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

15 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew,

Yes, for a period of time, it may have had a slightly taller chimney than the rest of the class (though, I'm not completely convinced). I'm including four photos to show you what I mean:

 

The first taken by the look of it at Doncaster.probably May 1957 after her last General overhaul. It clearly has a standard size chimney here. The following picture is taken at Grantham, late 1940s probably and again shows a standard size. 

 

However the third taken in the mid 50s, it looks like the chimney is a little taller. Is this just an optical illusion? I'm not sure.

 

But in the fourth photo, taken just one month after the first (the engine still looks pretty clean after overhaul), the chimney again looks taller. I'm beginning to think it is the angle of the photo that gives the impression of being taller. The first series with that slight elongated look may be adding to the illusion.

 

64178_001_rdcd.jpg.39af268666e24c54ddc417480e639b60.jpg64178_004_rdcd.jpg.22660c794f2e818b8680ae350036851a.jpg64178_005_rdcd.jpg.516ec80dda9a709fe7dfe571daf3795e.jpg

64178_003_rdcd.jpg

Thanks Clem

I'm inclined to think its only the shorter chimney. The built up chimney was taller than that in my view.

Chimneys really are so important as part of the face if a loco. I received 5 PDK D11/1 chimneys the other week plus 5 D11/1 (or D11/2) short domes for various ex GC 4-6-0s.

Interesting to see 'Marne' in the bay. I'm going to name my Bachmann D11/1 'Marne' but haven't been able to decide whether it's to be in BR or LNER livery. I've had it since they came out so quite a number of years now and its been in bits since I got it! I keep thinking Bachmann will bring out a nice black red-lined LNER D11/1 but not so far. It's more suited to LNER really with its short travel valves and I'm matching it with a modified Bachmann O4 tender as it's self trimming tender is for my G-Trains B7. 

Andrew

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew,

Yes, for a period of time, it may have had a slightly taller chimney than the rest of the class (though, I'm not completely convinced). I'm including four photos to show you what I mean:

 

The first taken by the look of it at Doncaster.probably May 1957 after her last General overhaul. It clearly has a standard size chimney here. The following picture is taken at Grantham, late 1940s probably and again shows a standard size. 

 

64178_001_rdcd.jpg.39af268666e24c54ddc417480e639b60.jpg64178_004_rdcd.jpg.22660c794f2e818b8680ae350036851a.jpg64178_005_rdcd.jpg.516ec80dda9a709fe7dfe571daf3795e.jpg

 

Some great Grantham pictures there! We're not done adding details yet, not by a long chalk ...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2020 at 16:36, LNER4479 said:

I wade into this whole area of coupling rods / chassis, empirical vs theory with some trepidation ...

 

One obvious effect not hitherto mentioned is that, when placed on the rails, all wheels will have a tendency to turn when propelled along even without coupling rods affixed. For a 0-4-0 this is guaranteed; for a 0-6-0 there may be the occasionally slipping of one if the chassis encounters any high or low spots. So the rotation of whichever of the driving axles are not directly driven by the gearbox is not solely reliant on the coupling rods when the loco is running on a layout.

 

I say this because, when on the workbench (eg with croc clips attached) you do NOT have the benefit of this effect. I sometimes find that a chassis binds on the workbench but is perfectly OK on the track, (particularly with some weight added); sometimes it's vice-versa! My suspicion is that this is relevant in the rear-versus-middle driving axle debate.

 

My other comment is that I only open out coupling rod holes further as a last resort. I check each has a sufficient running clearance individually and no more. If the thing won't push freely along the track as an assembled chassis (rods on but no motor fitted) then something else is wrong - put it back in the Poppy's jig and check for fit. In that respect, I'm with Frank in wanting to get to the root cause of the mechanical problem.

 

On the other hand, I'm reminded of the tale of the aerodynamics engineers who studied the 'engineering' of the bumble bee and concluded that there was no way the damn thing could ever possibly fly. Fortunately, no-one told the bumble bee...

 

That's a very useful observation. I've got a set of Bachrus "rolling road" rollers  which are of good quality but running locos on them is never the same as running them on the track- even up and down a short test track. That leads me to wonder whether the rolling roads used by railways in the steam era had their rollers coupled.  A number of my H0 steam locos use a tender drive (with traction tyres) and I've ocassionally had the embarassment at exhibitions of seeing one of them running over our viaduct layout pulling a properly impressive rapide until you notice that the driving wheels are not moving!

