigid loco to tender coupling.  Both ended up with replacement sets of frames.

The memory fades, Jonathan.............

 

I admit, I have seen some locos with white metal 'lump' chassis which run well, but they've always defeated me.

 

1959757722_castmetalV2chassis.jpg.8cc03ffbc3062260cfa8b02291b7f7ce.jpg

 

I just can't see something like this providing an auspicious start to building a fast, powerful and sweet-running loco. 

 

This is for a Nu-Cast V2. I didn't even attempt to make this go - note how one frame for holding the motor is bent, and the rear bearing hole doesn't match the centre of the protruding section for it in the frames. 

 

1479736397_V260905chassis.jpg.2fd1e5ecd726171e4970a8ee813ce15d.jpg

 

I just scratch-built a replacement in brass, using the kit's motion parts. It originally had an X04-style open-framed motor, but the racket this produced prompted me to fit a much more-modern DJH/Mashima combo about 20 years ago. You can make out the Plastikard 'cheeks', latterly-installed to cover the original triangular cut-outs in the frames to accommodate the open-framed motor. 

 

The brakes are cast metal items (from where, I have no idea), soldered (not glued!!!!) to the frames after the wheels were on. 

 

The way to go now for me is a Comet set of V2 frames...........

 

1482608990_KingV202.jpg.c4d67afe339f0d8c5eb60b83d19d56ea.jpg

 

1635967954_KingV206.jpg.1073b83bd3759845561e75cc5458d18d.jpg

 

This one went under one of Graeme King's resin bodies.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone was asking about cameras yesterday.................

 

1820294510_NikonDf.jpg.f8a9e173c8302d3b4e5388feda63950b.jpg

 

This is the one I use mainly for layout photography, a Nikon Df. The 18-35 lens is most-useful on the front, enabling me (at F29) to get enormous depth of field. 

 

I also use a Nikon 60mm Micro lens as well, which stops down even smaller. 

 

What does something like this cost these days? Does anyone know? I've had the camera/lens for quite some time, buying them second-hand for around £2,000.00.

 

I consider this to be the best camera by miles for taking model railway shots. The Nikon D3 I have is used mainly for studio shots. 

 

The mysteries of 'stacking' will forever remain; mysteries!  

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the Little Bytham cast metal chassis I lied about yesterday.

 

66418317_KsHP2M.jpg.2579a50da8603e92789fb65f988c129e.jpg

 

It goes underneath the old Millholme 2P, and is powered by a K's HP2M motor, driving (I assume?) K's gears. 

 

Despite my getting it to go, it's not good enough, so I've ordered a set of 2P frames from Comet this morning. I'll put a decent motor/gearbox in the new chassis.

 

Though I know it's hard to believe, I have witnessed a loco powered/running on nothing but K's mechanical components. It was a J3, operating beautifully during the LB 1938 LNER weekend two years ago. 

 

228770312_Trainsrunning38J3.jpg.c4257424bb9b7cd32537da1a6df1bca2.jpg

 

998100078_Trainsrunning39J3.jpg.e2501a3769892d0328a63636366d22ca.jpg

 

551154981_Trainsrunning40J3.jpg.8270602b897dc9164aafbe001cc65a87.jpg

 

I don't know whether Graeme King built it, but it's his property. One can tell they're K's drivers by the screw slot in the axle ends. Whether it's got an HP2M in it or a K's Mk.2 I don't know. Perhaps Graeme will confirm.

 

Apart from a slight wobble (inevitable with K's drivers) it ran superbly. 

 

Has anyone else achieved this with K's mechanical components? 

 

Its train is worthy of mention as well.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Clem said:

And to add insult to injury, I've just noticed the tender has a wobble as well... (sigh!)

 

This is the price we pay for when things go well.

 

I suppose if the hobby were easy all the time, it wouldn't be half as satisfying in the long run.

Edited by Barry Ten
typo
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Clem said:

Here's a very dark lockdown tale....

