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

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

All good points.

 

Regarding Bachmann Mark 1 roof ribs, I made a start on my ones but decided other things were a higher priority. If I ever go back to the Mark 1s, I would sort out the other things too, which are numerous if you want to get them right. The more recent batches have completely smooth roofs, which I don't like either as they are too smooth. Their 117 and 121 DMUs have this issue too.

 

On my own layout, I keep the tension locks between carriages but on Bachmann Mark 1s I remount them on the bogies, where they work much better. On Hornby stock that tends to run in set rakes, principally the SR ones, I use their Roco-style couplings, which work well. I don't have time to change things that work and the couplings on the bogies or in swivel mounts are probably necessary for the tighter curves and double slips.

 

Weathering - agree but the priorities at present are finishing the DMUs and parcels vans then dealing with the steam fleet. That will probably take me several years at current rate of progress.

 

Gangways that touch - essential and pretty easy.

 

End boards - important but need to be on both ends, not just the rear. The front of a train was the higher priority. Can't do pipes, couplings etc  as my sets need Sprat & Winkles at both ends as trains reverse. They have tail lamps at both ends for the same reason. Does someone do a good representation of a dropped buck-eye?

 

Carriage roof boards - my layout is fictional so I don't use them. I have been thinking about them for Retford but haven't a clue what the actual wording would be.

 

Renumbering - life is too short. I can't read the numbers when the carriages are on the layout.

 

The Hornby BSO came about in part because, through an intermediary, I pointed out that it was at the time the most numerous Mark 1 gangwayed type not to have been done RTR and sent a photo of 60103 coupled to one leaving King's Cross. I'm warming to Hornby Mark 1s in general, except blue/grey where their livery rendition is awful. Their main drawback is the moulded pipes and end handrails.

 

Bachmann Thompson stock in maroon - given that they would probably fly off the shelves, I cannot work out why it takes Bachmann so long to do maroon. We had the same issue with the porthole stock. I'm beginning to wonder whether I will live long enough to see maroon Thompson stock. 

 

As regards stock for Retford, I'm planning to take some carriages with me when I'm able to visit and discuss which of them will be of use and what needs doing to them, then take them away again to do the necessary work.

 

 

Thanks Robert,

 

I should have mentioned the end boards on the leading carriages as well; except on 'The Elizabethan'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I think your list is rather over zealous and very much based on your experiences rather than on what is strictly necessary. Having said that, I agree with 3,4,5,7 and 8 and I’m 75% of the way through my fleet in doing those mods.

 

However, once concertina gangways are fitted the coupling is virtually invisible, so I can not see what is wrong with retaining tension locks or using other clip in couplings (Bachmann pipes or equivalent) if they work. I know you don’t get on with them but in my experience they work perfectly well and they’re very convenient. I’d rather concentrate on replacing them where they’re visible - particularly on wagons.

 

I think you admit that Modern RTR wheels are fine, so surely it’s an extravagance to replace them. If you are still doing so, I’d be happy to take them off you in exchange for a donation to CRUK!
 

And finally the oversize (pun intended) issue of roof ribs. They are clearly rather too prominent but I’m far from convinced that I would end up with an improvement if I tackle them. Unless I take them off completely (which would be even more wrong), I don’t understand how I could achieve an even finish. I suspect I’d just waste a lot of time and end up with a mess! I find that a coat of matt ‘Roof dirt’ (from Railmatch or Precision Paints) reduces the impact considerably and that is good enough for me.

 

Of all the above, I think concertina gangways make the most difference. They’re so easy to fit that I’m amazed that more people don’t do it.

 

Clearly my standards are not up to yours but I sleep easy in the knowledge that my Mks 1s have been ‘improved’ more than 90% of the others out there (quite possibly 99%!).

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Note: I see Robert has posted while I was finalising this post (tea intervened!) with many of the same points. Sorry for the repetition but at least there was a different emphasis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Andy,

 

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of having 'zeal'.

 

'so I can not see what is wrong with retaining tension locks or using other clip in couplings (Bachmann pipes or equivalent) if they work.'

 

I think the final bit of the above sentence says it all. And it's a big 'if'! 

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen trains dividing which use tension-locks on a well-known layout we're both familiar with. I've also known of bogie-mounted couplings which cause derailments when they snatch. Not good.

