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

  • RMweb Premium
51 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've seen two or three photos where it seems to be in use on the branch passenger service, along with a single coach; a BC or BCK, I'm not sure which. 

 

My guess is there was too much traffic on offer for the small van compartment in that, and it wasn't uncommon for a useful van turning up with no "Return to Xxx" branding, to get "borrowed" until somebody asked for it back. By then BY vans were distinctly under-employed, so its possible nobody ever did!

 

Something similar happened on the S&DJR Burnham branch with a Thompson BZ, which got teamed with a LMS CK, IIRC.

 

John

 

 

 

I will have to have a look as that branch is still a possible for a small layout. Even have a small prarie and a 22 just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Lovely.   Compare that to the real thing here (starts at 6:28).   I think you've pretty much got it.

 

I would have loved to have shared that film with my father.  He started at St John's College in York in 1939 so possibly would have witnessed the frozen Ouse, I don't recall him talking about it though.  One thing he did recall was that on occasions students, operating in pairs, would reach out of the corridor windows to drop a destination board near the river (from the Scarborough Railway Bridge perhaps?).  Apparently the boat house had quite a collection of these.  I doubt that this was approved of by either the college or the L.N.E.R. but they probably never knew what was going on.   He did not have many good things to say about the Duke of Kent so perhaps it's as well he never saw it!

Edited by Adam88
typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

Fortunately, Clem is not one for just copying other modelers and manufactures mistakes. I'm sure he will make a cracking job of converting it into a more appropriate dia.170, based on the kit and also suitable for the real train that he is researching and constructing. I look forwards to seeing the results.

Yikes! No pressure then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Thanks for the heads-up on the ducket, I'll make a point of acquiring/making the right sort for my next attempt. 

 

From photos, it also looks like most lost their full-length footboards in later life, though I'm guessing some might have been built that way.....

 

John

Good morning John,

 

The top photograph on page 15 of BR General Parcels Rolling Stock, A Pictorial Survey by David Larkin, Bradford Barton, 1978 shows a BY (E70217E) with two short footboards, beneath the doors. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I agree.  I've been travelling regularly from Bedfordshire to the Borders over the last 12 months, as I'm in a small truck I take a break at Scotch Corner and park right at the back of the car park where it's quiet (stops people helping themselves to things off the back) On the way back on a Sunday evening I'm always there at roughly the same time and watch a procession of small vans arriving and parking up to swap over bags of parcels. There are sometimes 8-10 vans swapping over and the amount of stuff that is flung from one van to the other and kicked about is astonishing.  

I thought at first it was a 3rd rate courier company, but after a while it became obvious it was Amazon. 

 

Dave, 

I hope that doesn't mean you sample the Bacon Rolls !!! I was introduced to them by Mr King and Mr White on our way to visit "Grantham" near Bishop Auckland ?

Now when I transfer Guide Dogs to or from Scotland I suggest this lay by as a meeting point. Doggies not allowed Pork so have to bee greedy and eat it all myself.:D

Regards,Derek.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

My Wills 2251, built in 1971, is still "runnable" although it's a long time since it has actually run. It might be disqualified though as it had a 5-pole motor and Romford wheels fitted about 30 years ago.

It qualifies perfectly John.

 

I think Wills did four 0-6-0 tender loco kits to go on top of a Tri-ang 'Jinty' chassis - your 2251, a Southern Q, a 4F and a J39. The chassis probably wasn't accurate for any of them; which caused a problem for those who wished to make 'correct' frames for the locos, because the splashers matched the 'Jinty's' wheel spacing. That said, didn't Wills do a 'scale' chassis for the 4F? 

 

I know when Dave Ellis of SE Finecast reintroduced the kits, it was all with new tooling, along with etched nickel silver chassis. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jack P said:

I hope this qualifies for posting here, as its slightly more 'on theme' than my usual stuff.

 

I was asked to add etched plates and weather my friends A4 'Kingfisher'

 

50304287542_ddeb182cb6_h.jpg

 

50303449288_b518aa906c_h.jpg

 

I understand that the painted plates weren't added until much later, but this is how he wanted it. Also my first time seeing an A4 model in the flesh. I really enjoyed picking all the rivet detail out on the valences.

Now that looks amazing...

 

You've given me some inspiration to get an LNER A4! I always though Garter Blue looked 'Toy-like' compared to Brunswick, but a properly weathered one like yours just looks the business!

