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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

 

 Thanks Tony,

 

It's that sort of wheeze that I was thinking about. Although I think that most of my problems come from the guard irons rather than the cylinders at the moment.

 

Having done a bit more research, I think lack of sideplay in the coupled wheels is also a problem. I have fitted my pick ups vertically up behind the drivers from a copper clad plate underneath. Once shrink wrapped for insulation they reduce the sideplay considerably but I didn't think this would be a problem on a four coupled loco. This was to avoid the spring detail which was ready fitted. Did you do your normal trick and lopp off the spring detail to allow horizontal pick ups?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Engineer said:

I apologise for diverting this live thread from its natural flow by going back to posts yesterday on BR 5MT models.  I recognised a number on one model and I think it's worth sharing a copy of an image [watermarked] that I believe is the prototype, 73069.  The orginal image is by my father on 29th July, 1961 using his Rolleiflex 3.5F.  He was taking a few pictures in the closing era of the Metroplitan's electric locomotives and he had just enough time to form a reasonable composition.  I was there, very small and with mother, probably sitting on the platform tailwall.  Years later he made a 20" x 16" print and it was a favourite, though his hobby tended to concentrate on architecture photography.  The print is one of my most treasured items.

1961 07 29 cal 73069 watermark.pdf 585.07 kB · 11 downloads

Other than riding the DMUs to school, I took little note of the main line trains until recently, as an adjunct to my ongoing research on the electric locomotives, now almost at their centenary.  Though slightly unclear in the image, the apparent number is consistent with shed allocations and other GC route pictures of the time - I am happy to withdraw if there's expert opinion that's different.  I'm minded to create a 4mm diorama to replicate the scene, but only once I've completed the Met loco research and done some overdue tram modelling!

 

73069 went on to become the last standard 5 in service and worked specials in the last few weeks of service

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

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

The filing-away can just be seen in the lower picture................

 

832153278_JesseSimcompleteC201.jpg.ceef898c02f3e726a0d5a76f38678a61.jpg

 

422888174_JesseSimcompleteC202.jpg.39583bdc311ba11fdffac76a9a0ce96f.jpg

 

Tony Gee is correct in that the top slidebars should be tucked in behind the valance (though they are just discernible on the real thing), but, having a white metal footplate, this loco doesn't really have a valance - it's full thickness. The cylinders do protrude above the front footplate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

The reason I mentioned it was that if it is the cylinders that are too low, it will add to the clearance problems with the bogie wheels. Raising the cylinders would give a bit more room for the wheels and correct a fault. It would need some possibly difficult modifications to the footplate over the cylinders and the smokebox saddle so I can understand if a modeller would rather leave it alone. It is the sort of fault that would niggle me until I did something about it.

 

If it is the footplate that is too high then the clearance problems won't be helped.

 

Looking at it in photos, I cannot tell which bit is adrift but the height of one or the other, perhaps both, is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Am I considered young as well? 
 

If so, then I’ve been scratchbuilding as well, although I haven’t progressed to coaches yet, I did scratchbuild three LNER dolphin wagons. Only one pictured here, but you get the gist. 

 

78602AA4-0652-4A2E-9D76-2F00F5106781.jpeg.02bdf8b89f2dd88687f16116819b45fb.jpeg
 

And I’ve started a scratchbuild P1, which will have it’s discrepancy’s  but will look the part. 
 

00C25057-93A5-4A89-9708-5473949D8692.jpeg.e47737382f8dbde17cb9c85fa3de85f4.jpeg

 

I think the way your progressing Jamie, you’ll over take me in no time. 

Thanks Jesse but I think you’ll surpass me in terms of quality, even if I overtake in quantity

 

Great work as always. I’m looking forward to seeing your P1 finished.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Splendid work, as always Jamie. Well done!

 

The A1 does interest me, and its typical of umpteen glued-together (often badly) DJH A1s I've come across.

