Wright writes.....

[Barry Ten]

The distortion on Tony's Mortehoe does look good. I think what doesn't scale well in model terms is glossiness. I don't mean in the sense of whether models should or should not be glossy, but that the pattern of reflections never look quite right, giving the scale away. I think by the time we're down to the surface effects of painted models, light just doesn't scatter off them in anything like the right way.

[Bucoops]

35 minutes ago, Hawin Dooiey said:

That looks superb, and actually the distortion looks perfectly scaled.
 

Klear actually manages to create a similar effect on models I’ve found, but in this case, just like the real thing.

 

I have worked on the 1:1 scale version of the class at the East Lancashire Railway. As an engine cleaner, you are kept busy that’s for sure!

 

 

 

I'm detecting a bit of irony in you cleaning 1:1 engines yet are a professional model weatherer  I think I made that last word up.

 

I am thoroughly biased towards the former GER/LNER but there really is something special about the air smoothed SR Locos, and the Q1. There is of course the LNER link with Bulleid but the designs are beautiful.

 

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

On the subject of dents, dings, creases and bashes on the prototype, I think it's fair to say that the original Bulleid Pacifics were the most-creased of the lot. 

 

But, what does it look like on a model?

 

 

 

I made MORTEHOE over 25 years ago (it appeared in BRM and on the front cover of the 1995/'96 index). I used a Crownline kit and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

Because of the nature of the build-process (thin etched overlays over a substantial 'skeleton'), whenever the soldering iron got near, the thin etches would buckle under expansion. I was quite alarmed by this, thinking it would make me look a bad builder (please, don't agree). However, over time I've got used to the rather rippled look, and I think it looks more realistic than a very flat-sided, plastic RTR equivalent.

 

During her busy life, a few more dents and dings have occurred naturally....................

 

 

Agreeing with all of the above, apart from the bad builder bit!

 

As someone who misspent far too much of his youth chasing the things, it looks just "rumpled" enough, though I suspect it would be scarily easy to overdo it.

 

John

Edited August 14, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

59 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Thats an interesting lamp on the front of Mallard, similar to the ones carried on todays preserved locos working the main lines.

 

Do you have any idea when the photo was taken.

 

Regards

 

David

Looks like a battery powered tail-lamp to me, though, if it is, it also looks as if it shouldn't be there!

 

They predated the modern high-intensity headlamps used today by quite a margin, but I don't recall exactly when they first came into use.

 

On closer inspection, whatever it is appears to be hung over the front of a conventional oil lamp.

 

John

Edited August 14, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree that 1mm on a 5mm chimney is a big % difference.

 

I don't have a GCR period GA drawing for a D11 but if your drawing is showing the LNER period then the chimney will be shorter. My D11 GA is an LNER one and does show the shorter chimney. I have a GCR period GA for a D10 which shows the chimney as 1ft. 6 1/2 ins. tall. I know the D11 boiler was pitched 1 1/2 ins. higher but I don't think that would have necessitated a chimney 3 ins. shorter. There was a shorter Robinson style chimney and the less attractive alternative that would have been fitted in LNER days to suit the inferior loading gauge of the other, more secondary lines that formed the LNER. Many GCR locos had lower boiler fittings fitted after 1923, as you probably know.

 

So I don't know for sure how high the original GCR one was but I think it may have been higher than the LNER period ones. 

I was using the Reddy drawing for the original GC build and that measures 5mm. RCTS tells us that the LNER flowerpot and the Gorton cast replacement chimneys were 1'3" (5mm). From Johnson's Locomotives of the Great Central Railway Vol 2 the D10s originally had a chimney that was 1'6 1/4 " and these certainly appear to have been taller than the original GC chimneys on the D11s. 

 

Extra comment: I've just discovered that RCTS does say the original chimneys were 1'3".

Edited August 14, 2020 by Woodcock29
Extra comment

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Stewart,

 

You'll need to increase the height of the cab, fit a different-style spectacle plate, higher chimney and dome and probably have to alter the face.............

 

You'll also have to add beading to splashers.

 

Anything else? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Modellers using the Bachmann D11/1 also have to add the beading to the splashers as its missing. Its merely painted on the Prince Albert model. But its quite easy to bend up some brass strip for this purpose.

 

To convert a D11/2 to a D11/1 you don't necessarily have to fit a taller dome it depends on the period you are modelling. The LNER fitted all new boilers from 1924 with low domes according to Yeadon, but I find that date surprisingly early so I'm not sure about it. I couldn't quickly find any photos of a D11/1 in pre-1928 livery with a low dome. However, certainly by the 1930s most had the low dome which was the same as that fitted to the D11/2s built under the LNER. Of course an accurately dated photo is essential to determine which dome the loco you are modelling had for your period.

