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

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Plenty of Scottish 2Ps kept capuchons well into the BR period - here's one with the second BR crest.

 

40663_03.jpg.49e6ae1b6ca53d03244d11451bb0b622.jpg

 

(Not my copyright - will remove if requested).

 

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

It would seem several 2Ps in Scotland kept their capuchons. 

 

My 'research', of course, was too parochial. Over the last hour or two I've scoured my books for English 2Ps still with capuchons in BR days. I can find none.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started the first of my 'post-lockdown' locos, a DJH 8F.

 

79844679_8F02.jpg.25e0591c7bfaadcc8c95f09f971bd3f7.jpg

 

It really is a beautifully-smooth runner, largely due to the latest DJH motor/gearbox combo which fits snugly between the frames. This one is the smaller one, the AM10, though it's got more than enough power for this application.

 

The only mods so far have been to fit pick-up pads (I heartily dislike the 'American' system of loco-tender pick-ups - recommended by DJH - though I know others have had success with it). 

 

I also dislike articulated 'rods, so these have been soldered together as rigid. 

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/07/2020 at 08:53, Tony Wright said:

But, I wish I had adopted EM when I had the chance all those years ago. If seen from the side, Bytham's scenic-side trackwork could easily be mistaken for EM. However, when I photograph trains in tight perspective the 'narrow gauge' is evident. I think it's really more on a philosophical level in a way. I'm not RTR-dependent, so, having chosen to make most of what I run, why not make it more realistic at source?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

Tony,

 

Had you adopted EM would this choice have prevented LB fitting into the space you have available?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 

 

Tony,

 

Had you adopted EM would this choice have prevented LB fitting into the space you have available?

 

 

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/07/2020 at 11:57, Hawin Dooiey said:

Very much been enjoying the V2 discussion. The Mike Trice body looks superb, just look how far 3D printing has come.

 

Speaking of V2s, this BFI footage maybe of interest that I'm currently watching. Some lovely footage of V2s in Scotland, in particular this shot of one on coal empties at 2 minutes 48 seconds (plus at 3 minutes 44, a Peppercorn A2 in rather nice condition on a fitted).

There is also some lovely variety of colour wagon stock @jwealleans

 

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-great-north-of-scotland-railway-films-1963-online?fbclid=IwAR3OY3fAw1w8VXsVj5EIo-R7DkkLIo3GfmuLp0ynVg8dGgUVmhJ5tmdnZww

 

Finally got round to watching this and as others have said, fabulous stuff! Thank you Hawin for posting :).

 

Can anyone tell me what we're looking at with the coaching stock in BR Maroon in the double-headed train that appears at about 24 minutes? There are what look like some very vintage clerestory stock - including twelve wheelers - all looking as if they've only just emerged form the paint shop...

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? 

 

Hi Tony,

3ft is fine in EM.  The wheel standards are common to both OO fine scale and EM and it is these that govern how effectively the wheels hold the track.  The side play on the rear pony truck may need controlling depending on the clearance between the frames but otherwise everything else is much the same as for OO.
Frank

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

Tony,

If I may, I'd like to add my thoughts about the "it can be done," though from a much younger point of view (meaning I grew up with Thomas & Friends and one (maybe two) railway series book, Thomas the Tank Engine, fittingly enough). For the longest time, I wanted to recreate what I had seen in the show, which meant I felt I would need dozens of locomotives to achieve what I wanted, however, being a kid, I had never actually been able to afford all of them.

Over the last year, I figured out all of the different errors on my Bachmann Thomas, and upon discovering RMweb, I felt encouraged to set about correcting them. Now I'm pretty much at the point where I've decided I'll scratchbuild him to a length to suit the Comet Terrier chassis (which, once I'm paid, I should be able to afford that and the other pieces necessary to make a well running (hopefully) chassis. I intend to make it as realistic as possible (though following Reginald Payne's illustrations for length, rather than the E2's real length, hence the Terrier chassis).

However, the point I really wanted to bring up was that I am only on my first locomotive, and after that, I haven't any idea what I'll do. I'm only 18, but I feel as though one locomotive is enough at this point. I am going to scratchbuild and build some kits of wagons and coaches, but other than that and a branchline style layout I think I'll be satisfied. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people seem to need to collect hundreds of locos and other things to feel like the hobby is fulfilling, but I now feel like a few well-detailed and realistic (other than faces (on real engines too)) engines and a single track line (whether specifically a real place or not is to be determined) done as realistically as possible in the pre-grouping or early grouping period would be quite fulfilling to me. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's possible to fulfill a dream in the hobby at any point, of course allowing time to learn and to build everything.

Sorry that that ended up so rambly and with a ton of parenthesis, but I hope that makes some sense.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 


Thank you. So whilst possible in EM the end result wouldn't have enabled the easy access that makes the design really viable in terms of your needs for photography and on going maintenance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

 

It may just be possible in P4, Dave Bradwell reckons his 9F chassis in P4 can go round a 3' curve although probably not at a scale 100mph :)

 

John

 

Edited by johndon
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Finally got round to watching this and as others have said, fabulous stuff! Thank you Hawin for posting :).

