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

50 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

My knowledge of GWR matters is strictly limited but I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had the piston rods aligned a couple of inches above the driving axle and that the cylinders were horizontal, rather than inclined.

I can confirm that you are correct.

Frank

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

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

715514482_Shap22046248atSummit.jpg.2e0e6a46548d18c8187436a247009a5b.jpg

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby? Even if it is (or even if it isn't), replacing those 'armoured train' smoke deflectors would be a priority to me (I've got a spare pair here in etched brass somewhere). 

 

You know my feelings regarding RTR/kit-built locos.............

 

387370525_Shap212Coronation46251.jpg.2d10a4281118e52cff8b59b770d460f8.jpg

 

This 'Semi' (we called all of them that, whether they were de-streamlined or not) to me has much more of a 'presence' than any RTR one, however the latter might have been improved. All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?).

 

One point: I think it should have a de-streamlined tender, with smaller cut-out at the front and no handrails towards the rear of the tender tanksides. You've not fitted the steps to the rear of the tender frames, which is correct for a de-streamlined tender. 

 

Let's hope next year all of these (with the exception of 'my' 46256) will be appearing at a show on Shap. However, the signs don't look great!

 

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby?

Nope - that one (46248) is also from one of the earlier ones (I did that and 46224 together). It was actually a 46251, so needed the front end converting from sloping front footplate to the so-called 'utility front' style. You are correct - both locos would benefit from etched smoke deflectors. I'll tackle that as a job lot one day as I have recently acquired a third Duchess from the same era (this time a green one) for similar treatment.

 

46256_TW.jpg.c5c881b4e11cf6c3c1561fe688eb813d.jpg    46256_GN.jpg.9d115881eac408e73f70d75a16dbbc2d.jpg

This one below must have begun as that earlier manifestation

Your (lovely) 46256 is indeed based on the earlier Hornby offering. One of the improvements on the recent model is a much better depiction of the motion bracket beneath the running plate, the front of which correctly hides the top of the combination lever where it joins on to the valve rod. The older version looks a bit bare in this area. Note also the improved, bevel rimmed driving wheels on the recent offering.

 

One of my improvements to 46248 (and 46224) was to add and shape some black plasticard to the front frames above the bogie. Not only does this reduce the gap to a more realistic level, but I also extended it back a little behind the cylinders - that would have hidden the daylight showing through on your 46256 in this area. She also needs the lightening hole in front of the cylinders. I also cut back the bogie front more extensively, in the area between the guard irons.

 

46251_GN.jpg.c4746d1cf2ea2305c9d25f306ddef379.jpg

Whilst on the area of motion, here is a close up of my 46251. Being kit built (Model Loco, aka DJH 'special') I could fiddle about with the valve gear (something I enjoy doing!). This includes setting the radius rod in forward gear, running through the slot in the double-piece expansion link. But the real lily-gilding was to add the rocking lever for the inside cylinders (arrowed). This is actuated by the valve rod and does indeed rock back and forth (check it out next time you see her).

 

All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?)

The loco was my 21st birthday present and I made it 46251 because I went to Nottingham University. But the Model Loco kit was specifically for (4)6230-6234 and thus included the wrong tender type. I did what I could (as you have noted) but baulked at altering the shape of the front cut-out shape as that would have involved added metal across the fold in this area - I've left it as my deliberate 'Persian rug' error!

 

I'm sure all these depictions of Stanier's magnum opus (and others) will indeed meet again on Shap, some sunny day ...

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Is this 'Semi' one of the latest ones from Hornby?

Nope - that one (46248) is also from one of the earlier ones (I did that and 46224 together). It was actually a 46251, so needed the front end converting from sloping front footplate to the so-called 'utility front' style. You are correct - both locos would benefit from etched smoke deflectors. I'll tackle that as a job lot one day as I have recently acquired a third Duchess from the same era (this time a green one) for similar treatment.