 

BTW There's a very  good account of the origins of the "science claims that bumblebee can't fly so aren't scientists and engineers dumb " here

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/

It  caught my attention because one of the possible sources for the story it mentions is the German physicist  Ludwig Prandtl whose work on aerodynamics influenced the streamlining of steam locos in the 1930s.  André Chapelon was pretty sceptical about that and found far greater benefits from improving the steam circuit (though the real benefit of streamlining steam locos was probably more to make them look sleek and modern in competition with cars and aeroplanes)  

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll be off to see Retford soon, and give the new J6 a good run.

 

1206338605_EMJ606.jpg.502e70a1a7c75595c169f579dc08bcbf.jpg

 

I think my altering of the spectacles has made a big difference to the proportion of the 'plate and their relationship to the boiler. 

 

Note how large the spectacles are on the real thing....................

 

I'll take some more Retford photographs today, and show some on here........................

 

 

 

Altering the spectacles has made a huge difference. I remain slightly dubious about the relationship of the boiler to the cab front but it is hard to tell for sure, certainly from that angle, so that probably means it is close enough!

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another from yesterday I forgot to post!

Gateshead's 60002 'Sir Murrough Wilson'  heads northbound with the Tees-Tyne Pullman. Tony, would I be correct in thinking the Tees-Tyne was essentially the post war 'Silver Jubilee'. Were the timings similar?


 

DSC07561 (1).jpeg

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my L1, a Hornby model bought when they were first released. I wanted an Ardsley based loco so renumbered it and added the extra panels to the cab entrance and then weathered it. Later on I discovered it should also have the strengthening plate on top of the boiler and then to add salt in to the wound Hornby went onA9C48C56-FA18-49BE-AB65-F459E7F99450.jpeg.5dad71664856474ea7998ef48f7bc25a.jpeg and released the exact loco with all the correct details. Shouldn’t have been so impatient but it is a loco I do like and at one time had the ABS kit but sold it unmade.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Robert,

 

I've yet to find a picture of an L1 on the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, Robert (other than trip workings to High Dyke from Grantham). 

 

Ian Wilson recalls seeing Grantham-allocated 67800 at Peterborough North, so one might assume it worked a service through Little Bytham to get there. 

 

Tanks were more-often used on the Nottingham services from Grantham, though (surely?) they must have worked the occasional all-stations stoppers to Peterborough. Roy Jackson and his High Dyke team must have thought so, because there was one an L1 which worked on that layout. 

 

I have two L1s, and two A5s, on LB, so they're run occasionally. The L1 shown in Tom Foster's picture is an ancient ECJM (latterly ABS) kit which I built and painted. Tom weathered it expertly...........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

In all my time at Grantham in the 1950's & early 1960's the only time I remember seeing L1's going under the old A1 road to the south of Grantham was when they were going to High Dyke, sometimes with a couple of O2's and always with a Guards van in which changover staff were carried to High Dyke or back to Grantham. Like you I spoke to Roy at the exhibition held at Paddington when they exhibited "High Dyke" and mentioned a photograph in the railway modelling press at the time of a L1 on a local passenger train travelling past High Dyke in a Southerly direction and dared to say I didn't think it was prototypical  and he told me in two words to go away. ( I still don't think it was prototypical  )

The good wife was flabbergasted and said that "she thought I had said he was a friend of mine". I said "what's that got to do with it" and explained that Roy would speak to anyone in that manner. Sorely missed, even when he was a bit grumpy :mad:

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hawin Dooiey said:

Another from yesterday I forgot to post!

Gateshead's 60002 'Sir Murrough Wilson'  heads northbound with the Tees-Tyne Pullman. Tony, would I be correct in thinking the Tees-Tyne was essentially the post war 'Silver Jubilee'. Were the timings similar?


 

DSC07561 (1).jpeg

It was the equivalent Tom, sharing much the same departure/arrival times.

 

Strictly speaking this set isn't quite right for LB, since it has the Mk.1 Pullman cars in it. They arrived the year after the station closed.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CUTLER2579 said:

 

Tony,

In all my time at Grantham in the 1950's & early 1960's the only time I remember seeing L1's going under the old A1 road to the south of Grantham was when they were going to High Dyke, sometimes with a couple of O2's and always with a Guards van in which changover staff were carried to High Dyke or back to Grantham. Like you I spoke to Roy at the exhibition held at Paddington when they exhibited "High Dyke" and mentioned a photograph in the railway modelling press at the time of a L1 on a local passenger train travelling past High Dyke in a Southerly direction and dared to say I didn't think it was prototypical  and he told me in two words to go away. ( I still don't think it was prototypical  )

The good wife was flabbergasted and said that "she thought I had said he was a friend of mine". I said "what's that got to do with it" and explained that Roy would speak to anyone in that manner. Sorely missed, even when he was a bit grumpy :mad:

Thanks Derek,

 

I only got as far as mentioning to Roy (when I first saw High Dyke) that the domes on a couple of his A3s were incorrect (they were banjo types). I got exactly the same response!

