Wright writes.....

[Bucoops]

All this talk of centripetal force makes me glad I'm not a gardener - it sounds very hazardous to flowers.

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Anyhow, Carlisle is romping ahead in the latest poll on Peterborough North so all's well with the world ...'

 

It's interesting you say that, Graham,

 

Gilbert's Peterborough North was always one of the first threads I looked at when opening RMweb. It used to be full of fascinating facts about ECML train formations and operations, and illustrated with some most-realistic photographs. Though the photographs are still there from time to time, when I looked some little time ago there was just about a whole page listing choices about various locations, none of which seemed (to me) to have any relevance to the ECML. 

 

I'm sure it's all good fun, but, in my opinion, it's diminished what I thought used to be an inspirational thread; unfortunately, a thread I rarely look at now.

 

Granted, Wright Writes goes off in all directions, but it has never been a specific layout thread. And, I'm probably considered 'stuffy' because of the above.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I think there is a point where a layout is substantially complete, everything has been photographed and seen and the thought goes "What next".

 

Both Peterborough and Little Bytham are probably at about that stage in terms of layout development and coverage. There won't be much new to see on either thread as far as the layouts are concerned. Gilbert has gone down the route of creating polls, which is not something that I have much interest in at all but I am sure he will create plenty of interest from those that enjoy such things. I am much more interested in model railway constructional content.

 

Wright writes, on the other hand, being a more general thread not devoted entirely to the layout, probably has more "places to go" in terms of the range of subjects covered. That has been well demonstrated even over the last few days. 

 

I think the opportunity to record and show progress on Retford will give good subject matter for the foreseeable future!

 

 

[Chuffer Davies]

25 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I think the opportunity to record and show progress on Retford will give good subject matter for the foreseeable future!

 

 

I really hope that you are right Tony.  That would be something I would look forward to reading about on a regular basis. 

 

Frank

[robertcwp]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As for those old Kitmaster coaches..............

 

[snip]

 

Good running on Retford is always paramount, and from what I saw of your work on Tuesday, it's fully 'up to standard'.

 

I don't recall the Kitmasters but that probably means they look OK on the layout. In any event, they are not difficult to replace with something better if necessary given that Hornby and Bachmann between them cover all the main types of gangwayed Mark 1 needed on Retford. 

 

Good running is always paramount. It makes or breaks a layout in my view. 

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I don't recall the Kitmasters but that probably means they look OK on the layout. In any event, they are not difficult to replace with something better if necessary given that Hornby and Bachmann between them cover all the main types of gangwayed Mark 1 needed on Retford. 

 

Good running is always paramount. It makes or breaks a layout in my view. 

To be fair Robert, the old Kitmasters were on the side of the layout, not in use. In fact, at least one had bogies missing (used for something else?). 

 

Looking at the fiddle yards, it's remarkable how much stock must have been provided by others. Yes, both yards are vast, but in the past just about every road was full. 

 

The situation is getting better, however. Next week, good friend, Geoff West is bringing up all the ex-John Houlden stock he bought last year, ex-Retford on loan. Between us we re-gauged it back to OO (after Roy had fitted EM wheelsets), and by the time it's returned on loan to Retford, it'll be back to EM. There is a considerable amount, including the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'. 

 

I'm looking through my drawers of spare stock with a view to converting it to EM for use on Retford, and the response by others has been incredibly positive. I'll certainly be building several EM sets of frames to go underneath some of my locos (I don't really need over 200!), and I picked up most of the bits on Tuesday from Sandra to build another J6 for Retford. 

 

It seems to me that there is a very large groundswell of support for Sandra and her saving of the great man's masterpiece. As mentioned already, what better way to celebrate what he did than to finish it. 

 

There seems to be a great interest in progress reports as well, though their appearances are not really up to me. I've been given free rein to take as many pictures as I like (which I intend to do), but any 'progress reports' will only be with Sandra's permission. It seems that Write Wrights will be an excellent vehicle for that (please, I don't want an irrelevant 'poll' to see if that's a good idea!), and when (rather than if?) the gang gets back together, progress will be very rapid I'm sure.

