Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I don't know whether they had them fitted originally. Photos I have seen have nothing or just the junction boxes in the case of one in LNER livery. The two pictures of the D170 I particularly remember did have jumpers.

 

Eric

 

Evening Eric,

 

you are probably right, I was thinking that myself after I wrote it, there being no evidence of them ever being there. 

 

I was just looking at a gorgeous photo of a dia 170 van, taken at newcastle but from the duckett side. I can't publish it unfortunately but It has the Jumper cables, shelves for pigeons or fruit and veg if you are that way inclined but lettered BY only, no Pigeon branding. The dynamo is right hand end from the ducket, battery boxes on the other side. A little quirk is that the guards door and van door both have hooded ventilators rather than that on the van door being a top light. The vehicle is in BR maroon with waist lining, another quirk is that the chalk patches are painted over the top of the waist lining at both ends, producing a rather unusual effect. I notice that the 170 has step boards that overlap the wooden headstocks, on 177 for example, the stepboards end short of the wooden headstock.

[cctransuk]

47 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

... I was not being serious ...

 

I did detect the humour .

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Headstock]

55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The point was made of late about manufacturers 'getting things wrong' and that 'ignorance' often means that those things went unnoticed; by those who don't know, don't particularly want to know and don't care. 

 

I'm asked on frequent occasions if I can 'fix' things which have broken/ceased to work/been damaged/are inaccurate or any other things folk think I'm capable of repairing/altering/making good and so on....................

 

If successful, a modest donation to CRUK is requested.

 

Last month a friend brought along a Crownline A2/3 which he and a friend of his had built/painted between them, with a request of 'Can you repair this, please?'.  

 

 

 

The expansion link on this side had broken in two, effectively making the loco something of a 'pole-vaulter' when it ran, as the forward end of the eccentric rod attempted to dig into the ballast! Fixing it took no more than 15 minutes, with a substitute expansion link from a Morgan Gilbert fret, a nut and bolt and a dab of solder. 

 

But, what's this got to do with inaccuracies and things which are wrong? I state right now that I have no wish to be disparaging about my friend's work and his friend's work (it's all theirs, after all), but look at the proportions of the lower cabside. The lining rectangle is 'landscape' when it should (as near as makes no difference) be 'portrait'. This is caused by the cab proportions themselves being wrong (not helped by the Isinglass drawing - from which this kit was designed I'm told - having different dimensions on both cabsides). Effectively, the horizontal handrails (for which etched holes for the pillars are provided) are far too low. 

 

Every kit I've seen of an A2/3 built from this source (and PDK) shows this error. Again, I have no wish to be disparaging to a manufacturer, but this is clearly wrong. 

 

 

 

In 1999, I built a Crownline A2/3 (and an A2/2), and my review(s) appeared in the RM. I don't think either Crownline's proprietor or Isinglass' proprietor were delighted by my comments, but there you go. 

 

Anyway, here it is above. What did I do to alter the 'look' of the cabside? Plugged the holes with solder and re-drilled higher-up holes for the pillars. It means the rails are too close to the base of the windows, but the eye reads the proportions as being much more 'realistic'. 

 

The whole lot, of course, is made 'acceptable' by Ian Rathbone's superlative painting. 

 

Since I dislike resin as a modelling medium, I substituted a SE Finecast A2 cast metal boiler for the 'Milky Bar' one supplied! 

 

Does all this 'prove' anything? Only that observation of the prototype is paramount................

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

it's a very effective little dodge that transforms the look of the model. it is only possible because you have the knowledge. I don't expect everything in model railway land to be perfect, far from it. I just make a plea for informed decisions, rather than acting from ignorance.

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I did detect the humour .

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Phew.

[ROY@34F]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Roy,

 

Could it be a Stanier 8F in the prototype picture of 60533?

 

I've seen shots of that class working on the main line south of Grantham. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

It could be I suppose Tony . Both engines look to be on "london road" at Grantham don't they and facing south .  Which of course is where prepared engines were placed .