 

I've actually been over to Retford today (socially distancing, of course), and took the opportunity to take some pictures (as well as doing other things). When selecting some of Roy's locos for photography, I was astonished at the number of 'mistakes'. I doubt if I've ever scrutinised them as closely before, but incorrect tenders, incorrect positions of front numberplates (an A3 with a single chimney with its front 'plate on the top hingestrap) and a backward-facing BR lion (early crest) meant a struggle to find one or two for the pictures.

 

As has been said before, 'we all have our blind spots'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Altering the spectacles has made a huge difference. I remain slightly dubious about the relationship of the boiler to the cab front but it is hard to tell for sure, certainly from that angle, so that probably means it is close enough!

 

 

I think 'close enough' sums it up, Tony,

 

Many thanks.

 

As mentioned in my last post, I've been over to Retford today (I hope 'granddad' is OK), and gave the J6 a run.................

 

2037957479_Retford2382002J6.jpg.f55e47c84b53cd3cad8e89dacbd85af0.jpg

 

Not having made its tender yet, it borrowed an ex-GC one (a first?), and I'm delighted to say it performed perfectly (perhaps Sandra might comment). 

 

We noted three other J6s (all Roy's), and splendid they are (I hope I can get near his standard). They're all 536 Series, so this earlier type will be a nice difference. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As just mentioned, a splendid time spent with Retford today.

 

I took along four locos; the J6 just shown, and the following three....................

 

852198990_Retford2382001D11.jpg.e43657ca12e6ff70a5b4916abddd27fa.jpg

 

Here's the modified Bachmann D11 which Ray Chessum altered to EM for me (I defy anyone to be able to see that the mainframes are too narrow at this range!). It performed impeccably, so thanks again Ray. It's now on indefinite loan to Retford. 

 

Strictly speaking, it's carrying the wrong headlamp code, since the rake is either parcels or empty stock. 

 

1518553782_Retford2382005Hunsletdieselshunter.jpg.a71b47ec4f25c607783f012dc0c0ce18.jpg

 

I also took along Tom Wright's Judith Edge Hunslet (it's on delivery from Leeds!). 

 

Though we didn't actually time this at its slowest speed (less than two mph), we calculated that it would take at least an hour to circumnavigate the GN bit of Retford! 

 

What a fantastic kit this is. Mike Edge (when he gave it to Tom) said it could be built by a teenager - and it was................

 

I think Sandra will paint it. 

 

1598318071_Retford2382006Deltic.jpg.f7c1d0d28bd229fa5cd13bfaa68f0211.jpg

 

I also took along Tom's twin-motored (O Gauge Mashimas) unfinished prototype 'Deltic'. At 50 mph it just roared round. 

 

We attached 29 carriages (half and half modified RTR and kit-built), and it made absolutely no difference to its speed. On a previous occasion, towards 70 carriages were tried (yes, five of Roy's full-length trains!), but the huge rake wanted to collapse inwards on the end curves, so the mucking-about was abandoned.

 

Robert Carroll took some moving footage on his phone which he says he'll post on here. 

 

More Retford pictures tomorrow......................... 

 

 

 

 And beside another stranger from the "Alloa" area!

 

Chas

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I think 'close enough' sums it up, Tony,

 

Many thanks.

 

As mentioned in my last post, I've been over to Retford today (I hope 'granddad' is OK), and gave the J6 a run.................

 

2037957479_Retford2382002J6.jpg.f55e47c84b53cd3cad8e89dacbd85af0.jpg

 

Not having made its tender yet, it borrowed an ex-GC one (a first?), and I'm delighted to say it performed perfectly (perhaps Sandra might comment). 

 

We noted three other J6s (all Roy's), and splendid they are (I hope I can get near his standard). They're all 536 Series, so this earlier type will be a nice difference. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

 

It would have been nice to have joined you today but things just didn't align as they need to for me to get away!

 

Lovely to see so many new locos appearing so quickly on Retford. They all look as though they belong on the layout too.