 

But we must never lose sight that it's Sandra who's ultimately the arbiter, and it will always be her decision. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think there is a point where a layout is substantially complete, everything has been photographed and seen and the thought goes "What next".

 

Both Peterborough and Little Bytham are probably at about that stage in terms of layout development and coverage. There won't be much new to see on either thread as far as the layouts are concerned. Gilbert has gone down the route of creating polls, which is not something that I have much interest in at all but I am sure he will create plenty of interest from those that enjoy such things. I am much more interested in model railway constructional content.

 

Wright writes, on the other hand, being a more general thread not devoted entirely to the layout, probably has more "places to go" in terms of the range of subjects covered. That has been well demonstrated even over the last few days. 

 

I think the opportunity to record and show progress on Retford will give good subject matter for the foreseeable future!

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I've responded to some of your points in my last post. 

 

Now that Little Bytham is complete (can anyone think what else needs doing? This is definitely not a poll!), then there is not much more one can say about it; not without repetition. That said, folk seem to like fresh pictures, and there are always new items of locos and stock I've built. 

 

The idea of progress reports on Retford seems incredibly exciting, though, as mentioned above, it's Sandra's decision.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Theakerr]

For the loco builders and RTR up-graders I have just received some Accurascale Srew Link Couplings.  IMHOP I think these are the best I have ever seen.  Along with some Instanter Couplings they appear to be metal construction and the latter may actually work.  Perhaps over the weekend i will install a couple on my 'Coal Train' and report back.   FYI, I have no connection with Accurascale.

[thegreenhowards]

52 minutes ago, Theakerr said:

For the loco builders and RTR up-graders I have just received some Accurascale Srew Link Couplings.  IMHOP I think these are the best I have ever seen.  Along with some Instanter Couplings they appear to be metal construction and the latter may actually work.  Perhaps over the weekend i will install a couple on my 'Coal Train' and report back.   FYI, I have no connection with Accurascale.

I’ve just ordered some. Looking forward to trying them.

[bbishop]

5 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

 

All of which nicely encapsulates the difference in teaching mechanics between scientists and engineers, but both get to the same answer in the end.  The so-called "centrifugal" force is the wheel's Newtonian desire to go straight until the centripetal force of the rail applied to the flange makes it do otherwise.  

 

It's things like this that make me glad that I chose Chemistry over Physics, but then again chemists have their own problems with a different sort of mechanics.  The wheel isn't off the track unless you look at it, or it is both on and off the tracks at the same time...  

 

None of which is anywhere near as complicated as compensation and bogie side control ...

 

Basically I was a failure at Chemistry.  The whole point of taking the A level was to blow up the skool, I failed in that endeavour but got a good enough A level to end up with a degree - not bad given my Maths and Physics were practically non existent.  They could never prove that it was me who seeded the stage on Speech Day with nitrogen tri-iodide crystals.  They were pretty certain but just couldn't prove that I knew where the spare key to the prep room was kept.  Fifty years ago .....  Bill

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

To be fair Robert, the old Kitmasters were on the side of the layout, not in use. In fact, at least one had bogies missing (used for something else?). 

 

Looking at the fiddle yards, it's remarkable how much stock must have been provided by others. Yes, both yards are vast, but in the past just about every road was full. 

 

The situation is getting better, however. Next week, good friend, Geoff West is bringing up all the ex-John Houlden stock he bought last year, ex-Retford on loan. Between us we re-gauged it back to OO (after Roy had fitted EM wheelsets), and by the time it's returned on loan to Retford, it'll be back to EM. There is a considerable amount, including the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'. 

 

I'm looking through my drawers of spare stock with a view to converting it to EM for use on Retford, and the response by others has been incredibly positive. I'll certainly be building several EM sets of frames to go underneath some of my locos (I don't really need over 200!), and I picked up most of the bits on Tuesday from Sandra to build another J6 for Retford. 