 

'I think you admit that Modern RTR wheels are fine, so surely it’s an extravagance to replace them. If you are still doing so, I’d be happy to take them off you in exchange for a donation to CRUK!'

 

My issue with many RTR rolling stock wheels is the too-tight back-to-backs on many. Fine through Peco points (in Bytham's fiddle yards), but not so good on the 'scale' points and crossings, where some jump all over the place. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid you're too late; I've already given hundreds of RTR wheels away. 

 

'And finally the oversize (pun intended) issue of roof ribs. They are clearly rather too prominent but I’m far from convinced that I would end up with an improvement if I tackle them. Unless I take them off completely (which would be even more wrong), I don’t understand how I could achieve an even finish. I suspect I’d just waste a lot of time and end up with a mess! I find that a coat of matt ‘Roof dirt’ (from Railmatch or Precision Paints) reduces the impact considerably and that is good enough for me.'

 

Taking the roof ribs off completely would be far less-obtrusive than leaving them on. Agreed, the real things were made in panels, but they were butt-jointed and certainly not ribbed. Many prototype pictures of Mk.1s often show a smooth roof, and none that I can find show ribs. I assure you, being zealous or not, in my view (for realism) it's essential they're removed. 

 

I hope the following pictures show what I mean. Most have been seen before, but not so tightly-cropped..............

 

1576391159_60054elevated.jpg.a6ce27b8332c71aec6a7d3df8d8efa7e.jpg

 

The leading BCK in this set is a Comet kit, but the rest are Bachmanns.

 

2058419212_60111elevated.jpg.a76065cd405803893b3ba2d5ed414bd8.jpg

 

1795872328_elevatedview60121.jpg.ed769831d762ed49d962bc6523de8197.jpg

 

The same train but from different sides. In comparison with the rest of the roofs in this train, were the ribs on the Bachmann Mk.1s to be left on (even repainted), the effect would be absurd in my view. 

 

1743539566_elevatedview60515.jpg.656451dc3b95d0f5fe8280cdc78b88c4.jpg

 

Much more convincing, surely?

 

217681178_elevatedview60539.jpg.469f5b39ea1f1a3bd8730dece8688463.jpg

 

And the same rake from the other side.

 

728832878_LittleBytham05.jpg.3a1ef24c2f3135fdc2d24a896dc47870.jpg

 

1726077631_Overallview41FlyingScotsman.jpg.68cf6a8c458c7d7fda43ac8b0fcf33ac.jpg

 

Two views of the 'Flying Scotsman', which, apart from the Thomson PV SK is made-up entirely of Bachmann Mk.1s. If you look really closely, you can just make out some tiny evidence of the ribs (which is prototypical?). Note that not all the roofs are the same colour.

 

I don't think this has anything really to do with 'standards'. It's what looks real, and 'washboard' roofs (even if they're repainted) on carriages don't look real to me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error after a busy day
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I have been having a ‘finish off projects’ session. This Wills A4 was started a couple of years ago and I gave up in frustration a couple of times because the fit of the parts was so poor. But after a lot of filing and filling with solder, it’s as good as it’s going to be.  I’ll have to replace some rivet detail with decals during painting.

6755B6AB-DC04-4FB4-9AEA-C2CD0554D984.jpeg.102ed914b2d89277d725e65c8d114a3d.jpegA6689BFD-4C63-4687-ABFA-A4D3524FB937.jpeg.bf6dd33420e4ef14b91c6a8230c36c4d.jpeg

It had no chassis, so I’ve mounted it on a Hornby example. It’s a long way short of a Hornby version in detail (and shape?), but it’s heavy and will pull very well - 24 RTR mk 1s with no problem.

 

Tony, I have a couple of questions for you:

1. I want to model Seagull, partly to pull the Elizabethan (which is a heavy rake). My rake is the 1957 formation and you’ve previously queried my use of ‘13’ on the basis it didn’t haul the ‘Lizzie that year. Did ‘33’ make many appearances?

2. I know Seagull had a cut down tender. I’m trying to work out exactly what I have to do to model that. Is it just removing the metal on the rear of the tender which I’ve coloured black in the shot below? And then reinstating the beading. The Wills tender seems to have rather high sides which will make blending in the cut out part challenging. Do you have a solution for that problem?

