Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, MJI said:

 

The 47 on sleepers and those DMUs are so evocative.

 

 

 

Sorry to do this. My attempts at humour seldom work but.....

 

The 47 is clearly on rails, not sleepers.

[Barry O]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Thanks for bringing back some more memories, Wigan Wallgate was the first proper layout I built, exhibited a few times at the Leeds show in the 1970s - that iron bridge, or at least some of it, was on the layout.

as it happens I found some of the platform buildings in a box recently. Having been used on the Leeds MRS version of Dewsbury Midland and Wallgate they may now end up on Barnbow East!

 

Yes Wallgate was interesting to operate.. Especially after the control panels had been covered in snow --removing the track diagram in the process. The switches worked but it used a lot of guesswork

 

Baz

[Erichill16]

24 minutes ago, Barry O said:

 

 

Yes Wallgate was interesting to operate.. Especially after the control panels had been covered in snow --removing the track diagram in the process. The switches worked but it used a lot of guesswork

 

Baz

I remember exhibiting at Bradford Wool Exchange, and whilst unloading on Friday evening something white dropped from the sky. It wasn’t snow and it didn’t half make a mess on the layout.

Robert

[gr.king]

3 hours ago, grob1234 said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I was wondering why is it that you solder the articulated coupling rods? Do you do this for all 3+ axle locos?

 

Also, what might be the reason that I get a slight knocking coming back through the gearbox and into the motor, resulting in the armature moving forward and aft? Yet when the loco is run without the coupling rod, it is smooth. Clearly an issue with the coupling rod? But... too slack or too tight? I notitce RTR valve gear seems quite slack, surprisingly so.

 

Many thanks as always (I do take notes I promise, it just takes a while for it all to sink in! )

 

 

Depending on the motor design, you might also have the option of preventing armature movement by positioning the worm gear itself, or an additional fixed collar on the armature shaft, in such a position that the longitudinal free movement of the shaft is all-but eliminated (with washers between the rotating worm or collar and the motor frame for reasonable engineering practice of course). You may be lucky enough to cure any slight hesitations in the loco's movements that way, without having to increase crankpin to rod clearances. I've found that was all that it took on one or two occasions. It stops one possible source of knocking / rattling / vibration too.

[zr2498]

Hi Tony

I was pleased to see an old friend ('the bridge') in BRM this month.

Dave

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, zr2498 said:

Hi Tony

I was pleased to see an old friend ('the bridge') in BRM this month.

Dave

Thanks once again Dave,

 

I think it's the first time it's appeared in print. It really does finish the layout off.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

 

Depending on the motor design, you might also have the option of preventing armature movement by positioning the worm gear itself, or an additional fixed collar on the armature shaft, in such a position that the longitudinal free movement of the shaft is all-but eliminated (with washers between the rotating worm or collar and the motor frame for reasonable engineering practice of course). You may be lucky enough to cure any slight hesitations in the loco's movements that way, without having to increase crankpin to rod clearances. I've found that was all that it took on one or two occasions. It stops one possible source of knocking / rattling / vibration too.

I think they're called thrust washers, Graeme.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Willie Whizz]

On 15/07/2020 at 14:31, robertcwp said:

Regarding A3s on the GC, was this one a poor performer or just filling in on a local?

60050_Denham_1951 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

 

 

My word, this thread moves on fast!

 

60050 was Persimmon, shedded at Neasden.  She couldn't have been that bad as she lasted on the GC from 1949 to Q2 of 1956 according to my notes.  The ones that were sent back whence they came in very short order were from Leicester Central - 60053 Sansovino and 60090 Grand Parade, both of which lasted only a few months at the beginning of 1949. Blink Bonny (as shown to us in model form) was another Neasden engine, and if indeed originally "iffy" was put right sufficiently to last there till the end of 1953.

 

The A3s on the GC are curious in another respect; some seem to be pictured far more commonly in books about the line than others.  I haven't gone back through my library to prove the point but I think I've only seen two or three published pictures of Galtee More at work here, if that, yet she lasted from 1949 right through to 1957.  Likewise Melton (1953-6) and Doncaster (1949-53) seem pretty uncommon in print.