 

Is that a J38 that has escaped from its usual haunts? That isn't one I recall seeing around before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Speaking of the High Dyke layout, has anyone got any photos? I keep hearing it mentioned but I’ve never seen it and it sounds impressive 

 

If you can get a hold of a copy of issue 180 of MRJ, there is an article in there with a load of photos.

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

52 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Has Deltic gained a "Trunk", or is that an In-Flight Refuelling Probe I see.....:jester:

 

It's the discharge shoot for when it was being tested as a combine harvester to discharge the crop into a trailer. Can tell your not a arable farmer.:crazy:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

It would have been nice to have joined you today but things just didn't align as they need to for me to get away!

 

Lovely to see so many new locos appearing so quickly on Retford. They all look as though they belong on the layout too.

 

Is that a J38 that has escaped from its usual haunts? That isn't one I recall seeing around before.

It's Sandra's Tony,

 

We agree it shouldn't be mentioned in my captioning, but it's already been rumbled!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Tony Wright said:

It's Sandra's Tony,

 

We agree it shouldn't be mentioned in my captioning, but it's already been rumbled!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

You can't get away with anything on here!

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

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

Has Deltic gained a "Trunk", or is that an In-Flight Refuelling Probe I see.....:jester:

Odd isn't it, Brian, that the under-construction water crane and the under-construction Deltic should be primed in exactly the same colour? Or is it?

 

I did notice the 'proboscis', but thought it looked rather amusing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You can't get away with anything on here!

How right you are, Tony, how right..................

 

Even the 'departed' aren't immune.

 

13110778_Retford2382016A22.jpg.88ccca5f243070b3eb40e5f2a29abb63.jpg

 

I'm sure you'll remember this A2/2. As you'll recall, I built the chassis for this and completed most of the basic bodywork, including starting the making of the tender for Roy. 

 

The next time I returned, he'd completely dismantled the bodywork, much to my astonishment (it was at a bit of a low time for me and I didn't need it, but that's in the past now; and thanks once more for your support at the time). 

 

Anyway, he rebuilt it to produce the (rather nice) loco you see here. However, any work I'd done on the tender must have been abandoned because I found all the bits I'd done in a box the last time I was over. Didn't you say to me once that one of Roy's statements was 'Near enough is not good enough'? With that in mind, I'd say that tender is not near enough; the tank is 2mm too low - the horizontal beading should line up with the bottom of the eaves on the cab roof!

 

Another thing I found (which I now find amusing) was that he can't have thought much of my chassis either, because Sandra and I found a set of A2/2 frames he was making as a replacement.  

 

645733500_Retford2382015A22.jpg.b539cb1274885b7fca4c6fca558623c8.jpg

 

All the above said shouldn't take away anything from the 'great man's work'. Seen in context within this staggering creation, I don't think there's been a finer model railway in any scale or gauge. It'll be a tribute to him when it's finished, and I'm starting to make some (massive) telegraph poles for it!

 

By the way, it's been decided that there won't be a separate Retford thread, and Sandra's very happy for me to post progress reports on Retford on here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 14
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without stirring up the old DCC/analogue debate again, when Tom Foster was over on Saturday he mentioned comments from a friend of his which went along the lines of 'You always get smoother running with DCC'. When Tom mentioned he was coming to see LB again, the friend just stated that 'All the trains do on that layout is run round at high speed', or words to that effect.

 

Accepting my innate prejudice, but does DCC always give you superior running to analogue, all other factors being equal? 

 

Thinking about it, shouldn't it? There's always full voltage in the rails (so less risk of hesitation) and doesn't the chip 'smooth-out' the current? Or, am I, as usual, talking b*llocks? 

 

I have seen some superb slow-running locos (mainly diesel/electric-outline) on the 'depot-type' layouts which DCC-users tend to go for. Is stopping and starting improved with DCC?

 

I ask these questions because I really want to know. As I hope any visitors will testify, I get excellent running on LB (and not just with the fast trains, but the stoppers and the pick-ups as well), so analogue suits me fine. LB has been DCC-fitted from time to time (gasp!) for testing new RTR locos, but I've not noticed an appreciable 'improvement ' or is my vision clouded by prejudice? 

 

I have to say that I've seen some rubbish running on analogue, but also probably an equal amount where the control has been DCC. 

 

Over to those who know....................... 

  • Like 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad running is bad running, irrespective of what control system you use.   If any system could miraculously cure all the different factors which conspire against perfect operation, we'd all be using it.   The same basics apply to whatever scale, gauge or electrical configuration you choose to employ.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 9
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...