A431719C-2ABF-4686-BF3A-9C78056FB8B6.jpeg.ca238a4a782b84bf137830368f4d7f06.jpeg

 

Regards

 

Andy

What I'll do, Andy, is take some pictures tomorrow of the cut-down tender I've done for my LORD FARINGDON. That might help. 

 

What you'll also have to do is remove the flange from the base of the tender tank, both sides. The corridor tenders (being at least nine inches wider) had no flange. It was feature only found on the non-corridor tenders. The Wills A4 tender was designed from the Roche drawing. Oops! 

 

The A4s used on the 'Lizzie' in 1957 were 60015 (ten trips), 60017 (14 trips), 60022 (50 trips) and 60025 (eight trips, with a single chimney), all from Kings Cross, and 60009 (four trips), 60012 (78 trips!) and 60027 (four trips), all with single chimneys and from Haymarket. Source; What's on the 'Lizzie'. Your problem is that out of all those A4s only one towed a 1928 corridor tender at the time - FALCON, and she had a single chimney! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What I'll do, Andy, is take some pictures tomorrow of the cut-down tender I've done for my LORD FARINGDON. That might help. 

 

What you'll also have to do is remove the flange from the base of the tender tank, both sides. The corridor tenders (being at least nine inches wider) had no flange. It was feature only found on the non-corridor tenders. The Wills A4 tender was designed from the Roche drawing. Oops! 

 

The A4s used on the 'Lizzie' in 1957 were 60015 (ten trips), 60017 (14 trips), 60022 (50 trips) and 60025 (eight trips, with a single chimney), all from Kings Cross, and 60009 (four trips), 60012 (78 trips!) and 60027 (four trips), all with single chimneys and from Haymarket. Source; What's on the 'Lizzie'. Your problem is that out of all those A4s only one towed a 1928 corridor tender at the time - FALCON, and she had a single chimney! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

That’s just what I needed to know - if not entirely welcome from the point of view of the work required. The pictures will be very useful.

 

I could swap the chimney over for Falcon but I think I’ll stick with Seagull if I can sort the tender out. She can work some other trains and I’ll have a go at #9 (my favourite) for the Lizzie in due course.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of having 'zeal'.

 

'so I can not see what is wrong with retaining tension locks or using other clip in couplings (Bachmann pipes or equivalent) if they work.'

 

I think the final bit of the above sentence says it all. And it's a big 'if'! 

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen trains dividing which use tension-locks on a well-known layout we're both familiar with. I've also known of bogie-mounted couplings which cause derailments when they snatch. Not good.

 

'I think you admit that Modern RTR wheels are fine, so surely it’s an extravagance to replace them. If you are still doing so, I’d be happy to take them off you in exchange for a donation to CRUK!'

 

My issue with many RTR rolling stock wheels is the too-tight back-to-backs on many. Fine through Peco points (in Bytham's fiddle yards), but not so good on the 'scale' points and crossings, where some jump all over the place. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid you're too late; I've already given hundreds of RTR wheels away. 

 

'And finally the oversize (pun intended) issue of roof ribs. They are clearly rather too prominent but I’m far from convinced that I would end up with an improvement if I tackle them. Unless I take them off completely (which would be even more wrong), I don’t understand how I could achieve an even finish. I suspect I’d just waste a lot of time and end up with a mess! I find that a coat of matt ‘Roof dirt’ (from Railmatch or Precision Paints) reduces the impact considerably and that is good enough for me.'

 

Taking the roof ribs off completely would be far less-obtrusive than leaving them on. Agreed, the real things were made in panels, but they were butt-jointed and certainly not ribbed. Many prototype pictures of Mk.1s often show a smooth roof, and none that I can find show ribs. I assure you, being zealous or not, in my view (for realism) it's essential they're removed. 

 

I hope the following pictures show what I mean. Most have been seen before, but not so tightly-cropped..............

 

1576391159_60054elevated.jpg.a6ce27b8332c71aec6a7d3df8d8efa7e.jpg

 

The leading BCK in this set is a Comet kit, but the rest are Bachmanns.

 

2058419212_60111elevated.jpg.a76065cd405803893b3ba2d5ed414bd8.jpg

 

1795872328_elevatedview60121.jpg.ed769831d762ed49d962bc6523de8197.jpg

 

The same train but from different sides. In comparison with the rest of the roofs in this train, were the ribs on the Bachmann Mk.1s to be left on (even repainted), the effect would be absurd in my view. 