 

46256_TW.jpg.c5c881b4e11cf6c3c1561fe688eb813d.jpg    46256_GN.jpg.9d115881eac408e73f70d75a16dbbc2d.jpg

This one below must have begun as that earlier manifestation

Your (lovely) 46256 is indeed based on the earlier Hornby offering. One of the improvements on the recent model is a much better depiction of the motion bracket beneath the running plate, the front of which correctly hides the top of the combination lever where it joins on to the valve rod. The older version looks a bit bare in this area. Note also the improved, bevel rimmed driving wheels on the recent offering.

 

One of my improvements to 46248 (and 46224) was to add and shape some black plasticard to the front frames above the bogie. Not only does this reduce the gap to a more realistic level, but I also extended it back a little behind the cylinders - that would have hidden the daylight showing through on your 46256 in this area. She also needs the lightening hole in front of the cylinders. I also cut back the bogie front more extensively, in the area between the guard irons.

 

46251_GN.jpg.c4746d1cf2ea2305c9d25f306ddef379.jpg

Whilst on the area of motion, here is a close up of my 46251. Being kit built (Model Loco, aka DJH 'special') I could fiddle about with the valve gear (something I enjoy doing!). This includes setting the radius rod in forward gear, running through the slot in the double-piece expansion link. But the real lily-gilding was to add the rocking lever for the inside cylinders (arrowed). This is actuated by the valve rod and does indeed rock back and forth (check it out next time you see her).

 

All your own work as well (DJH or scratch-built?)

The loco was my 21st birthday present and I made it 46251 because I went to Nottingham University. But the Model Loco kit was specifically for (4)6230-6234 and thus included the wrong tender type. I did what I could (as you have noted) but baulked at altering the shape of the front cut-out shape as that would have involved added metal across the fold in this area - I've left it as my deliberate 'Persian rug' error!

 

I'm sure all these depictions of Stanier's magnum opus (and others) will indeed meet again on Shap, some sunny day ...

Thanks Graham,

 

With regard to 'my' 46256, I should have taken the detailing further (as you've done as described). It now belongs to a friend, and (over the last 12 or more years) he's been delighted with it. 'The customer's happy with it' seems to be a decent 'excuse' when commissioned work is critically commented on. 

 

The new Hornby driving wheels do make a big difference to the realism of that characteristic 'Big Un' look (I assume your 46251 used the Romford drivers supplied). Certainly, I used the proper Markits ones on my own CITY OF LONDON, substituting them for the Romfords supplied in the DJH kit. .

 

I also built CITY OF NOTTINGHAM from a Model Loco kit (as a wedding present for a friend), but I managed to acquire a de-streamlined tender. It ran on Charwelton, because 46251 did so in reality on a railtour to Swindon. I'm not sure where the picture of it is in operation - probably on an old BRM computer. 

 

I look forward to the day when model 'Semis' tackle Shap at a show again....................

 

Who knows, I might even borrow this one......................

 

1823648508_Duchess17painted.jpg.4837093bd04ac1987b38d3167a20f883.jpg

 

It belongs to the same friend who owns 46256 (part of the payment for his building of Bytham's baseboards). 

 

It's scratch-built. I acquired it from a friend, who'd acquired it from the estate of the deceased modeller who'd started it. A fair amount of the 'big bits' had been made and soldered together (including the frames, but no bogie/pony/tender sub-frame). However, there was no detail on it. I completed it, mainly using commercial etched/cast/milled/turned components, plus a bit of sheet metal work. The cylinders/motion are Comet (a bit 'bald' in the valve rod area). 

 

Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

The friend who gave it to me has also now died! A 'cursed' 'Duchess'? 

 

I don't think so, and it will be great to see it romping up Shap. It's packed with lead, and it doesn't half go! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh - the 26 Feb 1939 record breaker (equal of a Deltic) - very nice. T'would indeed be a delight to see her romping up Shap.