 

The other question relates to the tender. Some had the self trimming type as fitted to the Bachmann model others had the last version of the standard 4000 gallon tender. Yeadon's Appendix 2 has the information on which tender was fitted during which period and is invaluable for anyone modelling GC locos.

 

Andrew

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Brian,

 

Please forgive the tardy response to your question. 

 

Yes, building KP and reporting on progress on this thread (or a separate one?) might have a certain appeal. And, in the light of current no-exhibition trends, it might be the only way to show any layout. However, there are other priorities for me...................

 

I'll explain. It has to do mainly with Retford. If ever a layout recreated my trainspotting heyday, that's it. Whenever I see it, I'm transported back to that magical place (not that is now), witnessing (as Clem quite rightly observes) 'the greatest free show on earth'. But it still requires the 'eye of faith' to be fully-transported back, because it's not finished. 

 

I'm delighted (along with everyone else) that it's the intention of the new owner to finish it, but she can't do it alone. It'll be an immense privilege for me to be part (in a small way) of the group which completes it. There's point rodding, telegraph poles and all manner of detail which I can contribute to. Not only that, I'm currently building a J6 for it (yes, it's been started!) and I'm building EM frames to go under a V2 and an A2/3. There are also several items of rolling stock to re-gauge. 

 

I'm also tasked as being 'official photographer' as progress continues. 

 

So, you see now why I'll never embark on building Kiveton Park.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Seeking forgiveness not required   (sounds a bit like going to Confession - not that I'd know )

Working on Retford must rate very highly as a worthwhile alternative.....

 

Brian

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Thats an interesting lamp on the front of Mallard, similar to the ones carried on todays preserved locos working the main lines.

 

Do you have any idea when the photo was taken.

 

Regards

 

David

Good afternoon David,

 

1961/'62 - note the 1928 corridor tender and overhead electric flashes.

 

The lamp appears on other light engine A4s. Perhaps it was a special one for running-in turns from Donny Plant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Modellers using the Bachmann D11/1 also have to add the beading to the splashers as its missing. Its merely painted on the Prince Albert model. But its quite easy to bend up some brass strip for this purpose.

 

To convert a D11/2 to a D11/1 you don't necessarily have to fit a taller dome it depends on the period you are modelling. The LNER fitted all new boilers from 1924 with low domes according to Yeadon, but I find that date surprisingly early so I'm not sure about it. I couldn't quickly find any photos of a D11/1 in pre-1928 livery with a low dome. However, certainly by the 1930s most had the low dome which was the same as that fitted to the D11/2s built under the LNER. Of course an accurately dated photo is essential to determine which dome the loco you are modelling had for your period.

 

The other question relates to the tender. Some had the self trimming type as fitted to the Bachmann model others had the last version of the standard 4000 gallon tender. Yeadon's Appendix 2 has the information on which tender was fitted during which period and is invaluable for anyone modelling GC locos.

 

Andrew

 

Did the Scottish tenders have water pick up gear? My memory isn't what it used to be but I recall reading that the Scottish self trimming tenders had the boxes on the back of the coal space to allow gear to be fitted easily if necessary but didn't have the handwheel and the scoop gear as there were no water troughs on the routes they used.

 

One big difference in the Scottish Directors is the cut down cab. The front spectacle windows are a different shape because of it.

 

43 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

I was using the Reddy drawing for the original GC build and that measures 5mm. RCTS tells us that the LNER flowerpot and the Gorton cast replacement chimneys were 1'3" (5mm). From Johnson's Locomotives of the Great Central Railway Vol 2 the D10s originally had a chimney that was 1'6 1/4 " and these certainly appear to have been taller than the original GC chimneys on the D11s. 

 

Extra comment: I've just discovered that RCTS does say the original chimneys were 1'3".

 

Much of what I am saying is based on a gut feeling but I remain pretty much convinced that the D11 was fitted with a taller chimney from new. There is a decent broadside photo of Butler Henderson when new in Johnson. Laying a ruler along the top line shows that the chimney is ever so slightly taller than the dome. Now if they had to cut the dome down to fit the loading gauge and the chimney was already taller than the original dome, that is a good indication to me that the original chimney may have been taller than 1' 3", which was the confirmed height of the later chimneys.

 

I wish I had firm proof one way or the other and I do not but the chimney in the "as built" photos just looks a tiny bit taller to me. I am fully prepared to be wrong. I often am.