 

This is what I call frustrating. And I only have myself to blame. Closing in on completing a J39/1 with a Dave Bradwell chassis. It's quite an involved build and I find most of it fraught with possible pitfalls. But if it goes well, it can be a bit of a rolls royce of a chassis. It's designed for P4 really and in EM for a start it's a bit of a challenge getting the frames narrow enough using the technique in the instructions. Then there's the hornblocks. I find DB's hornblocks do work perfectly well but every time I've used them, I curse the fact that they're a bit of a nightmare to set up using the usual jig method. A dodge I've used is, for the setting up, turn them around in the horn. I did manage to it up on this chassis but retrieved it. Next you have the inside valve gear to manipulate. Again, achieved to my satisfaction. Finally the wheels added and tested for easy of motion. Motor and gearbox tested with rear wheel in... all appears OK. Finally I get to the stage of some trial running and here is the result....

 

 

 

As you can see, it has a distinct side to side 'waddle' (as I think Tony calls it). So is this the fault of the chassis or the springing? ..... No it's entirely my fault for not checking the concentricity of the rear wheels. grrrrr.

 

 

I find nothing more annoying than to near the end of a project, only to find you have to go back a few steps. However it would have been much easier to remedy if the brakes hadn't been fitted already.

 

As you can see (below) it's not a 5 minute chassis build and I do find it quite challenging. But then the thing you least expect comes up and bites you in the bum!

IMG_4980_rdcd.jpg.46c58436456cdaf61cb3cbf85888f709.jpg

 

Oh well. Only myself to blame!

 

At least you've found the problem with the loco Clem . And no outside valve gear to hinder things . 

That inside valve gear though is very impressive . I admire your patience and workmanship .

 

Roy .

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

This is for a Nu-Cast V2. I didn't even attempt to make this go - note how one frame for holding the motor is bent, and the rear bearing hole doesn't match the centre of the protruding section for it in the frames. 

 

1479736397_V260905chassis.jpg.2fd1e5ecd726171e4970a8ee813ce15d.jpg

 

I just scratch-built a replacement in brass, using the kit's motion parts. It originally had an X04-style open-framed motor, but the racket this produced prompted me to fit a much more-modern DJH/Mashima combo about 20 years ago. You can make out the Plastikard 'cheeks', latterly-installed to cover the original triangular cut-outs in the frames to accommodate the open-framed motor. 

 

The brakes are cast metal items (from where, I have no idea), soldered (not glued!!!!) to the frames after the wheels were on. 

 

Tony,

 

My glueing brakes on comment was somewhat flippant! Those cast items look just the business (given that drilling out a lumpen chassis for modern etched brakes would not be easy). I presume they would solder onto the white metal ‘lump’. Does anyone know a source of something similiar?

 

Andy

 

PS. I’ve enjoyed all the V2 shots. You have a fine fleet and they don’t always get as much attention as the Pacifics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Clem said:

Here's a very dark lockdown tale....

 

This is what I call frustrating. And I only have myself to blame. Closing in on completing a J39/1 with a Dave Bradwell chassis. It's quite an involved build and I find most of it fraught with possible pitfalls. But if it goes well, it can be a bit of a rolls royce of a chassis. It's designed for P4 really and in EM for a start it's a bit of a challenge getting the frames narrow enough using the technique in the instructions. Then there's the hornblocks. I find DB's hornblocks do work perfectly well but every time I've used them, I curse the fact that they're a bit of a nightmare to set up using the usual jig method. A dodge I've used is, for the setting up, turn them around in the horn. I did manage to it up on this chassis but retrieved it. Next you have the inside valve gear to manipulate. Again, achieved to my satisfaction. Finally the wheels added and tested for easy of motion. Motor and gearbox tested with rear wheel in... all appears OK. Finally I get to the stage of some trial running and here is the result....

 

 

 

As you can see, it has a distinct side to side 'waddle' (as I think Tony calls it). So is this the fault of the chassis or the springing? ..... No it's entirely my fault for not checking the concentricity of the rear wheels. grrrrr.

 

 

I find nothing more annoying than to near the end of a project, only to find you have to go back a few steps. However it would have been much easier to remedy if the brakes hadn't been fitted already.

 

As you can see (below) it's not a 5 minute chassis build and I do find it quite challenging. But then the thing you least expect comes up and bites you in the bum!

IMG_4980_rdcd.jpg.46c58436456cdaf61cb3cbf85888f709.jpg

 

Oh well. Only myself to blame!

 

Splendid work Clem,

 

Let down by 'poor' components. 