 

In time (not long!), even though you think the paint finish is 'quite nice', you'll become dissatisfied with it. The things which will militate against it are the 'upright' cab with no rake-in at the top of the sides, the mismatch of the horizontal handrail on the boiler/firebox, the out-of-line handrail on the smokebox door, the too-low vacuum ejector pipe and the incorrect bend on the smoke deflectors (the nameplate's crest should not be bent over and not be behind the handrail. It looks to be the nameplate supplied by DJH; if so, it's too big). 

 

It simply won't be up to your rapidly-improving standards. May I suggest an overnight bath in Nitromors, taking it back to a kit again? Then you can build it 'properly'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

I’d noticed most of those faults, only the ejector pipe’s position had passed me by.

 

I hope to rebuild the engine one day although as it’s not suitable for my main time period (summer 1938), it’s not anywhere near the top of the roundtuit pile.

 

Regards,

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Looking at those DJH Atlantics, something didn't quite seem right, so I have had a look at the real thing and compared the two.

 

There seems to be a dimensional problem at the front end that spoils the look.

 

On the real thing, the top slidebar is invisible, hidden behind the valance. The top front curve of the cylinder is visible above the front footplate. Even allowing for a thick whitemetal footplate, are the cylinders too low or the footplate too high? It looks to be a fault in the kit rather than the assembly as it is the same on every one I have seen.

Tony (G) you are absolutely correct about the look of the DJH Atlantics. The issue is that they are significantly out in a number of dimensions, the look of the footplate and cylinder relationship is just the start. Basically because of the closeness of the driving wheels on the prototype, in order to be able to fit driving wheels close to the correct diameter (26mm instead of 26.7mm) the models have a driving wheelbase that is significantly too long. This has been translated into a number of other dimensions that are oversize. However, there is no consistency in this.

 

I built a DJH C2 nearly 20 years ago, knowing there were some issues but without identifying all the issues at the time, something I regret. I shortened the footplate by about 2mm, it's still 2mm too long. I also narrowed the footplate by 1.5mm by taking that out of the centreline. What I should have done in particular was to reduce the height of the tender frames and trailing wheel frames on the loco. They are at least 2mm too deep and hide too much of the wheels.  This is obvious actually when you look at how much space there is above the springs. The loco sits about 1-1.5mm too high as well at buffer height.  The boiler is also a bit oversize but that's more difficult to correct. These amounts don't sound very much but they are significant.

 

For many years I've had an unbuilt DJH C1, I'm not sure what I'll do with that as I have two of the C1s made by Bachmann for the NRM which are superb models. The main compromise Bachmann made is that the driving wheels are undersize but given the large splashers and the footsteps between the driving wheels its not that obvious.

 

I might use some of the DJH C1 to make C1 3279 or I might use some of an old dismantled Ks C1 I built in 1976 for that project?

 

Andrew

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony (G) you are absolutely correct about the look of the DJH Atlantics. The issue is that they are significantly out in a number of dimensions, the look of the footplate and cylinder relationship is just the start. Basically because of the closeness of the driving wheels on the prototype, in order to be able to fit driving wheels close to the correct diameter (26mm instead of 26.7mm) the models have a driving wheelbase that is significantly too long. This has been translated into a number of other dimensions that are oversize. However, there is no consistency in this.

 

I built a DJH C2 nearly 20 years ago, knowing there were some issues but without identifying all the issues at the time, something I regret. I shortened the footplate by about 2mm, it's still 2mm too long. I also narrowed the footplate by 1.5mm by taking that out of the centreline. What I should have done in particular was to reduce the height of the tender frames and trailing wheel frames on the loco. They are at least 2mm too deep and hide too much of the wheels.  This is obvious actually when you look at how much space there is above the springs. The loco sits about 1-1.5mm too high as well at buffer height.  The boiler is also a bit oversize but that's more difficult to correct. These amounts don't sound very much but they are significant.