 

I think the only way I would be convinced 100% is a GCR period GA drawing. Drawings by modellers and books written many years later can always perpetuate myths.

 

I have a 7mm drawing that shows the chimney on a D11 as new at 10mm high. I don't take that as gospel either!

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Just makes the tender look too smooth!

 

That rippled look really does work on the loco. 

Why, I don't know, but the rebuilt tenders behind the Bulleid Pacifics (whether the loco itself is rebuilt or not) don't ever look as crinkled as the originals with high raves.

 

Actually, the model tender does have the odd kink, but my lighting angle hasn't picked them out in the way it has done on the loco. Which, if nothing else, shows how lighting affects the effect on 'flat' surfaces.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[ArthurK]

It's not only handrails and footplate bits that get bent.  I photographed this J27 several times in this condition, first at North Blyth then  at Sunderland.  It ended is days at the latter shed.  It appears that is was lifted using  a couple of hawsers around the boiler!

 

ArthurK

Edited August 14, 2020 by ArthurK
Grammar

[Tony Wright]

49 minutes ago, ArthurK said:

It's not only handrails and footplate bits that get bent.  I photographed this J27 several times in this condition, first at North Blyth then  at Sunderland.  It ended is days at the latter shed.  It appears that is was lifted using  a couple of hawsers around the boiler!

 

ArthurK

Many thanks Arthur.

 

Who would model that?

 

In a rather perverse way, it reminds me of our new cat. She's just been spayed! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error after a busy day

[Tony Wright]

 

Definitely more ripples on the loco's sides than on the tender........................ 

[rowanj]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

In a rather perverse way, it reminds me of our new cat. She's just been spade! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Presumably in case she gets forked. I presume she has been spayed.

[Tom F]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

I'm detecting a bit of irony in you cleaning 1:1 engines yet are a professional model weatherer  I think I made that last word up.

 

I am thoroughly biased towards the former GER/LNER but there really is something special about the air smoothed SR Locos, and the Q1. There is of course the LNER link with Bulleid but the designs are beautiful.

 

 

 

 

Ha, you aren’t the first to point out that irony!

Edited August 14, 2020 by Hawin Dooiey

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, rowanj said:

Presumably in case she gets forked. I presume she has been spayed.

What a chump I am!

 

Quite-rightly pointed out.

 

Many thanks, John. 

 

What can I have been thinking of?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[landscapes]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon David,

 

1961/'62 - note the 1928 corridor tender and overhead electric flashes.

 

The lamp appears on other light engine A4s. Perhaps it was a special one for running-in turns from Donny Plant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony 

 

Thank you for your reply, it just I have never seen anything like that lamp before in steam days.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony 

 

Thank you for your reply, it just I have never seen anything like that lamp before in steam days.

 

Regards

 

David

Good evening David,

 

In The Colour of Steam Vol 7 East Coast Main Line - Retford by Keith Pirt, Atlantic Publishing, 1989 there is a shot of ex-works 60034 heading light engine, carrying exactly the same-style headlamp. Irritatingly, the pages in this small softback are not numbered.

 

One day I'll appear in a KRP picture because I was there! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Did the Scottish tenders have water pick up gear? My memory isn't what it used to be but I recall reading that the Scottish self trimming tenders had the boxes on the back of the coal space to allow gear to be fitted easily if necessary but didn't have the handwheel and the scoop gear as there were no water troughs on the routes they used.

 

One big difference in the Scottish Directors is the cut down cab. The front spectacle windows are a different shape because of it.

 

 

Much of what I am saying is based on a gut feeling but I remain pretty much convinced that the D11 was fitted with a taller chimney from new. There is a decent broadside photo of Butler Henderson when new in Johnson. Laying a ruler along the top line shows that the chimney is ever so slightly taller than the dome. Now if they had to cut the dome down to fit the loading gauge and the chimney was already taller than the original dome, that is a good indication to me that the original chimney may have been taller than 1' 3", which was the confirmed height of the later chimneys.

 

I wish I had firm proof one way or the other and I do not but the chimney in the "as built" photos just looks a tiny bit taller to me. I am fully prepared to be wrong. I often am.

 

I think the only way I would be convinced 100% is a GCR period GA drawing. Drawings by modellers and books written many years later can always perpetuate myths.

 

I have a 7mm drawing that shows the chimney on a D11 as new at 10mm high. I don't take that as gospel either!