[Barry Ten]

Some further progress on my rake of LSWR corridor coaches, from the Roxey Mouldings kits:

 

 

I was originally just going to do these three, but now I'd like to add the matching brake to complete the set.

 

Al

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I think they're called thrust washers, Graeme.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Those are the words that would not come to mind earlier today. Thanks.

[grob1234]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tom,

 

I always make rigid rods, though with one exception - if the loco is ten-coupled. With 'stiff' rods a 9F can struggle on the tightest curves.

 

In the case of the 8F illustrated, as supplied you have (effectively) an 0-6-0 being driven off its rear axle and an 0-4-0 driven off its front. In my experience, the nearer to the centre for the drive is best. Thus, by soldering both rods together (each side), I ended up with an 0-8-0 driving off one of its inner axles (I added the pony later). I tried it as supplied, but got a knock; which disappeared completely once the rods were rigid. A cocktail stick through the bearing holes ensured accuracy while soldering took place.

 

I know real steam locos had articulated rods, and that they were fully-sprung. Many will advocate such practice in making their models, but the dynamics will never scale. As long as one observes the following, then excellent running is readily achieved.

 

1. Rigid chassis should be jig-assembled and perfectly square.

 

2. When the drivers are on for testing, there should be no twist in the frames and there be no rock when placed on mirror glass (if the jig has done its job properly, then this shouldn't happen, but experience has shown me that occasionally a 'tweak' between fingers and thumbs is necessary. Not much, just a titch if necessary). 

 

3. All axles should revolve freely in their bearings (before oiling). The drive should be free as well, especially when its placed in the frames. I'll often ream the driven bearings and the gearbox when they're together. 

 

4. All rods on a rigid chassis should be rigid themselves (with the possible exception of a ten-coupled). There should be sufficient clearance in the crankpin bearings so that there is never any binding at '3 o'clock' or '9 o'clock', both sides. I've seen some compensated/sprung chassis where there is so much 'slop', it's impossible to tell where binding is taking place. In fact, there's so much slop that the locos behave as if they're running on trackwork made of jelly! 

 

5. Of course, it's axiomatic that all baseboards supporting trackwork should be flat and all track-laying should be as flat as possible. If 'compensation' is required, I'd ask the question 'What is one compensating for?'. If it's for poor baseboards/trackwork, then cure the 'illness', not just treat the symptoms. 

 

My list applies to making chassis in OO and EM (never having built anything in P4 - not skilled enough), though the point about decent baseboards and decent track is universal. 

 

It's also axiomatic that the layout wiring is adequate and well done, and that all locos have enough pick-ups.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thank you very much Tony. I think I managed to check most of your points off.

 

Its more of a problem when its on my rolling road. With the body on and on track its very smooth. Why am I asking then?! Well I'm a perfectionist, and I assumed there must be a reason that the loco behaves differently when on a rolling road.

 

I wonder, is there a fool proof way of soldering the coupling rods up perfectly straight?

 

6 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Tom,

 

Faced with that, I'd try slackening the grubscrew so the motor is out of mesh and pushing the chassis backwards and forward very lightly to see where (if) it jams.  When it does, see which rods are tight and if possible on which crankpins.  Take the tiniest amount out of those holes and repeat.  If pushing the chassis from one end doesn't produce a jam, try pushing the driven set of wheels instead.  It's then just test - ream - repeat until you have smooth running.

 

I did this, and I couldn't find any binding. My rtr models dont do this so there must be something there. But with the body on and on the track its lovely.

 

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

 

Depending on the motor design, you might also have the option of preventing armature movement by positioning the worm gear itself, or an additional fixed collar on the armature shaft, in such a position that the longitudinal free movement of the shaft is all-but eliminated (with washers between the rotating worm or collar and the motor frame for reasonable engineering practice of course). You may be lucky enough to cure any slight hesitations in the loco's movements that way, without having to increase crankpin to rod clearances. I've found that was all that it took on one or two occasions. It stops one possible source of knocking / rattling / vibration too.

 

I tried this too, I moved the flywheel super close to the motor body, and theres no knocking now. Physics would tell me that the energy is just going somewhere else though!

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

My word, this thread moves on fast!

