Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

I started work on an ECJS BG, I didn't even know what it was. I've finally finished it and achieved some sort of Nirvana.

 

The teak finish on that vehicle is lovely, Andrew. Do you have a tutorial anywhere to explain your methods?

[pete55]

12 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 

... and not forgetting the back-scene by the late Tom Harland.

 

Quite!!

I was there when Tom brought the back scene to Roy's, and this during the period he was under going his cancer treatment. Roy's first words were along the lines of 

"Have you signed it? We can then sell it when you have passed away!" 

Tom was quite amused by that. He was was going to continue his backscene work for the rest of the layout, but sadly that was not to be.

 

Pete

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'they are the freest running wagons I've ever seen.'

 

Indeed they are, John,

 

I had to do my best at 'first slip' to catch the Turbot as it tried to roll off my photo studio table! I had no idea it had a very slight slope. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good thing that Joss Butler was not there.

[t-b-g]

58 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I wish they were still around, too, Tony,

 

And, in case anyone thinks I'm only mentioning these things after the two 'giants' in question cannot reply, many's the time I've had face-to-face discussions with them about exactly what I've been saying.

 

Indeed, Malcolm and I had quite a 'heated' discussion about the K2 shown on the last page or two. It was at a Nottingham show (you might well have been alongside him) and I was told in no uncertain terms that my building of it was effectively 'rubbish', especially as I hadn't followed the prescribed path. His comments with regards to the rods not matching the frames were definitely along the lines of 'It wouldn't matter if you'd have done it properly - with compensation!'. Were you present when he tried to run his on Retford? It just about limped out of the fiddle yard, then fell off! Could you have resisted a chuckle? I couldn't. 

 

Regarding Roy, the very first time I met him he told me to 'F'-off! (I tell you no lie). I'd had the temerity to point out that the domes on two of his A3s on High Dyke were incorrect, being 'banjo' in style. 

 

I miss them both greatly, and I learned a huge amount from two wonderful blokes. However, they didn't always get things 'right', though they probably got more things correct than I ever did (or will do). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Two modellers discussing the merits or otherwise at a show is not quite the same as showing photos of a model built by somebody who is not around any more and saying "Look at what I have spotted that they did wrong".

 

You never did that sort of thing to Roy's models when he was alive. Why do it when he is not here any more? Some things like that are better kept to a "one to one" chat.

 

If I recall correctly, at the time Malcolm had no layout set up at home and neither of us had one set up to test run anything other than a couple of feet of straight test track. He took the model along to try it out and it struggled round curves and through points due to the pony truck catching. So he took it back and sorted it out. There were a few of Malcolm's locos that never were really fettled in the running department but they were generally ones that were not right for Thompson's End and lived in a showcase. I often told him that he should not take them to test on Roy's running days as that sort of thing should be done behind closed doors without people watching but he was not good at taking advice!

 

I often disagreed with things he said and did but I kept such things between him and me. I didn't feel the urge to broadcast them.

 

For what it is worth I tried to talk him into altering the K2 in case anybody wanted to build it rigid. His response was "That is their problem". It was!

 

The wrong rod length was not his fault. They were the same artwork for the rods as on the J6 and they fitted on that. Something went slightly astray in the scaling during the etching process that was not discovered until too late. It didn't show up in the test build as that was done as the designer intended and the rods were set up on jigs. He was quite right in that if you had built it as he intended, the rod length was sorted out by setting the bearings using the rods to space them.  

 

The locos that were used on his layout were all properly sorted out and ran as well as anything you or Roy built. Did you see his P1 with the working inside cylinder motion go round Retford with a huge load? It couldn't have run any better. There were many more like that that never got seen by anybody other than visitors to his home. They were for his own enjoyment and not to impress anybody else.

 

The way you write about him makes him sound as if he was not capable of building a loco that ran well. That is simply not the case. 