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Haha, that one was as good as Jonathan sending me a yellow pages directory for a taxidermist. 
 

Sh*t happens as they say, no matter, I’m going to go to the post office today and the blame will probably go round in circles. Just ganna get on with it and strip and re build it

Good morning Jesse,

 

It'll be interesting if you ever find out where the actual damage was done - in Australia, in transit or (most likely?) here in the UK. 

 

It's interesting that (as we spoke of yesterday) the kit was glued together, and the 'impacts' have reduced it once again to its component parts. Were it soldered, the damage would probably have been much more severe. 

 

I assume it was insured when you posted it to me? As I mentioned, when I posted your C2 off to you, it was covered by the most-comprehensive insurance available (that's why it cost over £75.00 to send it!). Which meant that, had the worst happened (fortunately, it didn't), its full value would have been paid out.

 

I know we personally spoke of these things yesterday, but it might be of interest to others. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Now that looks amazing...

 

You've given me some inspiration to get an LNER A4! I always though Garter Blue looked 'Toy-like' compared to Brunswick, but a properly weathered one like yours just looks the business!

Good morning Dylan,

 

It shows how good the Hornby A4 is at source - brought to life by a highly-skilled weathering job.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

I wonder if I may impose on the A4 experts in the thread.  

 

I'm looking to model Sir Nigel Gresley as running preserved in the late 1970s/early 1980s and wonder which Hornby A4 would be the most appropriate starting point in terms of body/chimney/tender combination?  I don't mind having the repaint and, as I model in P4, the plan is to use the Brassmasters Easichas.

 

John

Edited by johndon
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Mention of Wils kits on top of old Tri-ang mechanisms prompted me to dig out pictures of one example I still have. 

 

1509186423_A260532Wills.jpg.7d1a9b9278c702f3a07faaf4bb99d9ae.jpg

 

In the early-'70s, when the notion of building working mechanisms was still daunting to me, by building a Wills kit to go on top of a Tri-ang chassis at least one obtained a 'runner'. This old thing originally retained its Tr-ang wheels (with flangeless centre drivers!). I immediately considered myself a 'scale modeller' when later I bushed the chassis (including the gearwheel, which was Araldited in place on the axle!) and fitted Romford wheels; then, made Jamieson valve gear for it. When built, it had the Wills tender (beading on an A2 tender, with  turn-ins at the front, no rivets and corridor tender width?). A few years later I built a DJH tender for it. 

 

My painting of it is 'of its day'. 

 

1276250509_vans10fittedfreight60532.jpg.74f44ed57ae74c161553d43214c952b1.jpg

 

Despite still retaining its original XO4, it still sees service from time to time on LB. 

 

When I first built it, I used the dome provided (a 'banjo' type - Mr Roche, Oh dear!).  The multiple valve regulator gear was scratch-built. 

 

As can be seen, down its 45+ years of existence it's been 'improved' piecemeal, but only up to a point. 

 

505205789_6053860532A2s.jpg.81ee75b71b5cdc8f3e78080d4d6c2727.jpg

 

For my Crowood book, I used it as a comparison with a Bachmann A2 (which I detailed/renumbered/renamed). Quite a difference!

 

Does anyone out there have examples of Tri-ang-powered pieces of antiquity?

 

 

 

 

I have one, built by the previous owner of Retford back in the 70`s which has suffered the ravages of house moves etc.thumbnail.jpeg.e18341d30061427b10fa2facae87e68b.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Clem said:

Yikes! No pressure then!

 

I wouldn't worry Clem, people are not do bothered about accuracy in model railway land, unless it's a locomotive or a lamp,

 

I now have the dimensions for the Chiverse van, as compared to both dia. 120 and 170. The 120 is the same height from the rail to the top of the cornice as a standard Gresley carriage, the 170 is only 6/8 of an inch lower. The Chiverse van looks to be based on the drawing in Tatlow. Ironically, the drawing has the correct dimensions written on it but the drawing is not scaled correctly to those dimensions. If you measure it with a ruler, you get the Chiverse van. It's about 2mm two short from rail height to the top of the cornice for a 120 and 1 1/2 mil too short for a 170.

 

On another note, Bill Bedford has removed most of the products from his website, no more GC carriages for the foreseeable future! Sometimes I hate model railways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This J39 is my ‘best’ example of a Triang/ Wills hybrid.