 

It seems to me that there is a very large groundswell of support for Sandra and her saving of the great man's masterpiece. As mentioned already, what better way to celebrate what he did than to finish it. 

 

There seems to be a great interest in progress reports as well, though their appearances are not really up to me. I've been given free rein to take as many pictures as I like (which I intend to do), but any 'progress reports' will only be with Sandra's permission. It seems that Write Wrights will be an excellent vehicle for that (please, I don't want an irrelevant 'poll' to see if that's a good idea!), and when (rather than if?) the gang gets back together, progress will be very rapid I'm sure.

 

But we must never lose sight that it's Sandra who's ultimately the arbiter, and it will always be her decision. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Tees-Tyne Pullman - excellent, that's one train I shall not have to work out how to do - the Hadrian Bar being the problem one.

 

It's very good news that other stock will be making a return too.

 

I'm working on my own contribution, which will be mainly RTR stock, provided it meets with Sandra's approval. I ordered enough EM wheels for 20 carriages but am now thinking I might have to order some more. 

 

A couple of GC trains can be done pretty easily, or at least the core of the formations can be. There were a couple of sets of Thompson stock formed BSK, SK, CK, SK, BSK which ran on Cleethorpes-Sheffield trains and had forays over Woodhead too. I have the new Bachmann Thompson stock to do one of those. There were one or two other sets that were Mark I formed BSK, SK, SK, CK, BSK for Cleethorpes-Manchester London Road. If the new Hornby Mark I pass the test, I have a set for one of those too. Then there is a steadily growing pile of parcels vans, some of which are spares from my stock and some of which I have acquired for decent prices in the last few days - it's one way to spend a tax refund. I have a few more Thompson spares too and more Mark Is can be sourced pretty easily.

 

I have a Crimson Comet Thompson BZ which came from John Houlden (via Tony). I was going to repaint it blue but it will be heading for the gauge-changing shed and then to Retford.

 

I understand that there are a few almost completed catering cars on the layout. Sandra send me a photo of a crimson and cream Thompson RF. These will need trains to go around them so once I have established which other types are there, that can probably be sorted out too.

 

One thing that is not so easy is the Gresley BSK-SK steel-panelled twin. These were a staple of the GC line as well as appearing on the GN. By 1957, they seem to have had Thompson rather than their original Gresley steel-panelled composites. I'm not sure how many, if any, of the twins there are on the layout or on the way back to it. I believe there is an RJEB kt, so it won't be impossible to provide more, although it might be time consuming and/or expensive. 

 

It's such a shame that Hornby messed up their Gresley gangwayed stock, otherwise some of that would have come in handy too.

 

It is indeed Sandra's layout now so things are her decision. There seems to be lots of support but then it's not everyday you have the chance to make a contribution to a layout like Retford.

 

 

[Barry O]

Tony

I know where there is a large bag of EM coach wheels...

 

Baz

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Tees-Tyne Pullman - excellent, that's one train I shall not have to work out how to do - the Hadrian Bar being the problem one.

 

It's very good news that other stock will be making a return too.

 

I'm working on my own contribution, which will be mainly RTR stock, provided it meets with Sandra's approval. I ordered enough EM wheels for 20 carriages but am now thinking I might have to order some more. 

 

A couple of GC trains can be done pretty easily, or at least the core of the formations can be. There were a couple of sets of Thompson stock formed BSK, SK, CK, SK, BSK which ran on Cleethorpes-Sheffield trains and had forays over Woodhead too. I have the new Bachmann Thompson stock to do one of those. There were one or two other sets that were Mark I formed BSK, SK, SK, CK, BSK for Cleethorpes-Manchester London Road. If the new Hornby Mark I pass the test, I have a set for one of those too. Then there is a steadily growing pile of parcels vans, some of which are spares from my stock and some of which I have acquired for decent prices in the last few days - it's one way to spend a tax refund. I have a few more Thompson spares too and more Mark Is can be sourced pretty easily.