 

60050 was Persimmon, shedded at Neasden.  She couldn't have been that bad as she lasted on the GC from 1949 to Q2 of 1956 according to my notes.  The ones that were sent back whence they came in very short order were from Leicester Central - 60053 Sansovino and 60090 Grand Parade, both of which lasted only a few months at the beginning of 1949. Blink Bonny (as shown to us in model form) was another Neasden engine, and if indeed originally "iffy" was put right sufficiently to last there till the end of 1953.

 

The A3s on the GC are curious in another respect; some seem to be pictured far more commonly in books about the line than others.  I haven't gone back through my library to prove the point but I think I've only seen two or three published pictures of Galtee More at work here, if that, yet she lasted from 1949 right through to 1957.  Likewise Melton (1953-6) and Doncaster (1949-53) seem pretty uncommon in print.

 

Good evening Willie,

 

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from published photos in books, it may just reflect author bias. There is usually a photograph of everything if you look in the right places, some subjects get used over and over again in books and other subjects not at all. For example there are plenty of photographs of Galtee More when the locomotive was a regular engine on tha Master Cutler in 56. However, authors tend to favour earlier years when featuring the the train. I have plenty of images of Doncaster in 49, as it is a locomotive of my era. Some of these are on services north of Leicester. There are good  photographs of A3's north of Leicester but authors don't tend to use them, preferring locations to the south.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Headstock

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

I remember exhibiting at Bradford Wool Exchange, and whilst unloading on Friday evening something white dropped from the sky. It wasn’t snow and it didn’t half make a mess on the layout.

Robert

The same thing happened more than once inside Leeds Corn Exchange. The resulting deposit confused many operators as it looked just like an uncoupling magnet marker.

Edited July 16, 2020 by St Enodoc

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, grob1234 said:

 

Thank you very much Tony. I think I managed to check most of your points off.

 

Its more of a problem when its on my rolling road. With the body on and on track its very smooth. Why am I asking then?! Well I'm a perfectionist, and I assumed there must be a reason that the loco behaves differently when on a rolling road.

 

I wonder, is there a fool proof way of soldering the coupling rods up perfectly straight?

 

 

I did this, and I couldn't find any binding. My rtr models dont do this so there must be something there. But with the body on and on the track its lovely.

 

 

I tried this too, I moved the flywheel super close to the motor body, and theres no knocking now. Physics would tell me that the energy is just going somewhere else though!

Good morning Tom,

 

'I wonder, is there a fool proof way of soldering the coupling rods up perfectly straight?'

 

Once the rods have been prepared (in some cases, sweated together as laminates) check that all the bosses are exactly the same size. By that I mean, check that any etched fixing pips have been removed and that all the bosses have exactly the same distance between the centre of their bearings and their bases. When happy, place a cocktail stick (or sticks) in the bosses which are to be soldered together, and then rest the whole assembly, upright, on a flat piece of wood (mine's a beech mitre block, with a true planed surface. By upright, I mean as if the rods were on the loco. If all the bosses are in line, then the rods will be truly horizontal. When happy, solder them together, avoiding too much solder contamination of the bearing surfaces. 

 

Of course, one will find an example where the big end boss is greater in diameter. If that's the case, a little packing underneath the outer bosses might be necessary. 

 

Anyway, if it's only a twitch out, judicious finger pressure does the trick.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, grob1234 said:

 

Thank you very much Tony. I think I managed to check most of your points off.

 

Its more of a problem when its on my rolling road. With the body on and on track its very smooth. Why am I asking then?! Well I'm a perfectionist, and I assumed there must be a reason that the loco behaves differently when on a rolling road.

 

I wonder, is there a fool proof way of soldering the coupling rods up perfectly straight?

 

 

I did this, and I couldn't find any binding. My rtr models dont do this so there must be something there. But with the body on and on the track its lovely.

 

 

I tried this too, I moved the flywheel super close to the motor body, and theres no knocking now. Physics would tell me that the energy is just going somewhere else though!

Me again, Tom,

 

I really should read all of a post before responding. 

 

'Its more of a problem when its on my rolling road. With the body on and on track its very smooth. Why am I asking then?! Well I'm a perfectionist, and I assumed there must be a reason that the loco behaves differently when on a rolling road.'