 

But the way I can now se quite a few things wrong with the two A3s of mine recently posted . 60046 looks like the cab side numbers are too low , and the valve gear is not good , mainly the radius rod is far too low down the radius link into full forward gear . And as I said the dome is too high . It must have been built about 40 years ago though .

60047 also suffers from being too far in gear and it looks like the drivers side eccentric arm leans the wrong way (Hornby engine) . But when moving you can see the front end piston valve linkage moving a mm or so . I like fiddling about with such crazy ideas .

 

Regards , Roy .

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, ROY@34F said:

It could be I suppose Tony . Both engines look to be on "london road" at Grantham don't they and facing south .  Which of course is where prepared engines were placed .

 

But the way I can now se quite a few things wrong with the two A3s of mine recently posted . 60046 looks like the cab side numbers are too low , and the valve gear is not good , mainly the radius rod is far too low down the radius link into full forward gear . And as I said the dome is too high . It must have been built about 40 years ago though .

60047 also suffers from being too far in gear and it looks like the drivers side eccentric arm leans the wrong way (Hornby engine) . But when moving you can see the front end piston valve linkage moving a mm or so . I like fiddling about with such crazy ideas .

 

Regards , Roy .

I'm not sure where the picture was taken, Roy.

 

One of the late, greats in the hobby (David Jenkinson) once said of the photographer (as he was preparing a book featuring the guy's pictures) that he was a brilliant photographer, indeed, one of the best, but that he was utterly useless at writing captions - wrong dates, wrong locations and even wrong locos at times. Obviously, I won't mention his name.

 

Despite your reservations about your A3s, they're both 'yours' in the real sense of the word, especially 60046. You've made/modified both, and that's the most important thing. I commend you.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Now, as you allude to, we have 'super realism', which I'm not at all sure actually 'flatters' some models/layouts. To me, some don't look 'real' at all, with weird 'stacking' effects and lurid colours. By saying that, I hope I'm not perceived as showing 'sour grapes'. I accept that my days of taking loads of pictures of model railways are now over, though I still take the odd snap; as illustrated in the latest issue of BRM. A glance at the pictures of the O Gauge locos on shed in that will show that I can still 'master' the basics of lighting, composition and depth of field. That said, and this is not a criticism of the standards of modelling, the locos look too 'clinical' to me. Too 'perfect'. 

 

As a "customer" of BRM and other magazines, Tony, I have to say this is one of the things I find most disappointing in all of them.  The colour is usually far too saturated and the studio lighting too flat.  This is no reflection on your photography at all, only the reproduction.  

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

D209 is an elongated Tri-ang class 37. It runs on a Lima chassis. It retains its tension lock couplings both ends making it useful for my terminus station. 

 

D375 is hand made, many years ago. It has a mainline Peak chassis. It lacks tension lock couplings either end. It was able to pull along the wobbly coaches as it has a wire loop dangling from the buffers on the rear bogie.

 

The Wobbly coaches are old Airfix ones which are prone to giving their passengers motion sickness. It is on the list to be sorted. I believe it has something to do with the center boss on the bogies being too small.

Thanks Clive,

 

As you know, I'm not much into making diesels.

 

However, in his late school days, elder son Tom made/modified quite a few.

 

 

Including this EE Type 4, modified from a Lima model; re-wheeled, new cab front windows and some etched grills, plus a repaint. I don't think this early example should have the vertical nose handrails. However, he was only a schoolboy.

 

 

He also produced this EE Type 3 at the same time; a detailed/modified Hornby body on top of a Lima chassis.

 

Apart from what you do, does modelling in this style still take place? Most diesels I see on layouts these days seem to be mainly RTR, with just a few mods. 

 

I suppose the truth is it's no longer necessary.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

43 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

it's a very effective little dodge that transforms the look of the model. it is only possible because you have the knowledge. I don't expect everything in model railway land to be perfect, far from it. I just make a plea for informed decisions, rather than acting from ignorance.