 

1743539566_elevatedview60515.jpg.656451dc3b95d0f5fe8280cdc78b88c4.jpg

 

Much more convincing, surely?

 

217681178_elevatedview60539.jpg.469f5b39ea1f1a3bd8730dece8688463.jpg

 

And the same rake from the other side.

 

728832878_LittleBytham05.jpg.3a1ef24c2f3135fdc2d24a896dc47870.jpg

 

1726077631_Overallview41FlyingScotsman.jpg.68cf6a8c458c7d7fda43ac8b0fcf33ac.jpg

 

Two views of the 'Flying Scotsman', which, apart from the Thomson PV SK is made-up entirely of Bachmann Mk.1s. If you look really closely, you can just make out some tiny evidence of the ribs (which is prototypical?). Note that not all the roofs are the same colour.

 

I don't think this has anything really to do with 'standards'. It's what looks real, and 'washboard' roofs (even if they're repainted) on carriages don't look real to me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I would rather have overscale roof ribs than none at all. They (or butt joints if you prefer) are definitely there on the prototype. The pictures you show where they are just visible (e.g. coach behind 60103) look just right, but the ones where they are completely smooth don’t look like a mk 1 roof to me. If I thought I could reliably get that just visible finish (which I don’t) then it would be worth it for a couple of showcase coaches, but life’s too short to do all of mine I’m afraid. Matt paint for me.

 

As for tension locks, we’ll just have to agree to differ - we don’t want to get into another debate on here. They work for me, don’t uncouple (often!), and don’t cause derailments (except on ridiculously long trains or very tight curves which I don’t have). I admit that I have seen other layouts where they do cause problems but that is normally fixable with care. Bachmann ones are not bogie mounted - they pull off the bogie pivot on the underframe.

Edited by thegreenhowards
Adding tension lock section.
  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I would rather have overscale roof ribs than none at all. They (or butt joints if you prefer) are definitely there on the prototype. The pictures you show where they are just visible (e.g. coach behind 60103) look just right, but the ones where they are completely smooth don’t look like a mk 1 roof to me. If I thought I could reliably get that just visible finish (which I don’t) then it would be worth it for a couple of showcase coaches, but life’s too short to do all of mine I’m afraid. Matt paint for me.

 

As for tension locks, we’ll just have to agree to differ - we don’t want to get into another debate on here. They work for me, don’t uncouple (often!), and don’t cause derailments (except on ridiculously long trains or very tight curves which I don’t have). I admit that I have seen other layouts where they do cause problems but that is normally fixable with care. Bachmann ones are not bogie mounted - they pull off the bogie pivot on the underframe.

Good morning Andy,

 

'I would rather have overscale roof ribs than none at all. They (or butt joints if you prefer) are definitely there on the prototype. The pictures you show where they are just visible (e.g. coach behind 60103) look just right, but the ones where they are completely smooth don’t look like a mk 1 roof to me.'

 

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this one. 

 

I've tried to get prototype shots from similar angles to the model ones I posted yesterday (and a couple from lower down). To me, observation of the prototype is paramount. Mk.1 roof ribs?

 

730127841_Mk.1roofribs01.jpg.e7d7e965b3f45392e1f3223ca2d3684c.jpg

 

1868768494_Mk.1roofribs03.jpg.c8142b65979aa6851a60f068b141c473.jpg

 

1123094168_Mk.1roofribs04.jpg.ddd0937bfd83f1866bfe5b8c0c2b0d88.jpg

 

191635422_Mk.1roofribs05.jpg.a0198f1edf60a57fa216877b0a9c45e9.jpg

 

1168305548_Mk.1roofribs06.jpg.311253c3a911dd03109bf4e30b46305d.jpg

 

2118166635_Mk.1roofribs07.jpg.436721d440999b9b18a114237ad01966.jpg

 

1750981098_Mk.1roofribs08.jpg.64376e38e2939532d0515a6896bd29cd.jpg

 

I suppose if one really zooms in on these, a rib or two might just be visible, but from the same sort of viewing angles seen on the models, they're nowhere near as prominent as would be the unaltered Bachmann ones.

 

1656387697_Mk.1roofribs09.jpg.19af6e4425fcbfe76a99e1e90782d757.jpg

 

Indeed, I rest my case.......................