 

For many years I've had an unbuilt DJH C1, I'm not sure what I'll do with that as I have two of the C1s made by Bachmann for the NRM which are superb models. The main compromise Bachmann made is that the driving wheels are undersize but given the large splashers and the footsteps between the driving wheels its not that obvious.

 

I might use some of the DJH C1 to make C1 3279 or I might use some of an old dismantled Ks C1 I built in 1976 for that project?

 

Andrew

 

I hadn't realised that they were out all over the place like that. Something just looked wrong and comparing with a photo of the real one, the cylinders were the first thing I spotted but they looked about right compared to the driving wheel centre. That being one datum point that should be the right height if the wheels are the right size.

 

By the time you had finished altering things, you must have been wondering if it was a wise move to build it but there is a great amount of satisfaction in taking a bad kit and making it better. Roy Jackson would have approved. He often said that all kits had faults and all modellers made mistakes (his language was a bit more colourful).  He reckoned that the difference between a modeller and a good modeller was in the effort they put in to correcting those faults.

 

Malcolm Crawley scratchbuilt 3279 many years ago. An unusual but very attractive one off rebuild.

 

Edit to add it was 3271 Malcolm built, with two inside cylinders. Memory let me down.

Edited by t-b-g
To correct detail
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

One other thing I should have mentioned was that I had to file a considerable amount off the inside of the cylinders, both at the front and the rear. Otherwise, even the finer bogie wheels fouled on curves. Bachmann, of course, got round this on their RTR C1 (which, give or take, shares the same chassis configuration) by fitting smaller bogie wheels. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony/Andrew,

You may have identified a further benefit of the approach I have taken to building my C1 chassis that I had not previously recognised.  I experienced no issues with bogies wheels fouling against the cylinders despite using the correct diameter wheels.  I think this must be due to the fact that unlike a bogie linked to a chassis by a bar, on my chassis the bogie has no fore or aft movement relative to the main frames.   

 

Another feature of the DJH kit which has been overcome  by Bachman  is that they have provided a rebate in the casting of the footplate to clear the top slide bar allowing the valance to partially obscure it.

IMG_2097.jpg.f1cd4a48f0993e0d9aeec4c78404331b.jpg

 

This photo of the prototype on display at Locomotion illustrates the relationship of the upper slide bar with the valance. 

 

SG101477.JPG.5cda51223900127cc0480826e2fbaecb.JPG

 

Andrew you were asking Tony about the need for side play on the front driven axle.  All I can say is that because of problems with clearances between the back of the foot steps and the connecting rods on my model I had to eliminate all side play on the driven axles.  Even so, as previously stated, my model happily negotiates 3ft curves so in my experience you won't need any side play.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Am I considered young as well? 
 

If so, then I’ve been scratchbuilding as well, although I haven’t progressed to coaches yet, I did scratchbuild three LNER dolphin wagons. Only one pictured here, but you get the gist. 

 

78602AA4-0652-4A2E-9D76-2F00F5106781.jpeg.02bdf8b89f2dd88687f16116819b45fb.jpeg
 

And I’ve started a scratchbuild P1, which will have it’s discrepancy’s  but will look the part. 
 

00C25057-93A5-4A89-9708-5473949D8692.jpeg.e47737382f8dbde17cb9c85fa3de85f4.jpeg

 

I think the way your progressing Jamie, you’ll over take me in no time. 

 

A little tip Jesse. If you are using the wheels as a temporary setting up aid, put the old Romfords at the front and the back and the newer Markits in the two middle positions. Otherwise the different flange sizes may make the model not sit level and tilt down at the front and it will also rock on the larger flange on the third axle. If the model sits down on the deck with different wheels, it will almost certainly not when you put all the same sort of wheels in.   

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

  • RMweb Premium
35 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony/Andrew,

You may have identified a further benefit of the approach I have taken to building my C1 chassis that I had not previously recognised.  I experienced no issues with bogies wheels fouling against the cylinders despite using the correct diameter wheels.  I think this must be due to the fact that unlike a bogie linked to a chassis by a bar, on my chassis the bogie has no fore or aft movement relative to the main frames.   