Good evening Andrew,

 

Thanks for your kind comments.

 

And, I agree entirely with your last sentence.

 

Though everything in model railway land might not be perfect (especially in the region I inhabit), it gets nearer to reality if, say, a kit for a loco is as near 'perfect' as possible, within the usual constraints of course...........

 

 

In my view the best way of making a 4mm A2/3 is to build a DJH kit for the class, as I've done here (painted by Ian Rathbone). No cab mods needed on this one.

 

Still, come next year, anyone can have an A2/3; by courtesy of Hornby. All they'll need is the money.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

As a "customer" of BRM and other magazines, Tony, I have to say this is one of the things I find most disappointing in all of them.  The colour is usually far too saturated and the studio lighting too flat.  This is no reflection on your photography at all, only the reproduction.  

In fairness, for many of the layouts I take pictures of these days (well, up to Covid) I don't use studio lighting. If taken at shows (which is - was - very common now), I use the layout's own lighting, plus the ambient lighting in the hall and pulses of fill-in flash. 

 

That's how I took pictures of Durham Street, featured in the latest BRM...........

 

 

This one's on the front cover.

 

 

And this one's inside as a DPS. Natural daylight streaming in through the huge window at Pickering Memorial Hall has illuminated the front end of MALLARD.

 

I have to say, the advent of digital imagery has made my job much easier.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[ROY@34F]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm not sure where the picture was taken, Roy.

 

One of the late, greats in the hobby (David Jenkinson) once said of the photographer (as he was preparing a book featuring the guy's pictures) that he was a brilliant photographer, indeed, one of the best, but that he was utterly useless at writing captions - wrong dates, wrong locations and even wrong locos at times. Obviously, I won't mention his name.

 

Despite your reservations about your A3s, they're both 'yours' in the real sense of the word, especially 60046. You've made/modified both, and that's the most important thing. I commend you.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony ,

I must admit I think you are right to doubt where  60533 is in the photo . I don't think it is Grantham now , indeed I'm sure it isn't as I can't explain the construction and chairs in the foreground . So I apologise for that and I don't like to think I've misled you or anyone else . 

 

Regards , Roy .

[65179]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Could it be a Stanier 8F in the prototype picture of 60533?

 

I can't comment on whether this photo is Grantham or York etc, but it's a Black 5 not an 8F. The third numeral on the smokebox numberplate is a 9.

 

Simon

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What struck me most was the 'wobbling' carriages. Can anything be done to prevent this?

  

 

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

The Wobbly coaches are old Airfix ones which are prone to giving their passengers motion sickness. It is on the list to be sorted. I believe it has something to do with the center boss on the bogies being too small.

 

Ah, the dreaded Airfix Wobble. Yes Clive, the centre boss is too small and there is too much clearance between the two bits sticking up at the sides of the bogies and the carriage floor. There is a raised strip across there but it isn't raised enough. When Palitoy took over the Airfix tooling and did a re-run of the LMS CK and BTK under the Mainline label they altered the tool to give a small raised block of plastic to each side of the boss to reduce the amount of play.

The cheapskate solution comes from the box of styrene offcuts at the corner of the workbench. Just build up each side by an equal amount until there is only a small gap. Apologies for the quality of the picture but this was not the bit intended to be in focus as I was trying to produce the different underframe for the Leeds Forge BTO and wanted a shot of the middle bit.

 

You can usually get away with doing only one end which will then give you a better ride as the bogies can still rock fore and aft but only one can rock from side to side to take up any variations in cross levels on the track. Once you have decoded the depth, I think the Mainline 'blob' was about 80 thou, the time to do a coach is a couple of minutes and the cost of next to zero.

 

Eric

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

Thanks for your kind comments.

 

And, I agree entirely with your last sentence.