 

All the above pictures show roofs which my modified Bachmann ones look much more like; much more realistic than with way-over-scale ribs. 

 

The Bachmann unaltered Bachmann Mk.1 roofs look like the ribbing on a slab-sided Pullman car..........

 

72661629_Mk.1roofribs02.jpg.68369684481d6573129b8fe9df766052.jpg

 

When Bachmann brought out its Mk.1s (which are God-savers, to be fair), in my review I commented on the way-over-prominent roof ribs. At the time I spoke  with a guy I knew (sadly, now deceased) who worked in York Carriage Works, and I asked him about those roof ribs. He agreed that the panels were butt-jointed, but the joint was then flattened using a large linisher (is that the spelling?), and great care was taken to produce a smooth finish.

 

Please (all), observe copyright restrictions.

 

I'll do the A4 tender pictures this morning.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Robert,

 

I should have mentioned the end boards on the leading carriages as well; except on 'The Elizabethan'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Very good point. Instead, it would need a card gangway between tender and first carriage.

 

Come to think of it, if corridor tender engines worked other trains, did they use the buck-eye coupling between tender and first carriage?  I assume they did so the same would apply if a corridor tender A4 is on another train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

'I would rather have overscale roof ribs than none at all. They (or butt joints if you prefer) are definitely there on the prototype. The pictures you show where they are just visible (e.g. coach behind 60103) look just right, but the ones where they are completely smooth don’t look like a mk 1 roof to me.'

 

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this one. 

 

I've tried to get prototype shots from similar angles to the model ones I posted yesterday (and a couple from lower down). To me, observation of the prototype is paramount. Mk.1 roof ribs?

 

730127841_Mk.1roofribs01.jpg.e7d7e965b3f45392e1f3223ca2d3684c.jpg

 

 

 

Humbrol matt 67 tank grey would probably be a reasonable match for the BSO roof. Interesting how many of the photos show a BSO. Good job Hornby made one.

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

1 minute ago, robertcwp said:

Very good point. Instead, it would need a card gangway between tender and first carriage.

 

Come to think of it, if corridor tender engines worked other trains, did they use the buck-eye coupling between tender and first carriage?  I assume they did so the same would apply if a corridor tender A4 is on another train.

Good morning Robert,

 

I have a concertina gangway on the front of my 'Lizzie's' leading car. 

 

Some years ago in BRILL, I commented on A4 SILVER LINK backing on to its train (the leading car of which was a Mk.1) at Kings Cross. The buckeye was down, and a hook was present in the middle of its pivot. A spare shackle was to the RH side of the buffer beam. Since the Mk.1 car it was going to be coupled up to would have had the same buckeye/hook arrangement as on the A4's corridor tender, then I assume that the the two would have coupled together using one of the buckeyes (even though the corridor tender would not have been in use, because the picture was taken in 1962). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Humbrol matt 67 tank grey would probably be a reasonable match for the BSO roof. Interesting how many of the photos show a BSO. Good job Hornby made one.

That's the colour I use the most when painting my carriage roofs, occasionally with a little matt black added....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

As for tension locks, we’ll just have to agree to differ - we don’t want to get into another debate on here. They work for me, don’t uncouple (often!), and don’t cause derailments (except on ridiculously long trains or very tight curves which I don’t have). I admit that I have seen other layouts where they do cause problems but that is normally fixable with care. Bachmann ones are not bogie mounted - they pull off the bogie pivot on the underframe.

I found the Bachmann Mark 1 tension lock mountings to be too floppy. The NEM boxes are at the wrong height so you can't use the Roco-style couplings easily and they didn't like being propelled with their original t/l couplings. I have carriage sidings on my layout into which 8-car trains are shunted, often through several sets of points so this matters. Remounting on the bogies dealt with that. In general t/l couplings work well within sets. The most common problems are height mismatch and differing sizes of coupling. Where possible, I use the regular Bachmann ones and fit them to Hornby stock too. My carriage fleet covers a span of almost 40 years in terms of when models were made, going back to the (soon to be replaced) Mainline RB of 1981, if not before, so there is a lot of variety. 20 years with my current layout has shown they are plenty good enough within sets although if all stock had correct height pivoting NEM boxes and I were starting again, I would probably use Roco-style couplings within sets more generally. The Bachmann pipe couplings are pretty useless in my view as it becomes very difficult to couple and uncouple. I have seen them cut in two and coupled with magnets, but life is too short for that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

1955 pages...   That’s 25 posts for every year between the birth of baby Jesus and myself.   