 

It's one of the reasons why I abhor friction-fit drivers. Though I can only claim to have tried them about five times (no more!), I've never had a set which runs truly. They're either eccentric (as displayed in your little video) or they don't go on to the axles dead at right angles. Those reasons, and then the tyres fall off, just for good measure! 

 

I know opinions have been expressed more-recently that folk have had difficulty getting Markits wheels on to their axles, though I have never experienced this. In fact, I've never had a Markits set of drivers which doesn't give 'perfect' running - no waddles, wobbles or willies at all! They work perfectly in EM as well.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Tony,

 

My glueing brakes on comment was somewhat flippant! Those cast items look just the business (given that drilling out a lumpen chassis for modern etched brakes would not be easy). I presume they would solder onto the white metal ‘lump’. Does anyone know a source of something similiar?

 

Andy

 

PS. I’ve enjoyed all the V2 shots. You have a fine fleet and they don’t always get as much attention as the Pacifics.

Thanks Andy,

 

The white metal brake blocks would solder perfectly to a white metal chassis. 

 

I wish I could remember where they came from, but it's nearly 30 years since I built that V2. 

 

They had a substantial 'backing' to them, giving the right distance from the frames (whatever the gauge used) when fixed in place. This was to ensure there was enough 'land' to solder to the frames, meaning I had to set them just a twitch further away from the treads than totally desirable. Certainly further away than, say, with etched brake blocks. That said, all brake blocks I set up have to be further away from the treads than scale; too much risk of short circuits otherwise.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's one of the reasons why I abhor friction-fit drivers. Though I can only claim to have tried them about five times (no more!), I've never had a set which runs truly. They're either eccentric (as displayed in your little video) or they don't go on to the axles dead at right angles. Those reasons, and then the tyres fall off, just for good measure! 

 

I know opinions have been expressed more-recently that folk have had difficulty getting Markits wheels on to their axles, though I have never experienced this. In fact, I've never had a Markits set of drivers which doesn't give 'perfect' running - no waddles, wobbles or willies at all! They work perfectly in EM as well.

Hi Tony. It's hard not to agree, particularly at the moment. To be honest, I often wish ultra scale (which I've found to be very reliable) were more readily available, but they have a lead time of 6-12 months. I have a set of Romford 20mm drivers which I use when doing a chassis as a general set up test to test for height and clearance at an early stage. I have found that you seem to need a little more room between these type of wheels (including Markits) and when trying them in this case, with these frames being wider than I would like, I could get them on but they wouldn't tighten up, otherwise I'd be looking to replace them now. The other point is that you get less clearance for outside valve gear with Markits due to the slightly wider wheel and the crankpins base a little proud too. But I agree about the reliability, and they also have the added advantage that you can dismantle and reassemble much easier. It sometimes feels like I've been grizzling about wheels for the last 40 years! :-)

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Clem said:

To be honest, I often wish ultra scale (which I've found to be very reliable) were more readily available, but they have a lead time of 6-12 months.


Hi Clem,

I recently ordered some wheels From Ultrascale for the test build of my J1 and they were delivered within 3 months.  Still a long time compared to other suppliers but given the rate at which I build models as long as I order them at the planning stage they always arrive before I actually need them.  Ultrascale are my first choice for wheels given their superb quality but because the range is more limited than that of other suppliers they don’t always have a suitable wheel for the prototype being modelled.

It might be worth trying them again next time you need some wheels.

Regards 

Frank

P.S. Usual disclaimers apply, just a very satisfied customer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:


Hi Clem,

I recently ordered some wheels From Ultrascale for the test build of my J1 and they were delivered within 3 months.  Still a long time compared to other suppliers but given the rate at which I build models as long as I order them at the planning stage they always arrive before I actually need them.  Ultrascale are my first choice for wheels given their superb quality but because the range is more limited than that of other suppliers they don’t always have a suitable wheel for the prototype being modelled.

It might be worth trying them again next time you need some wheels.

Regards 

Frank

P.S. Usual disclaimers apply, just a very satisfied customer.

Thanks Frank. I believe they do produce a 16 spoke, short crank throw 5'2" wheel suitable for both J39s and the GN 0-6-0s. I'll look into ordering some in as replacements for this one or to be used for the next one if I can cure this one satisfactorily with another Gibson.

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...