 

I have a Crimson Comet Thompson BZ which came from John Houlden (via Tony). I was going to repaint it blue but it will be heading for the gauge-changing shed and then to Retford.

 

I understand that there are a few almost completed catering cars on the layout. Sandra send me a photo of a crimson and cream Thompson RF. These will need trains to go around them so once I have established which other types are there, that can probably be sorted out too.

 

One thing that is not so easy is the Gresley BSK-SK steel-panelled twin. These were a staple of the GC line as well as appearing on the GN. By 1957, they seem to have had Thompson rather than their original Gresley steel-panelled composites. I'm not sure how many, if any, of the twins there are on the layout or on the way back to it. I believe there is an RJEB kt, so it won't be impossible to provide more, although it might be time consuming and/or expensive. 

 

It's such a shame that Hornby messed up their Gresley gangwayed stock, otherwise some of that would have come in handy too.

 

It is indeed Sandra's layout now so things are her decision. There seems to be lots of support but then it's not everyday you have the chance to make a contribution to a layout like Retford.

 

 

 

There were very few passenger trains on the GC line on the layout. There was one that started and finished in the carriage sidings behind Platform 3, which had, from memory 5 carriages. That certainly had one pair of "twins" and possibly two. Roy used to call them "Grimsby twins" if I recall correctly. Then there was a DMU, which came in to Pl.3, terminated and went back via Pl. 1 later. The boat train went straight through on the GC as did a "Fisherman's special" scratch set of all sorts of stock behind a D11. The only other passenger train on the GC was a "funny" made up of the LNER liveried B2 "City of Lincoln" plus a rake of mostly teak carriages in late LNER/very early BR condition. I think there were a couple of Barnums  (one in in red & cream livery) plus some ex GER carriages in that one.

 

If there were any others, I have forgotten them! I always hoped there would be more of them as at least they didn't just run round and back to the fiddle yard.

[robertcwp]

The GC side of Retford does pose some challenges on the coaching stock front. 

 

The Harwich-Liverpool usually had a Gresley RKB around the time Retford is set, although I have seen photos of an ex-GER catering car in the train around that time. It certainly wasn't the Tourist buffet car that was in the set when I last saw it on Retford. The snag with the Gresley RKB is that it was a 1953 rebuild of what had begun life as a Diag 16 restaurant third. There were only three of them. I don't think there is a kit available and I'm not aware of any etched sides. 

 

Several of the Cleethorpes-Sheffield-Manchester trains had attachments which varied over the course of the day and some attached or detached vans or carriages at Retford.  Going by the 19556 workings, as I don't have 1957, both the Mark I and Thompson sets called at Retford at least once without having any additional carriages attached. 

 

Then there were the Western Division Link E sets, of which about eight visited Retford on a typical weekday in the Summer of 1956. These were shown in the workings with two different formations, either an ordinary Gresley third and brake third either side of a composite or a steel-panelled twin either side of a Thompson composite. Again, there were various attachments. 

 

There were also some non-gangwayed sets.

 

Finally, here is the Joker in the pack. Take a look at working 219 from Summer 1956:

ER_West_1956-Summer_0074 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Every other week, this was a set of WR stock with British Standard gangways (hence the BS at the end of the carriage types). The WR workings were the same in 1957 so it's possible, likely even, that the ER ones were too. This working also applied in Winter 1956-7.

 

Why? The answer is in Sunday working 446. It was an unbalanced Sunday Swansea-Sheffield working, which was ER and WR stock alternately. So every other week, the ER had a set of WR stock to play with. 

 

What I don't know is the type of WR stock as I cannot find any photos.

Edited July 31, 2020 by robertcwp
Typo.

[Tony Wright]

With the recent discussion on loco bogies, and the suggestion that a picture is worth a thousand words, here's my arrangement for the SE Finecast Schools I built.

 

 

 

In a (brief) moment of non-Luddism, the bogie on this actually contributes to the loco's smooth negotiation of curves.