 

That’s a remarkable accomplishment, did you ever anticipate the thread taking off like it has, Tony?

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Did you alter the roof vents on the Commonwealth ones? Apart from the FK and RU, they were different if I recall correctly. The RU has other issues with the roof.

 

They matched the vehicles I compared against. So was OK. All were late BR1 era or Commonwealth era and the vents appeared correct. Buffet was RMB

 

But I did not do the roof ribs - oops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of having 'zeal'.

 

'so I can not see what is wrong with retaining tension locks or using other clip in couplings (Bachmann pipes or equivalent) if they work.'

 

I think the final bit of the above sentence says it all. And it's a big 'if'! 

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen trains dividing which use tension-locks on a well-known layout we're both familiar with. I've also known of bogie-mounted couplings which cause derailments when they snatch. Not good.

 

'I think you admit that Modern RTR wheels are fine, so surely it’s an extravagance to replace them. If you are still doing so, I’d be happy to take them off you in exchange for a donation to CRUK!'

 

My issue with many RTR rolling stock wheels is the too-tight back-to-backs on many. Fine through Peco points (in Bytham's fiddle yards), but not so good on the 'scale' points and crossings, where some jump all over the place. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid you're too late; I've already given hundreds of RTR wheels away. 

 

'And finally the oversize (pun intended) issue of roof ribs. They are clearly rather too prominent but I’m far from convinced that I would end up with an improvement if I tackle them. Unless I take them off completely (which would be even more wrong), I don’t understand how I could achieve an even finish. I suspect I’d just waste a lot of time and end up with a mess! I find that a coat of matt ‘Roof dirt’ (from Railmatch or Precision Paints) reduces the impact considerably and that is good enough for me.'

 

Taking the roof ribs off completely would be far less-obtrusive than leaving them on. Agreed, the real things were made in panels, but they were butt-jointed and certainly not ribbed. Many prototype pictures of Mk.1s often show a smooth roof, and none that I can find show ribs. I assure you, being zealous or not, in my view (for realism) it's essential they're removed. 

 

I hope the following pictures show what I mean. Most have been seen before, but not so tightly-cropped..............

 

1576391159_60054elevated.jpg.a6ce27b8332c71aec6a7d3df8d8efa7e.jpg

 

The leading BCK in this set is a Comet kit, but the rest are Bachmanns.

 

2058419212_60111elevated.jpg.a76065cd405803893b3ba2d5ed414bd8.jpg

 

1795872328_elevatedview60121.jpg.ed769831d762ed49d962bc6523de8197.jpg

 

The same train but from different sides. In comparison with the rest of the roofs in this train, were the ribs on the Bachmann Mk.1s to be left on (even repainted), the effect would be absurd in my view. 

 

1743539566_elevatedview60515.jpg.656451dc3b95d0f5fe8280cdc78b88c4.jpg

 

Much more convincing, surely?

 

217681178_elevatedview60539.jpg.469f5b39ea1f1a3bd8730dece8688463.jpg

 

And the same rake from the other side.

 

728832878_LittleBytham05.jpg.3a1ef24c2f3135fdc2d24a896dc47870.jpg

 

1726077631_Overallview41FlyingScotsman.jpg.68cf6a8c458c7d7fda43ac8b0fcf33ac.jpg

 

Two views of the 'Flying Scotsman', which, apart from the Thomson PV SK is made-up entirely of Bachmann Mk.1s. If you look really closely, you can just make out some tiny evidence of the ribs (which is prototypical?). Note that not all the roofs are the same colour.

 

I don't think this has anything really to do with 'standards'. It's what looks real, and 'washboard' roofs (even if they're repainted) on carriages don't look real to me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

I am pleased to note that you have not had reverse snobbery and do have 60103.

 

The amount of people who like ECML and insist on no 4472/60103 is quite high.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Tony,

 

You have found a good selection of 'ribless' mk 1 roofs there. But there are plenty of counter examples. I don't have your extensive library, nor are my own photos catalogued (now that would have been a good lockdown project!) but here are a couple to prove that I'm not completely talking b......t. 