 

DAC01FC1-BB01-4B6D-B19A-EB6658F29AA8.jpeg.281b7a4218d35a384b463e837d5bb7a8.jpegE830C193-19E7-4CF0-AC6E-98A1C80D0F05.jpeg.eaf0e76609d193867c3cb7281896af0b.jpeg

 

This was built around 1980 when I was still at school. It still runs (with a waddle) but doesn’t get much use as it’s not DCC fitted. I have bought a Bachmann J11 chassis to fit to it, but I’m still working out how to do the lubricator drive.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

It'll be interesting if you ever find out where the actual damage was done - in Australia, in transit or (most likely?) here in the UK. 

 

It's interesting that (as we spoke of yesterday) the kit was glued together, and the 'impacts' have reduced it once again to its component parts. Were it soldered, the damage would probably have been much more severe. 

 

I assume it was insured when you posted it to me? As I mentioned, when I posted your C2 off to you, it was covered by the most-comprehensive insurance available (that's why it cost over £75.00 to send it!). Which meant that, had the worst happened (fortunately, it didn't), its full value would have been paid out.

 

I know we personally spoke of these things yesterday, but it might be of interest to others. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

G’day 

 

Well it turns out it wasn’t insured, no matter, before I even asked about insurance the bloke at the post office just told me to ring this number and complain and kinda shoved me aside....no point going further with it. The time it’ll take to make a small complaint I could use to strip and rebuild it. I think it being glued was a silver lining of some degree. 
 

I was planning on going to an electronics store this afternoon, but the optometrist appointment took longer then expected....I now need glasses to drive, ride and see distances. I am slowly levelling up to an old git. 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

I do something similar, with additional columns detailing the livery it is painted in, the number that I have assigned to the storage box that it is kept in when not on the layout, and the version of Kadee coupler fitted.

 

The loco spreadsheet has several additional columns, detailing the DCC chip make and model, the allocated address number, the sound file (where appropriate), and as work on my fleet is ongoing, whether crew, lamps, coal, weathering have been completed, or are still to do.  It is amazing how these sundries can all add up cost-wise, especially across the whole fleet.  I also am in the process of adding shed allocation details for the period modelled.  A very wide column is also used to keep miscellaneous notes about any modifications made to RTR stock, and the location of any reference photographs of the original.

 

It is amazing how the sundries can all add up cost-wise, especially across the whole fleet.

 

I sometimes think it’s all a bit nerdy, and a mammoth task if starting out from scratch, but once you get going it quickly all come together.  I have been amazed how often I reference the content.

Thanks Phil,

 

I do have extra columns for my locos including DCC chip & shed code. I also have a column for the period it represents (based on livery, boiler, chimney etc.) as my timeframe covers 1948-1962 but I like any particular train to be correct for a year. I will add crew, lamps, weathering etc. as that seems like useful info and the idea of adding reference photos is a good one. I sometimes put a photocopy in the loco box, but a spreadsheet reference would be more reliable and easier to access.

 

These are just the sort of ideas I was hoping my post would trigger, so thanks for your reply.

 

Andy

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

Re the A7 disaster wreck shown yesterday. I have now recieved a full refund from the seller, and he doesnt wish for it to be returned.

 

In view of this the bin option is on hold for the moment.

 

Photos of the rtr chassis in case anyone has any idea what it might be. It has been cut to fit the body. The XO4 type  motor is 5 pole and runs well after repostioning the motor/gear gap and oiling. The gear has some wear on it from the earlier/previous spinning , at the moment it is turning ok.

 

It has etched rods fitted at 29mm spacing between each crankpin. I have no idea if this is correct for a A7, or if the rods are from the original kit. I havent been able to find the spacings so far ?

It needs a sub chassis added to the front end , this will look better and stop the cylinders turning from side to side under load. Any suggestions re the best  material and thickness to use . I am hoping to use plastic sheet if viable.

 

IMG_2128.JPG.ee222a1cf6d054fb853622ae295d04e5.JPGIMG_2129.JPG.557fb3f363bb1284becba70bec727f96.JPGfullsizeoutput_336d.jpeg.63f16c1eb96e7a568a759c0b11c0c450.jpegfullsizeoutput_336e.jpeg.74212df1bc70a5ee7bdb330983f29c32.jpeg

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Willie,

 

My recommendation is to take out a specialist insurance for your model railway items, especially if you have a lot.

 

I use Magnet (I have no commercial connection with the firm), and their rates are very good.