 

As for the scenic work on Retford, when I got involved the basic groundwork was already done but I didn't know who had done it. I presume that is what was Pete and Richard did. The rest of the scenic work was very much a joint effort. I started the work off and had done a small amount on the drainage ditch at the front when John McCrea came along. He and I worked on it together. John spent many hours on his knees marking out and cutting, then shaving yard after yard of teddy bear fur, while I was sticking it down and adding hedges, fences etc. John did all the trees along the back and we added an 8ft x 2ft secion to extend the scene as there was no place to put a break right through the middle of the old allotments. Tom Harland offered his considerable talent to do the backscene. He was going to do it all but became ill after the first section was completed and that was all he did.

 

It is a daunting task for whoever does the rest to try to match the first bit!

 

 

[Dylan Sanderson]

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I was wondering if I could pick your brains? (or anyone else's!)

 

I don't suppose you know which British Rail A2/2s and A2/3s one can create with just renaming/numbering Hornby's 2020 models?

 

Hope you and Mo are doing well and keeping busy during these weird times!

 

Many thanks,

 

Dylan.

 

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I was wondering if I could pick your brains? (or anyone else's!)

 

I don't suppose you know which British Rail A2/2s and A2/3s one can create with just renaming/numbering Hornby's 2020 models?

 

Hope you and Mo are doing well and keeping busy during these weird times!

 

Many thanks,

 

Dylan.

 

 

If you are willing to go a bit further than a renumber, I could suggest converting them to V2s and P2s. 

 

Well somebody had to say it!

[PMP]

39 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

 John did all the trees along the back and we added an 8ft x 2ft secion to extend the scene as there was no place to put a break right through the middle of the old allotments. Tom Harland offered his considerable talent to do the backscene. He was going to do it all but became ill after the first section was completed and that was all he did.

 

It is a daunting task for whoever does the rest to try to match the first bit!

 

 

When Roy and I refreshed the backscene around 2018, joining the normal paint to Tom’s work was really challenging, and I was reticent about doing it. Roy with his typical encouragement suggested I just ..... erm, do it, he had the faith that that I could join the plain sky we’d done and Toms work despite the differing media. It was nice to be entrusted with that task daunting though it was. I was in the negotiations phase of deciding how to do the Babworth road bridge surrounding scenery when he got very poorly.   

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Two modellers discussing the merits or otherwise at a show is not quite the same as showing photos of a model built by somebody who is not around any more and saying "Look at what I have spotted that they did wrong".

 

You never did that sort of thing to Roy's models when he was alive. Why do it when he is not here any more? Some things like that are better kept to a "one to one" chat.

 

If I recall correctly, at the time Malcolm had no layout set up at home and neither of us had one set up to test run anything other than a couple of feet of straight test track. He took the model along to try it out and it struggled round curves and through points due to the pony truck catching. So he took it back and sorted it out. There were a few of Malcolm's locos that never were really fettled in the running department but they were generally ones that were not right for Thompson's End and lived in a showcase. I often told him that he should not take them to test on Roy's running days as that sort of thing should be done behind closed doors without people watching but he was not good at taking advice!

 

I often disagreed with things he said and did but I kept such things between him and me. I didn't feel the urge to broadcast them.

 

For what it is worth I tried to talk him into altering the K2 in case anybody wanted to build it rigid. His response was "That is their problem". It was!

 

The wrong rod length was not his fault. They were the same artwork for the rods as on the J6 and they fitted on that. Something went slightly astray in the scaling during the etching process that was not discovered until too late. It didn't show up in the test build as that was done as the designer intended and the rods were set up on jigs. He was quite right in that if you had built it as he intended, the rod length was sorted out by setting the bearings using the rods to space them.  

 

The locos that were used on his layout were all properly sorted out and ran as well as anything you or Roy built. Did you see his P1 with the working inside cylinder motion go round Retford with a huge load? It couldn't have run any better. There were many more like that that never got seen by anybody other than visitors to his home. They were for his own enjoyment and not to impress anybody else.

 

The way you write about him makes him sound as if he was not capable of building a loco that ran well. That is simply not the case. 