412520120_Mark1Roof.JPG.25b6ad50ef3e624a2a0c9369e692975c.JPG1395265050_Mark1Roof2.JPG.1bdbcbfb9607fd03ee0bec6313525ea4.JPG

 

I concede that they're evident in less photos than I remembered. I suspect it depends on both the lighting and the quality of the original workmanship on the roof.

 

Anyway, this debate hadn't changed my mind on doing my own. I haven't yet found the time to do the important stuff like gangways and weathering on 100% of my coaches, so it's all about priorities. I take my hat off to you for the umpteen hours it must have taken you to do your fleet.

 

Andy

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I found the Bachmann Mark 1 tension lock mountings to be too floppy. The NEM boxes are at the wrong height so you can't use the Roco-style couplings easily and they didn't like being propelled with their original t/l couplings. I have carriage sidings on my layout into which 8-car trains are shunted, often through several sets of points so this matters. Remounting on the bogies dealt with that. In general t/l couplings work well within sets. The most common problems are height mismatch and differing sizes of coupling. Where possible, I use the regular Bachmann ones and fit them to Hornby stock too. My carriage fleet covers a span of almost 40 years in terms of when models were made, going back to the (soon to be replaced) Mainline RB of 1981, if not before, so there is a lot of variety. 20 years with my current layout has shown they are plenty good enough within sets although if all stock had correct height pivoting NEM boxes and I were starting again, I would probably use Roco-style couplings within sets more generally. The Bachmann pipe couplings are pretty useless in my view as it becomes very difficult to couple and uncouple. I have seen them cut in two and coupled with magnets, but life is too short for that.

 

I find the Roco couplings work well on the more modern Bachmann Mk 1s with correct height NEM pockets. They don't work on the original versions which required the cranked tension lock. I admit I don't often shunt my longer mark 1 rakes apart from on a straight run into a cassette road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

I am pleased to note that you have not had reverse snobbery and do have 60103.

 

The amount of people who like ECML and insist on no 4472/60103 is quite high.

Thanks Martin,

 

It was the first A3 I saw, so was a must-have. 

 

That said, when I first saw her in the mid-'50s she would have had a single chimney, no deflectors and be carrying the earlier tender device. In fact, as I've modelled her she's rather inappropriate for Little Bytham's supposed year representation (1958). In fact, she's representative of her last run before withdrawal and preservation, in January 1963. Still, it's my trainset and Rule 1 applies here!

 

All the best for your health.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

I am pleased to note that you have not had reverse snobbery and do have 60103.

 

The amount of people who like ECML and insist on no 4472/60103 is quite high.

Far more people choose to have 103 (and 22) and it gets boring (no offence Tony, your models are never boring). Neither will appear on Gresley Jn. If that makes me a reverse snob then so be it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

You have found a good selection of 'ribless' mk 1 roofs there. But there are plenty of counter examples. I don't have your extensive library, nor are my own photos catalogued (now that would have been a good lockdown project!) but here are a couple to prove that I'm not completely talking b......t. 

412520120_Mark1Roof.JPG.25b6ad50ef3e624a2a0c9369e692975c.JPG1395265050_Mark1Roof2.JPG.1bdbcbfb9607fd03ee0bec6313525ea4.JPG

 

I concede that they're evident in less photos than I remembered. I suspect it depends on both the lighting and the quality of the original workmanship on the roof.

 

Anyway, this debate hadn't changed my mind on doing my own. I haven't yet found the time to do the important stuff like gangways and weathering on 100% of my coaches, so it's all about priorities. I take my hat off to you for the umpteen hours it must have taken you to do your fleet.

 

Andy

 

Good morning Andy,

 

Please forgive my 'suspicion' with regard to using anything in preservation as a guide for modelling scenes from well over half a century ago. 

 

I think as well, we're into the realm of what might be called the 'three foot rule' when it comes to model observation. Applying that to the lower picture means that the furthest Mk.1 coach has roof ribs which are all but invisible. Were you to recreate that same scene in model form, using unmodified Bachmann Mk.1s, the roof ribs would be extremely prominent. In fact, calling them ribs is wrong. They're really, if anything, shallow depressions.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Far more people choose to have 103 (and 22) and it gets boring (no offence Tony, your models are never boring). Neither will appear on Gresley Jn. If that makes me a reverse snob then so be it.