 

I would imagine that most 'ordinary' house insurances would be bamboozled by a claim for model railway items damaged, destroyed or nicked; unless you have a clause in the policies. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I also use Magnet and they seem very good - although thankfully I've never had to claim, so I can't vouch for how good they are at paying out!

 

I switched from my household insurance a couple of years ago when I noticed that they limited the amount paid out for 'any one item or collection' to £10k. That might sound like a lot, but a model railway collection can soon build up. If you don't have specialist insurance, I'd recommend, as a minimum, a check of your home insurance policy.

 

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

43 minutes ago, micklner said:

Re the A7 disaster wreck shown yesterday. I have now recieved a full refund from the seller, and he doesnt wish for it to be returned.

 

In view of this the bin option is on hold for the moment.

 

Photos of the rtr chassis in case anyone has any idea what it might be. It has been cut to fit the body. The XO4 type  motor is 5 pole and runs well after repostioning the motor/gear gap and oiling. The gear has some wear on it from the earlier/previous spinning , at the moment it is turning ok.

 

It has etched rods fitted at 29mm spacing between each crankpin. I have no idea if this is correct for a A7, or if the rods are from the original kit. I havent been able to find the spacings so far ?

It needs a sub chassis added to the front end , this will look better and stop the cylinders turning from side to side under load. Any suggestions re the best  material and thickness to use . I am hoping to use plastic sheet if viable.

 

IMG_2128.JPG.ee222a1cf6d054fb853622ae295d04e5.JPGIMG_2129.JPG.557fb3f363bb1284becba70bec727f96.JPGfullsizeoutput_336d.jpeg.63f16c1eb96e7a568a759c0b11c0c450.jpegfullsizeoutput_336e.jpeg.74212df1bc70a5ee7bdb330983f29c32.jpeg

This is just a guess, Mick,

 

But it looks like a much-modified Tri-ang/Hornby A3 chassis; the slot beneath the motor accommodating the (plastic) motion support bracket and its being driven off the rear axle suggest this.............. 

 

It's obviously been re-wheeled with much smaller drivers. 

 

The coupled wheelbase for an A7 is 7' 3" + 7' + 3", which is exactly the same as an A3 (though whether the Tri-ang A3 chassis scales at this, I don't know. It might do, because they're certainly not the original Tri-ang 'rods). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
44 minutes ago, micklner said:

Re the A7 disaster wreck shown yesterday. I have now recieved a full refund from the seller, and he doesnt wish for it to be returned.

 

In view of this the bin option is on hold for the moment.

 

Photos of the rtr chassis in case anyone has any idea what it might be. It has been cut to fit the body. The XO4 type  motor is 5 pole and runs well after repostioning the motor/gear gap and oiling. The gear has some wear on it from the earlier/previous spinning , at the moment it is turning ok.

 

It has etched rods fitted at 29mm spacing between each crankpin. I have no idea if this is correct for a A7, or if the rods are from the original kit. I havent been able to find the spacings so far ?

It needs a sub chassis added to the front end , this will look better and stop the cylinders turning from side to side under load. Any suggestions re the best  material and thickness to use . I am hoping to use plastic sheet if viable.

 

IMG_2128.JPG.ee222a1cf6d054fb853622ae295d04e5.JPGIMG_2129.JPG.557fb3f363bb1284becba70bec727f96.JPGfullsizeoutput_336d.jpeg.63f16c1eb96e7a568a759c0b11c0c450.jpegfullsizeoutput_336e.jpeg.74212df1bc70a5ee7bdb330983f29c32.jpeg

 

The drive on the rear axle, the "Magnadhesion" magnet well away from the wheel edge suggesting it was origninally for something with larger wheels and the flat plat with screw hole at the front all remind my of the old Triang B12 chassis.

 

It is years since I saw one so I couldn't check.

 

The "Jinty" I had was driven on the centre axle. Maybe they changed later.

 

Edit to add that I have just seen Tony W's post. I never had a Triang A3 so it could just as likely be that. 

Edited by t-b-g
To add content
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I also use Magnet and they seem very good - although thankfully I've never had to claim, so I can't vouch for how good they are at paying out!

 

I switched from my household insurance a couple of years ago when I noticed that they limited the amount paid out for 'any one item or collection' to £10k. That might sound like a lot, but a model railway collection can soon build up. If you don't have specialist insurance, I'd recommend, as a minimum, a check of your home insurance policy.

 

Thanks Andy,

 

It's astonishing how the sums quickly add up. Add up to far more than expected.