 

As for the scenic work on Retford, when I got involved the basic groundwork was already done but I didn't know who had done it. I presume that is what was Pete and Richard did. The rest of the scenic work was very much a joint effort. I started the work off and had done a small amount on the drainage ditch at the front when John McCrea came along. He and I worked on it together. John spent many hours on his knees marking out and cutting, then shaving yard after yard of teddy bear fur, while I was sticking it down and adding hedges, fences etc. John did all the trees along the back and we added an 8ft x 2ft secion to extend the scene as there was no place to put a break right through the middle of the old allotments. Tom Harland offered his considerable talent to do the backscene. He was going to do it all but became ill after the first section was completed and that was all he did.

 

It is a daunting task for whoever does the rest to try to match the first bit!

 

 

I've obviously touched a nerve there, Tony,

 

And it's certainly not my intention to diminish the reputation of two great modellers. However, you're wrong in asserting that I never 'criticised' Roy's models when he was alive. He commented on mine, and I commented on his. Face-to-face, always, and on occasions in front of others. 

 

And, I don't believe I've ever said that Malcolm Crawley couldn't build a loco which ran well. Quite the opposite; I've frequently commented on how influential he was, especially to me. However, I'm no shrinking violet, and to be told (in front of quite an audience) that I wasn't building a loco properly is something I'll comment on. I'd written a published review of the said K2 and he effectively accused me of being 'misleading' in what I'd written. 

 

Retford's 'revival' is certainly generating a huge amount of interest, and if some (small) things are added (loco lamps, for instance), then I don't think that will take away anything from Roy's work. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, pete55 said:

 

Hello Tony,

the gantry was built and installed by Martin Lloyd, and I believe the signal at the end of platform 1 was built by Mick Moore.

 

The scenic work was started by Richard Nice and myself, but was mainly the work of  (Buccaneer) John McRae and Tony Gee.

 

Pete

Thanks Pete,

 

For all of you who did the work, it's exceptionally-good.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

 

... and not forgetting the back-scene by the late Tom Harland.

Yes,

 

I should have mentioned Tom's work. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I was wondering if I could pick your brains? (or anyone else's!)

 

I don't suppose you know which British Rail A2/2s and A2/3s one can create with just renaming/numbering Hornby's 2020 models?

 

Hope you and Mo are doing well and keeping busy during these weird times!

 

Many thanks,

 

Dylan.

 

I'll try, Dylan............

 

If these images are 'correct'...................

 

60523 can be changed into any A2/3, after they (all) received Peppercorn boilers. 

 

60512 can be changed into any A2/3 in early BR guise, apart from 60500 (which retained its original boiler band configuration, with the cladding in four sections, until it received a Peppercorn boiler). 

 

60505 cannot be altered to any other A2/2, because it's the only one fitted with a Thompson Dia.117 boiler (dome further forward). If I read the image correctly (with a lipped chimney), it'll only represent the loco for the last six months of its life.

 

60501. If this image is as it's going to be, then the vacuum ejector pipe should not be dead straight; it was cranked above the nameplate on the real thing. I can't tell if the main handrails are stopped short of the smokebox front ring (as they should be). If they are, then to make 60502 (the only other A2/2 with a beaded tender), then those handrails will have to be extended and clipped to the smokebox front. The dead straight ejector pipe is correct for 60502. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dylan Sanderson]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll try, Dylan............

 

If these images are 'correct'...................

 

60523 can be changed into any A2/3, after they (all) received Peppercorn boilers. 

 

60512 can be changed into any A2/3 in early BR guise, apart from 60500 (which retained its original boiler band configuration, with the cladding in four sections, until it received a Peppercorn boiler). 

 

60505 cannot be altered to any other A2/2, because it's the only one fitted with a Thompson Dia.117 boiler (dome further forward). If I read the image correctly (with a lipped chimney), it'll only represent the loco for the last six months of its life.

 

60501. If this image is as it's going to be, then the vacuum ejector pipe should not be dead straight; it was cranked above the nameplate on the real thing. I can't tell if the main handrails are stopped short of the smokebox front ring (as they should be). If they are, then to make 60502 (the only other A2/2 with a beaded tender), then those handrails will have to be extended and clipped to the smokebox front. The dead straight ejector pipe is correct for 60502. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Many thanks as always Tony!