 

I feel a 'all 38 Duchesses over Shap' event coming on, much the same as we did all 35 A4s with Grantham at Barrow Hill

 

IMG_8525.JPG

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we're talking Duchesses, and knowing your encyclopedic knowledge of loco kits, ever come across one of these before?

20200920_193155.jpg.2064a247e8d19a1b295b9676c8f46c7c.jpg

It's 7mm scale, no instructions, wheels or motor - and parts from such heavy gauge brass as would probably need a blow torch to put it together. 

 

I keep looking at it every now and then...

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Whilst we're talking Duchesses, and knowing your encyclopedic knowledge of loco kits, ever come across one of these before?

20200920_193155.jpg.2064a247e8d19a1b295b9676c8f46c7c.jpg

It's 7mm scale, no instructions, wheels or motor - and parts from such heavy gauge brass as would probably need a blow torch to put it together. 

 

I keep looking at it every now and then...

Go on Graham, give in and convert to 0 Gauge you know it makes sense.

 

Jamie

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Go on Graham, give in and convert to 0 Gauge you know it makes sense.

 

Jamie

It looks a bit less complex than the Finney 7 one that I take off the shelf and look at every so often.  I really must get the 4 Midland locos that are ahead of it in the queue finished first.

 

Jamie

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

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Have you added a photo to a post, then deleted it and tried to add another?

 

I had that once as a problem and I think the RMWeb "counter" for file sizes doesn't seem to deduct deleted images.

 

I ended up doing a completely new post and then it was happy to let me add a fresh 10MB.

Hi

I have had the same problem put two photos on within the 10mg limits, If you then deleted a photo and try to put a second Replacement photo you are told you are over the 10mb.

 

Rather then re do the post put it on the thread then click on edit you can then load the second photo without any problems.

 

Regards

 

David

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

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Is there a possibility that it is the way the cylinder assembly has been installed in the mechanism that gives the variation in slope?

It's the body-to-chassis fit. As I mentioned earlier, the little spigot at the top of the motion bracket is supposed to fit into a recess below the running plate. It's a buqqer to make it do so and on mine I only managed it on one side, giving up on the other for fear of breaking something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Thanks Paul,

 

The slidebars on your example seem to be nearer the horizontal, as they should be.

 

98288136_Hornby61XX6110R372104.jpg.421f270ab6e38b901af7eb48b8499255.jpg

 

On both the examples I have, the slidebars/crosshead/piston rod slope down towards the rear........................ Both sides.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

I would have a look but the power lead has fallen out of my video storage drive and I cannot be bothered to fix it this time of night.

 

And none of my 6106  stuff is on youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Without doubt, 82G houses many of the finest locomotives (in any scale/gauge) I've ever seen. Many are built from kits and many are painted by Ian Rathbone...............

 

The subject of model railway insurance crops up from time. What's the insurance on this little lot (and there are many more) I wonder?

 

 

When I last saw 82G at an exhibition (I forget which) I did start to guess at loco values x number of locos, with a view to guessing an insurance valuation for the layout plus locos.  I very quickly scared myself (not easy, as I spent my career working in the Aerospace Industry -  where everything costs ££££) at the sort of answers I was coming up with.

 

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyone out there able to help, please?

 

Despite only attempting to load small photographic files, RMweb keeps telling me I cannot load more than 10MBs.

 

Odd, in that I've not long ago loaded 15 images, and this time I only want to load three.................. 

 

 

 

I tend to resize photos using free software called Irfanview (which is simplicity itself to use) whenever I have a similar issue.

(Open image with Irfanview, then Image - Resize/Resample Image - then select size required [e.g. 800x600] then OK).  Save resized image under a new file name.   For example , an image size of 1462Kb to went to 106Kb when resized.  HTH.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, polybear said:

 

When I last saw 82G at an exhibition (I forget which) I did start to guess at loco values x number of locos, with a view to guessing an insurance valuation for the layout plus locos.  I very quickly scared myself (not easy, as I spent my career working in the Aerospace Industry -  where everything costs ££££) at the sort of answers I was coming up with.