 

Though everything in model railway land might not be perfect (especially in the region I inhabit), it gets nearer to reality if, say, a kit for a loco is as near 'perfect' as possible, within the usual constraints of course...........

 

 

In my view the best way of making a 4mm A2/3 is to build a DJH kit for the class, as I've done here (painted by Ian Rathbone). No cab mods needed on this one.

 

Still, come next year, anyone can have an A2/3; by courtesy of Hornby. All they'll need is the money.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

60516 is a beautiful looking model, I'm sure the new Hornby A2/3 will be a mighty fine model too but ultimately a bit boring. It's owner won't be able to tell me anything about it, beyond how much they paid for it and who they bought it from. Are railway modelers becoming less knowledgeable, as well as becoming deskilled, now that so much is being done for them?

 

The Hornby A2/3 has all the appeal of typical fast food but if you want a good meal, good conversation and an education, 60516 makes my tummy rumble.

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Headstock

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Clive,

 

As you know, I'm not much into making diesels.

 

However, in his late school days, elder son Tom made/modified quite a few.

 

 

Including this EE Type 4, modified from a Lima model; re-wheeled, new cab front windows and some etched grills, plus a repaint. I don't think this early example should have the vertical nose handrails. However, he was only a schoolboy.

 

 

He also produced this EE Type 3 at the same time; a detailed/modified Hornby body on top of a Lima chassis.

 

Apart from what you do, does modelling in this style still take place? Most diesels I see on layouts these days seem to be mainly RTR, with just a few mods. 

 

I suppose the truth is it's no longer necessary.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hello Tony

 

I have to be a bit careful what I say as a committee member of DEMU, not much on the locomotive part of the hobby, and most coach conversions are departmental or Network Rail research ones. There are some DMU and EMU modellers, thankfully. A large number of DEMU members seem to be modelling freight wagons, again quite a few doing departmental wagons. Most are really wonderful models.

 

The RTR manufacturers have cottoned on to the variations within loco classes and now seem to offer all the minor changes to the loco classes as well as all the colours under the rainbow when they announce a new model ....except Accurascale who still haven't said they are doing D9001 in two tone green with a Finsbury Park yellow panel, that is one box I would love open. 

 

Here on RMweb there are a few chaps who do model D&E locos, Gibbo675 and Darius43 are making a good job of some of the early AC electric locos, and jessy1692 does some very nice diesel models. I am sure there are others who I have missed. 

 

It is a strange part of the hobby, there was a time when the DEMU stand would have someone converting a Hornby class 25 into a class 24. Today it is have a good moan that the latest Sutton class 24 "Is not the one I want and none are in the minor variation of yellow panel for what I want."

 

I am not sure if it is good for the hobby having such choice and wonderfully made models compared to the enjoyment of converting or even scratchbuilding your own.

 

I think I must be a bit of a one off these days. I recently won more bids on Vectis auctions than I thought I would and ended up with loads of carriages, mainly CKs and a few over long BGs. Not enough brake coaches, who else would cut up very good contion coaches to make a BSK which every one who has made Mk1 coaches has done, a BSO, it was to be another BSK but I thought I would do something different, and a BCK , unplanned but used up the bits I was unsure what to do with.

BSK

 

BSO

 

BCK

 

Done with no other reason than I like doing this sort of thing. We all have our likes and dislikes regarding our hobby and who I am to say what is right and what is wrong....except what ever you do have fun doing so.

5 hours ago, FarrMan said:

Clive

 

Lack of connecting gangway connections, and a drunk painter in the carriage paintshop!

 

Lloyd

More coaches where the guys in the paint shop were drunk when they painted them. 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

21 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

 

Ah, the dreaded Airfix Wobble. Yes Clive, the centre boss is too small and there is too much clearance between the two bits sticking up at the sides of the bogies and the carriage floor. There is a raised strip across there but it isn't raised enough. When Palitoy took over the Airfix tooling and did a re-run of the LMS CK and BTK under the Mainline label they altered the tool to give a small raised block of plastic to each side of the boss to reduce the amount of play.