Good evening Tony,

 

According to the RCTS, none of the D11/2s had tenders fitted with water pick-up gear, since there were no water troughs on the LNER in Scotland. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

A couple more shots of Scottish 'Directors'............

 

 

Just to show how different smokebox doors can alter the 'face' of a loco.

 

Some Scottish D11s received smokebox doors off withdrawn Reid Atlantics. 

 

 

One detail difference between the English and Scottish 'Directors' was the lubricator drive off the leading RH crankpin on the latter. Something not often modelled.

 

Bent buffer beams were common north of the border as well. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Some more shots of 'rippled' A4 cladding...............

 

 

A gleaming FALCON at Grantham, just after receipt of her double chimney. Would anyone dare 'distressing' the cladding like this? On a Finney resin boiler? 

 

 

Weathered-down, and in typical 52A condition, any ripples are disguised. Perhaps this is the best way to finish our models...............

 

 

The last steam loco repaired at the Plant, in 1963. Plenty of kinks in the cladding, but the tender looks reasonably flush. 

 

 

However, with the light striking it at a different angle! 

 

Who'd dare replicate this?

 

I think what these show is the impossibility of capturing the creases on the real things, without it looking like poor building.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on these pictures. 

 

 

[Theakerr]

Have just started my trial of Accurascale Instanta and Screw Link Couplings.  I have installed one of each on a Van that runs in my 'high Speed Fitted Freight'.  The coupling does not have a long draw bar, so it is not possible to fix it on the inboard side.  I used 'Gorilla' super glue.  A coupling in the 'high speed freight' will undergo probably the most brutal test any coupling could have.  The train  composes of about 20 Vans with a very abrupt jerk start as a result of  my automated system.  It goes from 0 to full running speed almost instanainioulsy.   So far the test van has seen 5 stop/start cycles and all is good.  I will continue to test and report back.  However, based on this short test I feel I can say with some degree of confidence that in a more gentle start situation they will work. 

[kingmender]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more shots of 'rippled' A4 cladding...............

 

 

A gleaming FALCON at Grantham, just after receipt of her double chimney. Would anyone dare 'distressing' the cladding like this? On a Finney resin boiler? 

 

 

Weathered-down, and in typical 52A condition, any ripples are disguised. Perhaps this is the best way to finish our models...............

 

 

The last steam loco repaired at the Plant, in 1963. Plenty of kinks in the cladding, but the tender looks reasonably flush. 

 

 

However, with the light striking it at a different angle! 

 

Who'd dare replicate this?

 

I think what these show is the impossibility of capturing the creases on the real things, without it looking like poor building.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on these pictures. 

 

 

A difference in thickness of the materials. Boiler cladding being approx 1/16" sheet merely to cover the insulation. Tender sides thicker (probably 1/4" or more) as they are structural and subject to continual water pressure and corrosion - hence the plating shown along bottom edge of the water tank a few pages back.

Rodger

[Atso]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more shots of 'rippled' A4 cladding...............

 

 

A gleaming FALCON at Grantham, just after receipt of her double chimney. Would anyone dare 'distressing' the cladding like this? On a Finney resin boiler? 

 

 

Weathered-down, and in typical 52A condition, any ripples are disguised. Perhaps this is the best way to finish our models...............

 

 

The last steam loco repaired at the Plant, in 1963. Plenty of kinks in the cladding, but the tender looks reasonably flush. 

 

 

However, with the light striking it at a different angle! 

 

Who'd dare replicate this?

 

I think what these show is the impossibility of capturing the creases on the real things, without it looking like poor building.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on these pictures. 

 

 

 

I wonder if masking and shading using an airbrush might be a method to try and replicate imperfections on the casings/plate work. Not a locomotive as an example of this but my 30cm long model of the Enterprise from Star Trek. The saucer panels have been shaded over the main colour before misting another layer of the original colour to blend things a little. To me, this gives a more pleasing effect on the 1/1000 scale model than scribing in the lines, maybe it could suggest ripples and imperfections as well.

[65179]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

According to the RCTS, none of the D11/2s had tenders fitted with water pick-up gear, since there were no water troughs on the LNER in Scotland. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

They didn't have the gear, but Tony is right that they were built with provision for it with the 'boxes' at the rear etc.  There's a GA in E.M. Johnson's Locomotives of the Great Central Railway Vol.2. Tony commented on this GA on here back in 2012 without complete certainty. I've not seen any photos that fully verify the presence of all the boxes at the rear, but a photo of 62676 near the end of its life certainly shows the characteristic D shaped filler rather than a ROD round one.

 

Simon

Edited August 14, 2020 by 65179