 

Can anyone tell me what we're looking at with the coaching stock in BR Maroon in the double-headed train that appears at about 24 minutes? There are what look like some very vintage clerestory stock - including twelve wheelers - all looking as if they've only just emerged form the paint shop...

 

Good evening Chas,

 

it's the LMS Royal train, in LMS Crimson lake not BR maroon.

Edited by Headstock
Add livery details.
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I don't think that you would have had as large, or as popular an impact on the Hobby as an EM gauge modeler.

Edited by Headstock
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Good advice.  I've met so many people through my life who were always complaining that they couldn't afford this or that, not had a pay rise for years, taxes in this country are ridiculous etc., but were never apparently short of cash when paying for beer or ciggies.  The cost of both through a lifetime can be eye-watering. 

Or the latest mobile phone.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Good advice.  I've met so many people through my life who were always complaining that they couldn't afford this or that, not had a pay rise for years, taxes in this country are ridiculous etc., but were never apparently short of cash when paying for beer or ciggies.  The cost of both through a lifetime can be eye-watering. 

 

I am of the age of supercar posters on bedroom walls. I had two posters a Countach and a Deltic.

 

Us non smokers worked out the smokers were going to burn more than the cost of an Italian Supercar with their habit.

 

My money went on my bike, trains (model and real), live bands and records (NWOBHM), the rest wasted. I was late to cars but 80mpg at 80mph* bikes were cheap to run.

 

* Achieved on the middle section of NYMR to Gloucester.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

So, what else might I 'advise'? In my case marry a totally-supportive wife. Some wives I know are not just disinterested in their husband's hobbies, but are openly hostile, begrudging every penny spent. My advice there is to get another wife! However, from my experience (looking at some friends), divorce will mean one will only have space for an ironing board-sized layout! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

I have a Sue, she has her hobbies and we both tend to have creative ones.

 

And she did not moan when I blew £150 on Hornby HST trailers.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Good advice.  I've met so many people through my life who were always complaining that they couldn't afford this or that, not had a pay rise for years, taxes in this country are ridiculous etc., but were never apparently short of cash when paying for beer or ciggies.  The cost of both through a lifetime can be eye-watering. 

As I've mentioned before, when I went to University I couldn't afford to smoke, drink, drive a car and go out with women, so I gave up smoking...

  • Like 2
  • Funny 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Another factor would be the extra 10% on the length of points, which would lose length in the fiddle yard.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, St Enodoc said:

Same thing?

Not according to a chap David Jenkinson overheard in the National Railway Museum. The chap stated the Compound in LMS Crimson Lake looked better than the Western painted in BR Maroon.  According to David Jenkinson both were painted at the same time using paint from the same batch.  The colour was supposed to be the same from the days of Johnson on the MR until the last coach was painted by BR.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Not according to a chap David Jenkinson overheard in the National Railway Museum. The chap stated the Compound in LMS Crimson Lake looked better than the Western painted in BR Maroon.  According to David Jenkinson both were painted at the same time using paint from the same batch.  The colour was supposed to be the same from the days of Johnson on the MR until the last coach was painted by BR.

There was correspondence in the RM on this years ago. The conclusion was that the colour was the same but not necessarily the preparation, undercoating, finishing and so on.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Not according to a chap David Jenkinson overheard in the National Railway Museum. The chap stated the Compound in LMS Crimson Lake looked better than the Western painted in BR Maroon.  According to David Jenkinson both were painted at the same time using paint from the same batch.  The colour was supposed to be the same from the days of Johnson on the MR until the last coach was painted by BR.

 

The compound does look better than the Western in the same paint (if it is so), there is nothing controversial about that. I think that it is a myth that they were both painted at the same time.

 

17 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Same thing?

 

I have no idea, but it is not  just about the main colour of a livery, LMS crimson lake had beautifully elegant lining and lettering. BR maroon is definitely el chepo, bargain basement, fifties Britain in comparison.

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

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

As I've mentioned before, when I went to University I couldn't afford to smoke, drink, drive a car and go out with women, so I gave up smoking...

 

Same here, but like many of my fellow male students I decided to carry on smoking, drinking, driving a car and going out with women and give up looking at bank statements instead.  Not long after that, there followed an agonisingly extended lesson in how long it takes and how hard it can be to get yourself back out of the hole again.  I did, thank goodness, learn from the experience.

 

Meanwhile, the girls we knew went into huddles with worried expressions to commiserate with each other that they only had a hundred or so pounds left out of their student grants by the end of term.  We lads just couldn't work out how they did it.  A perfect example of 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus', I think.  

 

Pete T.

 

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

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Just to add my tuppence worth. For a 6, 8 or 10 coupled, all flanged wheels  loco, minimum radius has to do with first, the outside running clearance of the wheel flanges between the rails and second with the amount of free sideways movement of the centre wheels relative to the end wheels. It's not a function of the gauge per se, but obviously 00 has more side clearance than EM (and 00 Fine), which in turn have more side clearance  than P4.  However less side clearance can be completely overcome by extra center wheel side play if the model can accommodate it.