 

Stay safe and Happy modelling,

Dylan.

[Clem]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

I started work on an ECJS BG, I didn't even know what it was. I've finally finished it and achieved some sort of Nirvana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beautiful!

[Tony Wright]

To pull together a few recent 'observations'.

 

Firstly, thanks to all who've commented on the (great) work on Retford. 

 

Regarding 'criticisms', I encourage them. 'Constructive criticism', though. I have no time for those who snipe, yet don't offer an alternative solution nor are prepared to do something to help. 

 

Every item of my work I post on here I expect to be 'criticised'. I learn from it and it encourages me to try harder. 

 

It's the same with Little Bytham itself. If things are incorrect, they should be pointed out. 

 

I'd even venture to state that 'constructive criticism' is what make Wright Writes so active, at least in part. That said, I would be horrified if folk were put off posting examples of their work in case it 'were pulled to bits'. And, everyone has the right to respond. 

[Iain Mac]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Anybody spot the two different sorts of track? Both flat bottom but with different rail fixings. The rails laid in the 6ft and the differences between the two tracks and the state of the ballast make me wonder if the worker is from the P.Way department and is either checking or inspecting the track as part of a routine inspection or in connection with a job. At least he is facing any oncoming train.

 

As you correctly state, the gentleman is facing traffic.

 

Looks to be an early LWR site, down line only, so very likely an Inspector checking fixings.

Old rail in the 6' perhaps but the LWR doesn't look particularly recently installed for the 60's to still be lying aside for recovery.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Iain Mac
Usual phone mistype....

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've obviously touched a nerve there, Tony,

 

And it's certainly not my intention to diminish the reputation of two great modellers. However, you're wrong in asserting that I never 'criticised' Roy's models when he was alive. He commented on mine, and I commented on his. Face-to-face, always, and on occasions in front of others. 

 

And, I don't believe I've ever said that Malcolm Crawley couldn't build a loco which ran well. Quite the opposite; I've frequently commented on how influential he was, especially to me. However, I'm no shrinking violet, and to be told (in front of quite an audience) that I wasn't building a loco properly is something I'll comment on. I'd written a published review of the said K2 and he effectively accused me of being 'misleading' in what I'd written. 

 

Retford's 'revival' is certainly generating a huge amount of interest, and if some (small) things are added (loco lamps, for instance), then I don't think that will take away anything from Roy's work. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Virtually every time Malcolm's name comes up you mention something about seeing locos of his that didn't  perform.

 

You would never have posted those photos and comments about Roy's locos if he had still been here.

 

When they were around, the three of you were like heavyweight boxers vying for bragging rights and generally sparring. None of you was ever slow to score a point over one of the others if you could.

 

That is all well, good and great fun when the others can respond.

 

When they cannot, it is as if you are safe to say what you like now, as they can no longer answer back.

 

So yes, nerves were indeed touched. I don't like seeing friends drawing attention to the shortcomings of other friends. That sort of thing is fine in private (where we can be merciless, quite rude and take the whatsit out of each other) but not on a public forum. There it comes across as trying to score points. Or it does to me anyway.

 

Mentioning the lack of lamp irons on Singapore to Sandra in the shed is one thing. Taking and posting a photo and drawing attention to it on a forum is another. It is one of the main reasons why Roy was reluctant to have photos splashed all over the internet. He knew how much needed doing and he wanted outstanding tasks done before things were shown off too much. He isn't making those decisions any more but such things do make me think that perhaps he had the right idea. He always wanted to finish the layout then reveal it and it was only persistence from the model press that led to the occasional progress report appearing.

 

At that point I will shut up and say no more on the matter. I think I have made my views clear!

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Many thanks as always Tony!

 

Stay safe and Happy modelling,

Dylan.

Just to make the response comprehensive, Dylan............

 

I should have been more-specific.............

 

60523 will not suit 60514 or 60519 because both of these never received lipped chimneys, retaining their double stovepipes to withdrawal. Not only that, 60514 had backing plates between the sandbox fillers - as did 60500 for a time.