 

When WMRC took out Stoke Summit and Charwelton to shows, both layouts were insured for over £100,000,00 each! We always thought that those were 'conservative' estimates. 

 

I think what had to be taken into account was, say, in the event of a total loss, what had to be calculated was how much would it cost to ask a team of (highly-experienced) modellers to recreate the whole lot, to the same standard, including all the locos/stock? Given that one or two in the team were professional model-makers - a lot! 

 

I'm sure it's the case that most modellers (even where they have insurance) hopelessly undervalue what they've got. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The drive on the rear axle, the "Magnadhesion" magnet well away from the wheel edge suggesting it was origninally for something with larger wheels and the flat plat with screw hole at the front all remind my of the old Triang B12 chassis.

 

It is years since I saw one so I couldn't check.

 

The "Jinty" I had was driven on the centre axle. Maybe they changed later.

 

Edit to add that I have just seen Tony W's post. I never had a Triang A3 so it could just as likely be that. 

It's the slot in the frames which made me think it was an A3, Tony,

 

Though both the Tri-ang A3 and the B12 shared the same chassis block (and the 'Hall' and the original 'Coronation').

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, johndon said:

I wonder if I may impose on the A4 experts in the thread.  

 

I'm looking to model Sir Nigel Gresley as running preserved in the late 1970s/early 1980s and wonder which Hornby A4 would be the most appropriate starting point in terms of body/chimney/tender combination?  I don't mind having the repaint and, as I model in P4, the plan is to use the Brassmasters Easichas.

 

John

Good afternoon John,

 

What you need is a Hornby A4 with a double chimney, no valences and towing a 1928-style corridor tender. That's the one with a flat back, beading and a turn-in at the front of the tanks. 

 

Like this...........

 

701056410_60032onElizabethan.jpg.77d59701ff4b6b89aa2e1d8570eab1d0.jpg

 

60032.jpg.e4d73af05575df6c85b2b70e18b58501.jpg

 

I can't remember which manifestation this was originally, but I renumbered/renamed it to represent GANNET. I've since sold it on. 

 

Avoid the Railroad version (even if you won't be using the chassis). Though the loco body is fine, the tender is the too-fat one, originally made obese to accommodate the tender drive. 

 

This is what SIR NIGEL GRESLEY looked like (or a model of it) as first preserved in the late-'60s............

 

1326007324_SEFinecastA420.jpg.9bd44e4759cb42abe71382ae64a796b4.jpg

 

1727194686_SEFinecastA424.jpg.6027a9a61311892edbdbe3c5ed78443d.jpg

 

I built this from a SE Finecast kit (which Ian Rathbone painted - he's now repainting it to BR green). 

 

If your model is to represent the loco in this condition, you'll probably have to take off the front numberplate from the Hornby model. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Here is a picture of my latest project just waiting final transfers. It’s a bit of a departure from normal for me being my first O gauge kit.

FFE38A21-1E0E-4FF9-9668-1E0176F72C65.jpeg.2f0d1400af28ea4e1a6ac22f1eaf50dd.jpeg403428E0-C8A9-4011-AFC1-DC1CEB5AB6AC.jpeg.a2726dc73b8888d296d1eda713744451.jpeg

 

It’s built from a Kirk modular kit which is a bit like cut ‘n’ shut but where the cutting has already been done for you! I enjoyed the build, particularly the teak painting which is easier to get right in 7mm.

 

More details of the build are on my workbench thread starting here.

Andy

 

  • Like 12
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've never been good at the former (though I'm trying - very trying!), but I need to with regards to the future. I say that having tried to find new homes for models on behalf of bereaved families, where a list (or at least a starting point) would have been very useful.

 

A list of models is a useful starting point as long as the family or executers knows it exists and where to find it! Putting an up-to-date copy every few months in an "incase I die" folder or envelope can make a bereaved families life less stressful.

 

The chap who helped me write my will suggested writing a "Letter of Wishes" - it's not a legally binding document but can help executers/trustees to ensure any personal wishes are carried out. I my case, I included a section on my models, including contact details for two trusted modelling friends who would be able to assist in selling on my models after I'm gone. You can also use it to outline any special models that might have extra sentimental value to yourself should your family wish to keep any models.

 

Likewise, if you store your stock on the layout or in stock-boxes then it can also help reunite models with their original boxes (assuming you've kept them).

 

Steven B.

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
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...