 

The bigger restriction to side play on many UK model locomotives in EM and P4 is the modelling of splashers and various other body aspects which block other than minimal side movement. Similar body constraints can apply for 4 axle bogie vehicles if the bogie swivel angle is limited, otherwise they will actually happily round 8 inch  radius curves at speed.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDkzhsIbeuY

 

My little demo above has p:87 wheels running in P4 flange ways at 16.5 mm gauge

 

Andy

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

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Same thing?

 

I very much doubt it. But not impossible.

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

The compound does look better than the Western in the same paint (if it is so), there is nothing controversial about that. I think that it is a myth that they were both painted at the same time.

 

 

I have no idea, but it is not  just about the main colour of a livery, LMS crimson lake had beautifully elegant lining and lettering. BR maroon is definitely el chepo, bargain basement, fifties Britain in comparison.

Jenkinson is not quoted as saying that the Compound and Western were painted at the same time, just that it was the same batch of paint.

 

Especially while indoors in a museum, the red on the relatively flat sides of the Western would look different to the red on the round shape of the loco boiler. The tender colour should, of course, therefore look like the Western but our mind shows us what we "know": i.e. the tender is the same colour as the loco.

 

There is no doubt that crimson changes according to the undercoat beneath. Crewe used grey, Derby used brown. As it happens, the decorator I am using here put a very dark blue-grey as undercoat on the woodwork in the bar area and the first coat of maroon is looking quite a bit darker than I was expecting.

 

The other big difference between LMS and BR days would be the number of coats of varnish used.

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

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tim,

 

Possibly, yes. 

 

I'll explain. In order to be able to photograph the railway from both sides, the main line runs along an 'off-centre' spine of the footprint, which means I can get to both sides of it for photography or for work to be done. This restricts the minimum radius on the out-of-sight 180 degree end curves to 3'. May I ask those in the know, is this a practical minimum radius for an EM Gauge Pacific? It certainly is for OO. Of course, with each successive radiating running line, that radius increases by about 3" each time, to give a minimum radius of 4' on the Down slow. 

 

Interestingly, when WMRC built Stoke Summit, in order to get as many fiddle yard roads in as possible, the minimum end radius went as low as 2' 6". This resulted in some locos being restricted to only working Down trains (none of mine, I hasten to add!). It had a slightly amusing consequence (amusing to me) when several of those locos were sold on to a friend whose layout had radii down to 2' 6" (even tighter). I wasn't present at the sale, being ill. However, my amusement was tempered with the realisation that I had eventually to modify a couple of these locos in order that they'd negotiate my friend's layout curves. He was puzzled why they'd run so well on Stoke, but jammed on his layout. 

 

Had I just used all the width of Bytham's footprint, then 5' radius curves would have been easy. Which, in a way, says 'Yes. it could be done in EM in 32' x 12''. However, certainly not in P4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

You're getting some mixed answers on this question about minimum radius for EM but it is complicated. Minimum radius on Carlisle is 3'6" (although I was originally told it was 4') and I can get anything round that without much compromise but the most difficult locos are 4-6-2s with frames outside the trailing pony truck - i.e. all the ones you wanted. It's possible to get round this to some extent by using the DJH method of shoving the frames out a foot or so but we were prevented from doing this by having to make Carlisle's platforms the scale distance from the track (forced on us by a cock up in the design of the track at the south end of the station). Locos without this trailing truck arrangement mostly present no problems, in fact the vast majority of my production in EM (and most in P4) will happily go round my vicious 28" reverse curve test track - this includes Britannias and 9Fs incidentally, they have no trouble on curves.

Like you I wish I had changed to EM many years ago but large layouts and lots of stock make this an unlikely prospect now. Changing the pointwork to 16.2mm (EM -2mm) has made  a big difference in running and appearance though.WP_20190217_12_37_01_Pro.jpg.067584a3edf1b7efb5d7ce227773500b.jpg

This is 00 gauge (new Peco bullhead plain track) on Wentworth Junction with 16.2mm gauge through the crossings, the narrower flangeways make it look much better and the running is just about perfect. Photos looking directly along the track will still look narrow gauge but at this angle it's not easy to tell the difference. 

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Not according to a chap David Jenkinson overheard in the National Railway Museum. The chap stated the Compound in LMS Crimson Lake looked better than the Western painted in BR Maroon.  According to David Jenkinson both were painted at the same time using paint from the same batch.  The colour was supposed to be the same from the days of Johnson on the MR until the last coach was painted by BR.

My understanding was that the paint was supplied by Masons and they supplied it over a very long period.

They made some excellent paints and were particularly good for old transport colours. I used their paints at work on specific jobs.Totally OT. Something about painting canal barges comes to mind as another use of their material.

Bernard 

  • Agree 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...