The cheapskate solution comes from the box of styrene offcuts at the corner of the workbench. Just build up each side by an equal amount until there is only a small gap. Apologies for the quality of the picture but this was not the bit intended to be in focus as I was trying to produce the different underframe for the Leeds Forge BTO and wanted a shot of the middle bit.

 

You can usually get away with doing only one end which will then give you a better ride as the bogies can still rock fore and aft but only one can rock from side to side to take up any variations in cross levels on the track. Once you have decoded the depth, I think the Mainline 'blob' was about 80 thou, the time to do a coach is a couple of minutes and the cost of next to zero.

 

Eric

 

Thank you Eric. I think I might have some scraps of plastic card.

[Tom F]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

60516 is a beautiful looking model, I'm sure the new Hornby A2/3 will be a mighty fine model too but ultimately a bit boring. It's owner won't be able to tell me anything about it, beyond how much they paid for it and who they bought it from. Are railway modelers becoming less knowledgeable, as well as becoming deskilled, now that so much is being done for them?

 

The Hornby A2/3 has all the appeal of typical fast food but if you want a good meal, good conversation and an education, 60516 makes my tummy rumble.

 

It’s a good point, the trouble is some of us do not enjoy kit building. I’ve been lucky enough to have tuition from Tony several times and it just hasn’t sunk in sadly.
 

I’ll happily solder tiny Masokit couplings and lamp irons. However I just don’t have the desire/skill/drive to build full locomotive kits. There is still that fear that to spend £200+ before I start, and the worry of it going wrong is still enough to put me off. Plus a large number of kits have incredibly poor instructions.

 

Maybe one day, but sadly for now I’ll continue to detail RTR and weather which I at least know I can do.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

A Whistler fan could tell you what is wrong with these two

Well, apart from the fact that they both seem to be working, I'll impersonate Tony and say that the one going clockwise shouldn't have a white disc showing...

Edited September 11, 2020 by St Enodoc

[Headstock]

52 minutes ago, Hawin Dooiey said:

It’s a good point, the trouble is some of us do not enjoy kit building. I’ve been lucky enough to have tuition from Tony several times and it just hasn’t sunk in sadly.
 

I’ll happily solder tiny Masokit couplings and lamp irons. However I just don’t have the desire/skill/drive to build full locomotive kits. There is still that fear that to spend £200+ before I start, and the worry of it going wrong is still enough to put me off. Plus a large number of kits have incredibly poor instructions.

 

Maybe one day, but sadly for now I’ll continue to detail RTR and weather which I at least know I can do.

 

Did you know that the majority of RTR locomotives sold over the last year, never get run or rarely come out of their boxes. Is that you? I think not.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

 

Ah, the dreaded Airfix Wobble. Yes Clive, the centre boss is too small and there is too much clearance between the two bits sticking up at the sides of the bogies and the carriage floor. There is a raised strip across there but it isn't raised enough. When Palitoy took over the Airfix tooling and did a re-run of the LMS CK and BTK under the Mainline label they altered the tool to give a small raised block of plastic to each side of the boss to reduce the amount of play.

The cheapskate solution comes from the box of styrene offcuts at the corner of the workbench. Just build up each side by an equal amount until there is only a small gap. Apologies for the quality of the picture but this was not the bit intended to be in focus as I was trying to produce the different underframe for the Leeds Forge BTO and wanted a shot of the middle bit.

 

You can usually get away with doing only one end which will then give you a better ride as the bogies can still rock fore and aft but only one can rock from side to side to take up any variations in cross levels on the track. Once you have decoded the depth, I think the Mainline 'blob' was about 80 thou, the time to do a coach is a couple of minutes and the cost of next to zero.

 

Eric

 

I've done the same using short screws through the bogie bolster, adjusted so that they just touch the body when everything is straight and level. You don't have to keep putting the bogie on and off to check and you're not constrained by fixed thicknesses of styrene. Oh, and you should definitely only do one end.