 

It was made for Charwelton (which seems now to have undergone some sort of time warp; interesting nonetheless), and now sits in a cabinet, entirely as a piece of self-indulgence.

 

There were certain details I wished to incorporate. These included the rear bogie wheel splashers, the prominent front steps and the lengthy cylinder drain cocks. To have arranged the bogie with a swing-link pivot would have rendered the incorporation of these impossible. Thus, it's actually restricted in its sideways movement, and is lightly sprung. The riding is exceptionally good, even round 2' 6" radius curves!

 

Of course, the only way the whole thing was achieved was by making the chassis electrically-dead; not my usual practice.

 

Ian Rathbone painted the loco to perfection. 

 

Building it in EM might be a problem, though I doubt if a Schools ever visited Retford. 

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

 

Basically I was a failure at Chemistry.  The whole point of taking the A level was to blow up the skool, I failed in that endeavour but got a good enough A level to end up with a degree - not bad given my Maths and Physics were practically non existent.  They could never prove that it was me who seeded the stage on Speech Day with nitrogen tri-iodide crystals.  They were pretty certain but just couldn't prove that I knew where the spare key to the prep room was kept.  Fifty years ago .....  Bill

 

I went to a grammar school where the perception within the sciences was that if you were no good at maths, you did physics.  No good at physics?  You should focus on chemistry.  Those no good at chemistry were passed over to the biology department.

 

I qualified with a distinction in biology, but after a few years working in the pharmaceutical industry ended up doing something completely different.  It can take time to work out what you are good at!

[thegreenhowards]

Robert,

 

You mentioned a D.16 Rebuilt RKB. I think you’re right that there is no kit. I needed one for Gresley Jn, so built one out of cut ‘n’ shut Kirk kits. It’s not of the finest standard, but I think it looks like an RKB.

 

I wrote the build up on Coulsdon works here:

Let me know if you need any more info.

 

Andy

Edited July 31, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Remove duplicate photo

[thegreenhowards]

As it was my post on the C2 which started all this bogie side control debate, I thought people might be interested in developments.

 

I’m pleased to say that it now runs very well through point work and tighter radius curves. Ironically the problem turned out to be the trailing axle. Being sprung with brass wire, it was holding the rear driver off the rails very slightly. This allowed the driver to lift off on curves/ points causing either the drivers or the bogie to derail on occasion. Also the white metal block it sits in was wider than the frames giving very little side play and so encouraging other wheels to pop off.

 

I tried running it as a 4-4-0 and it ran perfectly. Also fitted with a 12mm Trailing axle gave perfect running. So I filed The white metal bearing down to match the width of the frames and removed the springing, just allowing gravity to keep it on the rails and the loco now runs perfectly with the 14mm trailing axle. When I say ‘perfectly’, the front still rides out round curves, but it’s smooth and doesn’t derail which for a chassis of mine is good news!

 

Thanks for all the helpful comments. I will try bogie side control on my next loco project which is a B16 - I think it might be needed there! But for the C2, Luddism rules!

 

Tony, you will be pleased to know that I spoke to Markits yesterday and have ordered the 10 spoke 14mm bogie wheels (as well as a complete set for the B16).

 

Andy

[MJI]

6 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

So am I

 

A user?

[Dave John]

Hmm, ok, an idea . If you make the compensation beams at the bogie end so that they bear on a slightly curved surface surface that creates a a sort of camber. The amount of mass on the bogie increases as it tries to follow a straight line kinda pushing it back into the curve. 

 

 

I have tried bits of springy wire to control sideplay without much success,  but in the end I'm happy with the way that pair steer into a curve 

[pete55]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The GC side of Retford does pose some challenges .......

 

 

 

It certainly does, I'm not sure there is much spare capacity in the GC fiddleyard.....there certainly wasn't previously.

Roy always wanted to enlarge it......not as simple as it sounds!