 

Another feature of the DJH kit which has been overcome  by Bachman  is that they have provided a rebate in the casting of the footplate to clear the top slide bar allowing the valance to partially obscure it.

IMG_2097.jpg.f1cd4a48f0993e0d9aeec4c78404331b.jpg

 

This photo of the prototype on display at Locomotion illustrates the relationship of the upper slide bar with the valance. 

 

SG101477.JPG.5cda51223900127cc0480826e2fbaecb.JPG

 

Andrew you were asking Tony about the need for side play on the front driven axle.  All I can say is that because of problems with clearances between the back of the foot steps and the connecting rods on my model I had to eliminate all side play on the driven axles.  Even so, as previously stated, my model happily negotiates 3ft curves so in my experience you won't need any side play.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

 

A cracking shot. Just look at the tiny gap between the wheel and the frame. No wonder we struggle sometimes. Looking at that nut on the top projecting bracket on the crosshead and there is a tiny nibble out of the bottom edge of the valance just above it and I wonder if one time it made contact.

 

Is it my imagination or does the valance come out towards the edge of the footplate near the cylinders, to allow the nut to go up behind the valance as the slidebars slope upwards? It looks curved rather than straight the way it catches the light.

 

The slidebar bracket goes all the way up the the footplate outside the valance too. Another fault on the DJH version.

Edited by t-b-g
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Looking at that nut on the top projecting bracket on the crosshead and there is a tiny nibble out of the bottom edge of the valance just above it

 

That would be to give clearance to undo it?

 

Mr. King and I have both built the DJH version for Grantham.  I didn't realise how over height they are until we tried to run one under Red Leader's built-to-scale-clearance bridges.

Edited by jwealleans
  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony/Andrew,

You may have identified a further benefit of the approach I have taken to building my C1 chassis that I had not previously recognised.  I experienced no issues with bogies wheels fouling against the cylinders despite using the correct diameter wheels.  I think this must be due to the fact that unlike a bogie linked to a chassis by a bar, on my chassis the bogie has no fore or aft movement relative to the main frames.   

 

Another feature of the DJH kit which has been overcome  by Bachman  is that they have provided a rebate in the casting of the footplate to clear the top slide bar allowing the valance to partially obscure it.

IMG_2097.jpg.f1cd4a48f0993e0d9aeec4c78404331b.jpg

 

This photo of the prototype on display at Locomotion illustrates the relationship of the upper slide bar with the valance. 

 

SG101477.JPG.5cda51223900127cc0480826e2fbaecb.JPG

 

Andrew you were asking Tony about the need for side play on the front driven axle.  All I can say is that because of problems with clearances between the back of the foot steps and the connecting rods on my model I had to eliminate all side play on the driven axles.  Even so, as previously stated, my model happily negotiates 3ft curves so in my experience you won't need any side play.

 

Regards,

 

Frank   

 

Good afternoon Frank,

 

very nice work but did these things actually run through Clayton? A B6 on the other hand ............................................

 

On bogie side control and its effects on the coupled wheels and chassis. I am of the opinion that only one in every hundred modelers grasps the concept. It seems counterintuitive to most, hence why many are quite happy to lop bits off and hack lumps out of the cylinders. With all that gubins out of the way, the unrestrained bogie can now perform like a jack knifed articulated lorry, the logical solution to smooth running is thus assured.

 

A bit more explanation of the principal may be helpful to quite a few.

Edited by Headstock
add comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Frank,

 

very nice work but did these things actually run through Clayton? A B6 on the other hand ............................................

 

On bogie side control and its effects on the coupled wheels and chassis. I am of the opinion that only one in every hundred modelers grasps the concept. It seems counterintuitive to most, hence why many are quite happy to lop bits off and hack lumps out of the cylinders. With all that gubins out of the way, the unrestrained bogie can now perform like a jack knifed articulated lorry, the logical solution to smooth running is thus assured.