 

At least your 'dilemma' is the right way round. I've seen many chassis which perform faultlessly on a rolling road, only to then behave like lame dogs when on a layout. 

 

There is a prototype precedence, of course. When 2001 was on test at Vitry in France under Bulleid's supervision, she ran hot on the rollers. Yet ran perfectly out on the road.

 

Having the body on (in my case heavy bodies), invariably 'irons out' any slight tight spots. I stress 'slight'. By that, I mean barely discernible. Perhaps it's to do with inertia, but since I'm not a physicist, I don't know. Of course, one never gets anything for nothing; the body helps with stable running, often at the expense of increased mechanical noise. 

 

There's no harm in being a perfectionist, or at least striving for perfection. I try for the latter, but pragmatism means it's impossible for me to achieve it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[MJI]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks once again Dave,

 

I think it's the first time it's appeared in print. It really does finish the layout off.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

That articles subject reminded me of the excellent wagon articles in I THINK MRC in late 70s or early 80s.

 

All of my 16T minerals are Airfix based and vac braked, some are MCV (8 shoe) some are MXV (4 shoe).

 

They were fun to modify.

Edited July 17, 2020 by MJI

[Erichill16]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The same thing happened more than once inside Leeds Corn Exchange. The resulting deposit confused many operators as it looked just like an uncoupling magnet marker.

Oh no, there was no mistaking what was on my layout!

[gr.king]

23 hours ago, grob1234 said:

I did this, and I couldn't find any binding. My rtr models dont do this so there must be something there. But with the body on and on the track its lovely.

 

I tried this too, I moved the flywheel super close to the motor body, and theres no knocking now. Physics would tell me that the energy is just going somewhere else though!

 

I agree that the energy has to be going elsewhere and that it can be frustrating if no specific cause of an anomaly can be found, but if the evidence of the anomaly can be eliminated and there's no sign of the applied measures causing trouble in other ways, that imperfect solution is better than nothing. Do mechanical systems in any case have to be so perfectly balanced that all components can be left free floating and yet show no sign of wanting to move in undesirable ways? Without restraint, gears wouldn't stay in mesh and motors would move about rather than  staying put and  driving the intended components.

 

As a suggestion, you could either bench-rest the loco for a while, or use it in disregard of the current remaining doubt, and see how long it is until more pressing problems have so thoroughly occupied your mind that you can't really remember this particular "fault"....

Edited July 17, 2020 by gr.king
Inserted missing word

[Dunsignalling]

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 21:11, chris p bacon said:

 

I Use that material at work and it needs a lot of fixings to keep it in place. Even 20mm thick will sag over short lengths. 

I used the L-section (about 150x50mm, and 8mm thick) to replace the horrible hardboard pelmet over a pair of sliding doors at home. It's of sufficient length (over 8') that the hardboard one couldn't be of one piece. The angle rests on the original softwood top, which I retained, so has stayed straight (it's been up about 4 years).

 

I'd think it would make a nice tidy baseboard frontage so long as it's not expected to do much structurally.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

On ‎15‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 15:21, MJI said:

Enginemen seem to like the BR 5MT, but I think it is this type of locomotive which has produced some of the best, very few duff ones.

 

These are all well respected.

Hall

Black 5

B1

5MT

 

Even the Diesel equivalent is one of the best with the 37.

There were, admittedly, only three basic designs (eventually classes 33, 35, 37), but BR's Type 3 diesels all seemed to be pretty good, even the hydraulic ones.....

 

John

[LNER4479]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tom,

 

'I wonder, is there a fool proof way of soldering the coupling rods up perfectly straight?'

 

Once the rods have been prepared (in some cases, sweated together as laminates) check that all the bosses are exactly the same size. By that I mean, check that any etched fixing pips have been removed and that all the bosses have exactly the same distance between the centre of their bearings and their bases. When happy, place a cocktail stick (or sticks) in the bosses which are to be soldered together, and then rest the whole assembly, upright, on a flat piece of wood (mine's a beech mitre block, with a true planed surface. By upright, I mean as if the rods were on the loco. If all the bosses are in line, then the rods will be truly horizontal. When happy, solder them together, avoiding too much solder contamination of the bearing surfaces. 