[Chuffer Davies]

6 hours ago, Dave John said:

Hmm, ok, an idea . If you make the compensation beams at the bogie end so that they bear on a slightly curved surface surface that creates a a sort of camber. The amount of mass on the bogie increases as it tries to follow a straight line kinda pushing it back into the curve. 

 

 

I have tried bits of springy wire to control sideplay without much success,  but in the end I'm happy with the way that pair steer into a curve 

Hi Dave,
That’s a stunning picture and what gorgeous locomotives.

I’m trying to picture your system without success.  Can you explain in a bit more detail please?  Which way up is the curved surface?  Where are the beams bearing down?  Also is this tried and tested or is it theoretical?  
Frank

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Dave John said:

Hmm, ok, an idea . If you make the compensation beams at the bogie end so that they bear on a slightly curved surface surface that creates a a sort of camber. The amount of mass on the bogie increases as it tries to follow a straight line kinda pushing it back into the curve. 

 

 

I have tried bits of springy wire to control sideplay without much success,  but in the end I'm happy with the way that pair steer into a curve 

What exquisite modelling! 

[sandra]

Tony,

I would love you to give regular updates on progress with Retford. As I said you are always welcome to take photographs or write about the layout. Whilst it is my “train set” I do want other people to be involved and have the  opportunity to enjoy it.

 

It would be great to have the Tees Tyne Pullman back as there are some large gaps in the GN fiddle yard. However one of the most challenging tasks is the GC fiddle yard for it is not possible to operate the GC side realistically without more GC passenger stock. Robert Carroll has done marvellous work, for which I thank him, in regard to both the GN and the GC timetables. The GC workings are much more complicated than I realised and require far more passenger sets than the railway presently possesses if they are to accurately represent those workings. In fact more GC trains seemed to have stopped at the station than trains on the GN. I appreciate that it is great fun watching the expresses on the main line pass through at speed but I am interested in operation and on occasions I do want to operate the station as realistically as possible.

 

I think it is possible to expand both the GN and GC fiddle yards but I accept that expanding the GC fiddle yard might be particularly difficult. However it’s very early days, I’ve only owned the railway for just over two weeks and I do not want to make radical changes immediately.
 

Sandra

[LNER4479]

10 hours ago, MJI said:

 

A user?

It was more a reference to the fact that I was glad that you were writing software rather than me. I'm quite happy with the physics...

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

I would love you to give regular updates on progress with Retford. As I said you are always welcome to take photographs or write about the layout. Whilst it is my “train set” I do want other people to be involved and have the  opportunity to enjoy it.

 

It would be great to have the Tees Tyne Pullman back as there are some large gaps in the GN fiddle yard. However one of the most challenging tasks is the GC fiddle yard for it is not possible to operate the GC side realistically without more GC passenger stock. Robert Carroll has done marvellous work, for which I thank him, in regard to both the GN and the GC timetables. The GC workings are much more complicated than I realised and require far more passenger sets than the railway presently possesses if they are to accurately represent those workings. In fact more GC trains seemed to have stopped at the station than trains on the GN. I appreciate that it is great fun watching the expresses on the main line pass through at speed but I am interested in operation and on occasions I do want to operate the station as realistically as possible.

 

I think it is possible to expand both the GN and GC fiddle yards but I accept that expanding the GC fiddle yard might be particularly difficult. However it’s very early days, I’ve only owned the railway for just over two weeks and I do not want to make radical changes immediately.
 

Sandra

 

That is music to my ears Sandra! I always thought the GC line trains coming in and out via the curves at the flat crossing or via Whisker Hill curve were the interesting part of the operation.

 

The layout only had a couple of "stoppers" on the GN line too, along with, from memory, one up and one down freight that did anything other than go straight through.

 

The possibilities for interesting operation were never really exploited. All those tracks, points and sidings were crying out for more use.

 

I do have one or two ideas to suggest about ways to increase capacity on the GC without major rebuilding. When the time is right, perhaps I can run them by you and see what you think. You probably have enough on your plate to keep you busy now!