 

A bit more explanation of the principal may be helpful to quite a few.

Ha ha, quite right Andrew, you’ve called me out.  The C1 is very much of the ‘rule one’ persuasion.  I’ll run it in the club rooms but not at exhibitions.  It’s just a very attractive prototype, and that’s coming from a GWR modeller.  That’s whyI’ve got an Immingham in my list of locomotives for Clayton.  
 

I completely agree with you with regards the potential benefits of side control.  I know of several who have tried and failed because they haven’t taken the time to understand the dynamics.  Of particular importance is the need for a side control wire to work below the centre line of the axle otherwise it has the negative effect of lifting the wheel on the outside of the curve increasing the risk of derailment.  Used properly side control will allow the bogie or pony truck to begin to steer the locomotive into a curve reducing both the tendency of the chassis to twitch as the leading driven wheel hits the curve at the same time  reducing the risk of buffer lock.  
 

Good to hear from you.

 

Frank
 

 

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

3 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Ha ha, quite right Andrew, you’ve called me out.  The C1 is very much of the ‘rule one’ persuasion.  I’ll run it in the club rooms but not at exhibitions.  It’s just a very attractive prototype, and that’s coming from a GWR modeller.  That’s whyI’ve got an Immingham in my list of locomotives for Clayton.  
 

I completely agree with you with regards the potential benefits of side control.  I know of several who have tried and failed because they haven’t taken the time to understand the dynamics.  Of particular importance is the need for a side control wire to work below the centre line of the axle otherwise it has the negative effect of lifting the wheel on the outside of the curve increasing the risk of derailment.  Used properly side control will allow the bogie or pony truck to begin to steer the locomotive into a curve reducing both the tendency of the chassis to twitch as the leading driven wheel hits the curve at the same time  reducing the risk of buffer lock.  
 

Good to hear from you.

 

Frank
 

 

 

Afternoon Frank,

 

I have traveled behind 990 but not 251, slipping like mad on Great Northern straight on the climb out of Keighley. my Father had them both down stoke bank in 53, going just a tad faster, beautiful locomotives. Not being of GWR persuasion myself, I have to declare an appreciation for the Stars, a magnificent class of locomotives and what names. Thank goodness Lode Star survives.

 

Your pinning of the back bogie wheels is a form of side control, at least bogie control. I did consider it for the B16, however, I was concerned about the additional length of the wheelbase and lacked sufficient time to test different options. My tried and tested method of side control worked effectively on a 3' radius curve and nothing was removed from the cylinders as a result!

 

With lockdown relaxed and a bit of half decent weather, I've been able to restart work on the house, however, I have found time to look at your Pullman. A workable solution has been devised and John is working on the artwork. I was surprised just how much detail has been missed off from what is supposed to be a premium model! I bet that most people who own one, don't even realise that all the beading is missing.  With that in mind, the brass artwork will be well worth the effort, not only as a representation of a specific customized Car but also a step up in the general fidelity of the prototype.

 

Stay safe.

 

Edited by Headstock
Lode Star idiot.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Frank,

 

I have traveled behind 990 but not 251, slipping like mad on Great Northern straight on the climb out of Keighley. my Father had them both down stoke bank in 53, going just a tad faster, beautiful locomotives. Not being of GWR persuasion myself, I have to declare an appreciation for the Stars, a magnificent class of locomotives and what names. Thank goodness Load star survives.

 

Your pinning of the back bogie wheels is a form of side control, at least bogie control. I did consider it for the B16, however, I was concerned about the additional length of the wheelbase and lacked sufficient time to test different options. My tried and tested method of side control worked effectively on a 3' radius curve and nothing was removed from the cylinders as a result!