 

I think the best answer is, if one is contemplating renumbering/renaming, then, as always, consult prototype pictures. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

The teak finish on that vehicle is lovely, Andrew. Do you have a tutorial anywhere to explain your methods?

 

Thank's,

 

I keep trying to produce a tutorial but when I read it back I can't see how anybody could produce anything but a mess, it becomes a bit pointless really.

[Tony Wright]

6 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Virtually every time Malcolm's name comes up you mention something about seeing locos of his that didn't  perform.

 

You would never have posted those photos and comments about Roy's locos if he had still been here.

 

When they were around, the three of you were like heavyweight boxers vying for bragging rights and generally sparring. None of you was ever slow to score a point over one of the others if you could.

 

That is all well, good and great fun when the others can respond.

 

When they cannot, it is as if you are safe to say what you like now, as they can no longer answer back.

 

So yes, nerves were indeed touched. I don't like seeing friends drawing attention to the shortcomings of other friends. That sort of thing is fine in private (where we can be merciless, quite rude and take the whatsit out of each other) but not on a public forum. There it comes across as trying to score points. Or it does to me anyway.

 

Mentioning the lack of lamp irons on Singapore to Sandra in the shed is one thing. Taking and posting a photo and drawing attention to it on a forum is another. It is one of the main reasons why Roy was reluctant to have photos splashed all over the internet. He knew how much needed doing and he wanted outstanding tasks done before things were shown off too much. He isn't making those decisions any more but such things do make me think that perhaps he had the right idea. He always wanted to finish the layout then reveal it and it was only persistence from the model press that led to the occasional progress report appearing.

 

At that point I will shut up and say no more on the matter. I think I have made my views clear!

You have made your views clear, Tony,

 

And I respect them.

 

Perhaps in future, when I take further pictures of Retford I'll merely post them, commenting on nothing. Not even praise. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Beautiful!

 

Thank's,

 

I'm not super happy with the photographs, a little bit contrasty, I should have re-shot them but publish and be damned, as they say.

[t-b-g]

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

You have made your views clear, Tony,

 

And I respect them.

 

Perhaps in future, when I take further pictures of Retford I'll merely post them, commenting on nothing. Not even praise. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Fair enough Tony.

 

I am quite happy leaving that call up to Sandra as to what is or isn't said about Retford.

 

Regards

 

Tony

[MikeTrice]

45 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Thank's,

 

I keep trying to produce a tutorial but when I read it back I can't see how anybody could produce anything but a mess, it becomes a bit pointless really.

Only one way to find out ;-)

[Tom F]

Currently in the process of editing the latest Little Bytham video. All footage shot by Tony, I'm merely editing.

 

It's around half an hour long, so will upload to youtube overnight, and will post in here tomorrow morning. 

 

Tony has taken some superb shots, it's going to be something rather special!
 

[2750Papyrus]

1 minute ago, Hawin Dooiey said:

Currently in the process of editing the latest Little Bytham video. All footage shot by Tony, I'm merely editing.

 

It's around half an hour long, so will upload to youtube overnight, and will post in here tomorrow morning. 

 

Tony has taken some superb shots, it's going to be something rather special!
 

 

Looking forward to that - a chance to watch steam trains go by!

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Fair enough Tony.

 

I am quite happy leaving that call up to Sandra as to what is or isn't said about Retford.

 

Regards

 

Tony

And fair enough, Tony,

 

It is going to be Sandra's call after all. 

 

I count it a privilege to be invited to continue to take photographs of Retford. As you know, I've said in the past that (when complete) it'll be the finest model railway ever made, at least in my opinion. I hope when this wretched covid situation settles down, work can continue on completing it, if nothing else but a tribute to Roy himself. I would not like to compromise its completion by making 'contentious' comments. 

 

Though I was never part of the team, I'm quite prepared to 'do my bit'. Fitting lamps to the locos is the least I can do (Dave F, if you're reading this, how much for a hundred of the your LNER lamps?). I'm also going to make some of the larger telegraph poles. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.