 

Of course, one will find an example where the big end boss is greater in diameter. If that's the case, a little packing underneath the outer bosses might be necessary. 

 

Anyway, if it's only a twitch out, judicious finger pressure does the trick.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

A Poppy's Jig can also be used to get coupling rods perfectly straight (and - of course - with their centres correctly aligned with the axle spacings on the frames).

[LNER4479]

On 15/07/2020 at 14:20, Legend said:

 

I hadn't made the link . I've written here before about my love of Hanbury, I think it was in a thread about layouts you remember . I still have the article and it stood out because of its descriptions of operations . Hanbury and Oakstown I think . I also liked it because I felt it was something I could achieve with Superquick Buildings, Hornby overall roof , Hornby Dublo Locos and Coaches . The whole thing just blended together . Loved that layout .  I also kept a copy of the Strathmore Route in Model Rail, again because of the atmosphere it created but also the operation . Indeed I went out and bought the Model Rail dvd which had the layout in it purely for that layout . I never knew it was the same person who did both but it figures because clearly there is synergy! Please pass on my thanks to your Dad . I already had the railway bug , that was because of my Parents who took me day trips and fed my hobby . However your Dads layouts have been an inspiration since 1983.  Will now look forward to Aberdeen.  Love these layouts and in particular the operation of them.

 

My own layout is a roundy roundy and I do occasionally just watch the trains go past . However it was built with notions of Hanbury so that I can have trains leave three terminal platforms , go round the layout several times stopping in the 3 through lines , where occasional trains reverse , with others continuing to an outer loop were there is another station . Mine is called Manorbridge (after a 1973 article in MRC my first model railway mag)  and Kyleakin , just because I like the name!  It was built with operation in mind , but also to capture the atmosphere of layouts like Hanbury

 

Many thanks - I will pass on those comments - and apologies for not acknowledging before now.

 

Below a few pictures of Aberdeen. Overwhelmingly, it represents Aberdeen rather than replicates Aberdeen, my Dad's usual style. But, as I say, still run to a 24 hour timetable, as per the second picture. The clock is stopped and started using a simple switch which connects to one of the battery terminals. The passenger trains are as per the 1955 timetable.

 

The piece de resistance is the 36 lever, fully interlocked Modratec lever frame. It is 100% mechanical, not only the frame but also the physical connection to all the points and signals. You can see an element of the latter is the last picture which is a gantry in the Aberdeen style what I knocked together, together with the installation of the signalling as my contribution to the project.

 

Tony is always very gracious about folks posting on his thread but much more on this and I'm at risk of thread hijack, particularly as the conversation has - inevitably - moved on.

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by LNER4479

[t-b-g]

That looks like the sort of layout I could sit and enjoy operating for many a long hour.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

I remember the Hanbury article in RM, with these prompts. although I'd forgotten the name of the layout. Unfortunately I had a big clear-out of my RM back-issues prior to about 2000 as they were just taking up too much room. I liked the concept of the layout very much and I think I can see how it's reiterated in the Aberdeen one.

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Many thanks - I will pass on those comments - and apologies for not acknowledging before now.

 

Below a few pictures of Aberdeen. Overwhelmingly, it represents Aberdeen rather than replicates Aberdeen, my Dad's usual style. But, as I say, still run to a 24 hour timetable, as per the second picture. The clock is stopped and started using a simple switch which connects to one of the battery terminals. The passenger trains are as per the 1955 timetable.

 

The piece de resistance is the 36 lever, fully interlocked Modratec lever frame. It is 100% mechanical, not only the frame but also the physical connection to all the points and signals. You can see an element of the latter is the last picture which is a gantry in the Aberdeen style what I knocked together, together with the installation of the signalling as my contribution to the project.

 

Tony is always very gracious about folks posting on his thread but much more on this and I'm at risk of thread hijack, particularly as the conversation has - inevitably - moved on.

 

 

 

Good evening Graham,

 

I don't believe any thread can be 'hijacked' if what's shown is is interesting and inspirational modelling.

 

Do my eyes deceive me, but is that a Hornby-Dublo tinplate ex-LMS brake in the middle picture? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.