 

With lockdown relaxed and a bit of half decent weather, I've been able to restart work on the house, however, I have found time to look at your Pullman. A workable solution has been devised and John is working on the artwork. I was surprised just how much detail has been missed off what is supposed to be a premium model. I bet that most who own one, don't even realise that all the beading is missing.  With that in mind, the brass artwork will be well worth the effort, not only as a representation of a specific customized Car but also a step up in the general fidelity of the prototype.

 

Stay safe.

 

Andrew,

 

Are you able to give any details of your side control method?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 Thanks Tony,

 

It's that sort of wheeze that I was thinking about. Although I think that most of my problems come from the guard irons rather than the cylinders at the moment.

 

Having done a bit more research, I think lack of sideplay in the coupled wheels is also a problem. I have fitted my pick ups vertically up behind the drivers from a copper clad plate underneath. Once shrink wrapped for insulation they reduce the sideplay considerably but I didn't think this would be a problem on a four coupled loco. This was to avoid the spring detail which was ready fitted. Did you do your normal trick and lopp off the spring detail to allow horizontal pick ups?

 

Andy

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Regarding four-coupled locos, I never give sideplay to the coupled wheels; four-coupled types have a tendency to waddle at the best of times, especially in OO, so restricting sideplay is an advantage in reducing that. They'll still go around tight radii, anyway.

 

I probably lopped off some of the spring detail. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

 

That would be to give clearance to undo it?

 

Mr. King and I have both built the DJH version for Grantham.  I didn't realise how over height they are until we tried to run one under Red Leader's built-to-scale-clearance bridges.

 

Oops! I didn't realise they were that bad. I hope they were on slow speed trials when you found out. I was offered an unbuilt kit once but declined as Malcolm had several GNR Atlantics and we didn't need any more. You are making me glad that I made that choice.

 

Who is going to be the first to incorporate the bracket, nut and the nibble in the footplate on a 4mm model? Probably nobody.

 

The splasher on the rear bogie wheels is quite visible on the prototype photo. Has anybody taken the plunge and added one of those?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for all the recent comments on GN Atlantics.

 

Some of the solutions promulgated with regard to good riding are quite sophisticated; beyond many, I'd opine.

 

At the risk of sounding something of a heretic, all my locos built with bogies/ponies up front, don't need them for good riding at all. They work just as well as four-, six-, eight or 10-coupled (apart from some four-coupled where the bogie is sprung to balance the body). In OO (and EM) I've never found the need for the bogie or pony to 'guide' the loco into curves (unlike the prototype). In fact, on some locos (built by others) which I've been asked to fix, I've found that complexities regarding bogies/ponies actually cause poorer running. I've thus junked the lot and soldered lead slugs into them, giving excellent running. 

 

I admit, I dislike carving bits off the backs of cylinders, but we are asking our locos to go round curves often intolerable in a colliery or dockyard. 

 

We cannot build 'scale' models, because some clearance will end up being negative if we tried, such are the close tolerances. 

 

I ask myself some simple questions when I've finished a loco...........

 

1. Does it 'near enough' look like the prototype?

2. Does it 'work' like the prototype? By that I mean will it pull prototype-length/weight trains, often at high speed, without derailment (around daft curves), stuttering or jerking?

3. Is it easy to maintain, adjust and dismantle if necessary (RTR manufacturers please note)? 

4. Is it the simplest solution for achieving points 1, 2 and 3? 

5. (subjective, I admit) Is it my work?

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Tony Wright said:

Many thanks for all the recent comments on GN Atlantics.

 

Some of the solutions promulgated with regard to good riding are quite sophisticated; beyond many, I'd opine.

 

At the risk of sounding something of a heretic, all my locos built with bogies/ponies up front, don't need them for good riding at all. They work just as well as four-, six-, eight or 10-coupled (apart from some four-coupled where the bogie is sprung to balance the body). In OO (and EM) I've never found the need for the bogie or pony to 'guide' the loco into curves (unlike the prototype). In fact, on some locos (built by others) which I've been asked to fix, I've found that complexities regarding bogies/ponies actually cause poorer running. I've thus junked the lot and soldered lead slugs into them, giving excellent running. 