[TrainMan2001]

In terms of manufacturers getting things wrong and needing to look closer at the prototype...

 

Maybe ignorance is bliss? Although now I think I understand the mindset of making so many models. Finally being armed with the knowledge of exactly what I got wrong is opening the world of scratchbuilding to me entirely, and now I keep thinking of all of the models I could do 'correctly.' Of course, I'm going to need better tools, but it's nice to finally be able to see something I did and know it's (going to be) correct! Although I'll never tell anyone using (or modifying) a Bachmann Thomas what's wrong with it. I'm even thinking of using (correct for my prototype) 18mm track and 3-link couplings.

 

I guess my point is that, no matter how "unnecessary" building something might be by today's standards, it can probably always be improved upon in some way.

 

-Kenyon

 

Although now I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "serious modeller" or simply "someone who's too picky to open a box for his trainset."

Edited September 11, 2020 by TrainMan2001
Clarity (I hope)

[Jack P]

1 hour ago, TrainMan2001 said:

Although now I'm not sure if I fall into the category of "serious modeller" or simply "someone who's too picky to open a box for his trainset."

 

Some might argue that they go hand in hand.. 

[Barry O]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Did you know that the majority of RTR locomotives sold over the last year, never get run or rarely come out of their boxes. Is that you? I think not.

Where did you glean this little gem from?

Some may be "collectables" and are tucked away but not in my neck of the woods or at the Club..or is it a Covid thing?

Baz

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Where did you glean this little gem from?

Some may be "collectables" and are tucked away but not in my neck of the woods or at the Club..or is it a Covid thing?

Baz

I haven't seen that statistic but since Hornby saved itself by moving into the high value "collectors" market instead of just the toy market, it is acknowledged that most collectors don't have a railway to run their models on. 

[Richard_A]

8 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

I have to be a bit careful what I say as a committee member of DEMU, not much on the locomotive part of the hobby, and most coach conversions are departmental or Network Rail research ones. There are some DMU and EMU modellers, thankfully. A large number of DEMU members seem to be modelling freight wagons, again quite a few doing departmental wagons. Most are really wonderful models.

 

The RTR manufacturers have cottoned on to the variations within loco classes and now seem to offer all the minor changes to the loco classes as well as all the colours under the rainbow when they announce a new model ....except Accurascale who still haven't said they are doing D9001 in two tone green with a Finsbury Park yellow panel, that is one box I would love open. 

 

Here on RMweb there are a few chaps who do model D&E locos, Gibbo675 and Darius43 are making a good job of some of the early AC electric locos, and jessy1692 does some very nice diesel models. I am sure there are others who I have missed. 

 

It is a strange part of the hobby, there was a time when the DEMU stand would have someone converting a Hornby class 25 into a class 24. Today it is have a good moan that the latest Sutton class 24 "Is not the one I want and none are in the minor variation of yellow panel for what I want."

 

I am not sure if it is good for the hobby having such choice and wonderfully made models compared to the enjoyment of converting or even scratchbuilding your own.

 

I think I must be a bit of a one off these days. I recently won more bids on Vectis auctions than I thought I would and ended up with loads of carriages, mainly CKs and a few over long BGs. Not enough brake coaches, who else would cut up very good contion coaches to make a BSK which every one who has made Mk1 coaches has done, a BSO, it was to be another BSK but I thought I would do something different, and a BCK , unplanned but used up the bits I was unsure what to do with.

BSK

 

BSO

 

BCK

 

Done with no other reason than I like doing this sort of thing. We all have our likes and dislikes regarding our hobby and who I am to say what is right and what is wrong....except what ever you do have fun doing so.

More coaches where the guys in the paint shop were drunk when they painted them. 

 

I have many old style diesel modelling projects on the go, my latest effort is using a lima deltic stretching kit, I'll post a picture later on today. 

Best regards Richard