 

I rejoice in being a snob, and rejoice even more in having MALLARD on Little Bytham.

 

1493610568_MALLARDpanning.jpg.6004ef82e8c0836c02383bb7362222fc.jpg

 

She's made from a Pro-Scale kit, and painted by Ian Rathbone. Thank you for saying she's not boring.

 

Anyway, what more appropriate an A4 to have running on LB than MALLARD? Especially as this sign is only a couple of miles away..................

 

1916151837_Mallardsign02.jpg.406be6c763abd3254746d9ef25091211.jpg

 

You'll note on my model that 60022 is towing a 1935-style streamlined corridor tender. Different from the one in the sign (which is the sort she had at the time of her record-breaking run). 

 

Speaking of A4 tenders, here are shots of my 60034's cut-down 1928-style corridor tender as promised.

 

1735053324_cut-downrearend01.jpg.fecee15dcf955c05702256e7573d7577.jpg

 

1567042747_cut-downrearend02.jpg.24c27550da3605531a2f04947fc92541.jpg

 

1784326708_cut-downrearend03.jpg.4d8976a02748a07e241d463ab2d658f0.jpg

 

It's made from a SE Finecast one. The rear beading is 15Amp fusewire, carefully soldered in place. Note that there is no flange at the base. The dummy buckeye is from MJT, I think.

 

Ian Rathbone painted it. 

 

The real LORD FARINGDON lost this tender in 1963, in an exchange with the preserved FLYING SCOTSMAN. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

Please forgive my 'suspicion' with regard to using anything in preservation as a guide for modelling scenes from well over half a century ago. 

 

I think as well, we're into the realm of what might be called the 'three foot rule' when it comes to model observation. Applying that to the lower picture means that the furthest Mk.1 coach has roof ribs which are all but invisible. Were you to recreate that same scene in model form, using unmodified Bachmann Mk.1s, the roof ribs would be extremely prominent. In fact, calling them ribs is wrong. They're really, if anything, shallow depressions.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Fair point about preservation but I wasn't around in the '50s to take photos and I don't have an extensive library. There are 1950s pictures in which they are evident (e.g. several in Parkin's Mark 1 book) although I concede that in most they are not.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I rejoice in being a snob, and rejoice even more in having MALLARD on Little Bytham.

 

1493610568_MALLARDpanning.jpg.6004ef82e8c0836c02383bb7362222fc.jpg

 

She's made from a Pro-Scale kit, and painted by Ian Rathbone. Thank you for saying she's not boring.

 

Anyway, what more appropriate an A4 to have running on LB than MALLARD? Especially as this sign is only a couple of miles away..................

 

1916151837_Mallardsign02.jpg.406be6c763abd3254746d9ef25091211.jpg

 

You'll note on my model that 60022 is towing a 1935-style streamlined corridor tender. Different from the one in the sign (which is the sort she had at the time of her record-breaking run). 

 

Speaking of A4 tenders, here are shots of my 60034's cut-down 1928-style corridor tender as promised.

 

1735053324_cut-downrearend01.jpg.fecee15dcf955c05702256e7573d7577.jpg

 

1567042747_cut-downrearend02.jpg.24c27550da3605531a2f04947fc92541.jpg

 

1784326708_cut-downrearend03.jpg.4d8976a02748a07e241d463ab2d658f0.jpg

 

It's made from a SE Finecast one. The rear beading is 15Amp fusewire, carefully soldered in place. Note that there is no flange at the base. The dummy buckeye is from MJT, I think.

 

Ian Rathbone painted it. 

 

The real LORD FARINGDON lost this tender in 1963, in an exchange with the preserved FLYING SCOTSMAN. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Having '22' on LB is entirely appropriate given the history. But you must admit that the disproportionate number of Mallards 'flying' around is a little tedious.

 

After looking at some photos which David W of this parish kindly sent me, I think Seagull's tender was slightly different to 34's as on 33 the cut down side faring was carried all the way along rather than just to the rear of the coal division plate. 

 

Either way I have a problem with the Wills tender as the corridor tunnel seems too high to cut the faring back (see photo). Did you have this problem or did SE Finecast change the castings?

F5884C18-38FE-4630-B696-948BF6960F55.jpeg.62e2f7244b11dabe3694c247ed3f8251.jpeg

Andy

Edited by thegreenhowards
Adding photo
  • Like 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...