 

I admit, I dislike carving bits off the backs of cylinders, but we are asking our locos to go round curves often intolerable in a colliery or dockyard. 

 

We cannot build 'scale' models, because some clearance will end up being negative if we tried, such are the close tolerances. 

 

I ask myself some simple of questions when I've finished a loco...........

 

1. Does it 'near enough' look like the prototype?

2. Does it 'work' like the prototype? By that I mean will it pull prototype-length/weight trains, often at high speed, without derailment (around daft curves), stuttering or jerking?

3. Is it easy to maintain, adjust and dismantle if necessary (RTR manufacturers please note)? 

4. Is the simplest solution for achieving points 1, 2 and 3? 

5. (subjective, I admit) Is it my work?

 

How about No. 6. Does it go under scale sized bridges?

  • Like 3
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Axiomatic!

 

It should but the experience mentioned above suggests otherwise. It is not a lone example either. I recall a couple of old GEM kits that met your 5 criteria and failed my number 6.

 

Don't spread it around but there are a couple of Buckingham locos that fail too. They don't fit in the loco shed at Grandborough Junction.

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

I think one of the conclusions I drew, rather belatedly, from the building of my first DJH Atlantic, was that it would pay dividends to begin by filing at least 1mm off all of the top edges of the main frames, that being considerably easier than trying to scrape 1mm deep trenches in the underisde of the running plate when the partly built body is offered up to the well-advanced chassis and the uncomfortable truth about buffer height emerges.

 

Notwithstanding its imperfect dimensions, I thought that most of the DJH Atlantics I saw built to varying standards tended to look miles better than the models I saw based on the K's / Nu-Cast kit, almost all looking indifferently or crudely assembled from bits that were either unimproved and straight out of the box, or which had been abused and badly fitted. Save for scratchbuilt models by highly skilled and experienced builders (not all of which were right either) I don't think there was any convenient and (in some ways) superior alternative to the DJH model until the Bachmann example appeared.

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

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Andrew,

 

Are you able to give any details of your side control method?

 

Andy

 

Afternoon Greenie,

 

I've given details in the past, but I don't think people really get it. The details are not actually as important, as understanding what happens to a locomotive when it enters a curve while pushing a bogie along the track. Once you get that, people are less inclined to chop things off to allow more play in the bogie and look more closely at the benefits of side control.

Edited by Headstock
accidentally deleted a letter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I showed some shots of one of LB's J39s some little time ago, but seeing Clem's of late prompted me to add something missing for too long.

 

736464408_J3964747.jpg.ff139da29d1add4c603d82c4e2ac64f9.jpg

 

The lubricator drive on the RH-side (something even added by Bachmann). It's a bit over-scale (dead-scale would be so very flimsy), but it finishes this loco off. 

 

Originally built by Allen Hammet for the late Steven Gradidge, it was acquired by Tony Geary who repainted it into BR condition. On its pick-up duties, it works superbly. 

 

Another pick-up type is the J6.

 

374331843_J66423601.jpg.7eeaec3c1eecb14281de4998de8eef60.jpg

 

320667122_J66423602.jpg.c390a6ac017305095ed93211465b8286.jpg

 

This is one of four on LB. I built it from one of the recent Nu-Cast/South Eastern Finecast Partnership kits (the third of late), and here it is indulging in some shunting.

 

 

  • Like 15
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

How about No. 6. Does it go under scale sized bridges?

 

My DJH S15 was a stern test for this bridge on my layout:

 

Urie_3.jpg

 

It would clonk the bridge by the merest fraction of a mm, but still enough to cause chaos. In the end I took the pragmatic

approach and packed up the bridge slightly. Irrelevant now as the bridge has been replaced by a GWR type, but I did

check the clearances very carefully the second time round.

  • Like 11
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...