 

 

I tend to resize photos using free software called Irfanview (which is simplicity itself to use) whenever I have a similar issue.

(Open image with Irfanview, then Image - Resize/Resample Image - then select size required [e.g. 800x600] then OK).  Save resized image under a new file name.   For example , an image size of 1462Kb to went to 106Kb when resized.  HTH.

Thanks Brian,

 

All I do is to change the file size to at least a third of its original size, then save it as a jpeg (as opposed to the TIFF on which it's shot). Thus, something like a 20Meg file is reduced to around a quarter of a Meg.

 

It's always worked in the past, so I think yesterday was just a computer glitch!

 

And, everyone knows what I'm like with computers! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

They're wonderful examples of what can be done in the smaller scale, Al,

 

Many thanks for showing us.

 

It was not my intention to be disparaging about N Gauge, and I hope I've pointed out how much things have improved in more-recent times (was it after production moved to China in the main?). I was commenting on what folk had said to me, especially with regard to price-parity. 

 

I'll also admit to a certain degree of prejudice in the past. I'll explain. Though there's never been a really good RTR V2 (in any scale, though there will be next year when the latest Bachmann OO one goes on sale), I was once asked to assess an N Gauge one. I thought it was poor for the price (an opinion, I admit). The wheels looked like miniature (and very old) Tri-ang drivers, with no 'see-through' being present. The pony wheels' treads were almost as wide as their diameters and there was a huge 'skirt' running below the whole length of the boiler. I 'tricked' the eye into believing the wheels were see-through by filling the spaces between the spokes with matt black paint and rubbing the spokes with a cotton bud dipped in thinners (the loco was in LNER apple green). It 'worked' up to a point, and I showed how to do it as part of a Right Track DVD. 

 

On another occasion, I was asked to fit a superb cast metal A4 loco/tender body on top of an N Gauge RTR A3 chassis. I think the designer of the A4 was Phil Kerr (I think I've got the name right), a master pattern-maker and kit designer (sadly now deceased, I believe). I fiddled with the chassis, but oh dear. In my view it was dreadful. Driving wheels far too small and, thus, too far apart, carrying wheels which would have done justice to a steam roller and valve gear that had come off a battleship! Not only that, the performance was jerky. 

 

The idea was that I'd do a BRM review (for which I bought the complete A3), but I reckoned it would just be awful. Thus, I gave it to Andy Calvert to see what his expertise could produce. Sadly, Andy's now deceased, so I have no idea what became of it. 

 

And, just to show how good current N Gauge can be....................

 

984350161_03CliftonandLowther.jpg.8129efe8f42d50b72b683cc4896a8571.jpg

 

864269342_CliftonandLowther13.jpg.6d507567323662d3bf4a2ce25437d41e.jpg

 

1237570185_CliftonandLowther26.jpg.9777ad8220bc8d57a85a761bc17402c5.jpg

 

550462768_CliftonandLowther27.jpg.7b61a8c0297fd8c6688bce58e1f7d19e.jpg

 

Clifton and Lowther. These shots might be considered 'unfair' to the locos, seeing that they've enlarged them substantially in most cases. However, such is the quality of the overall modelling that they 'work' in my view.

 

1510302463_02Aviemore.jpg.3620373a2e340296c42944e331203b52.jpg

 

Aviemore.

 

1867621775_10SandyBay.jpg.513c75f27897b05e884c5d51b9f2254d.jpg

 

Sandy Bay.

 

1090833738_14Wickwar.jpg.8e314bdd42245b53cbd303e9d9b04da8.jpg

 

Wickwar.

 

101250179_17Brinklow.jpg.928870fcab8c2bf7ee3bd27030e9941e.jpg

 

Brinklow.

 

1928778380_15Woodhead.jpg.ad25b48bde8f82582904fa2ce79666b1.jpg

 

And Woodhead. 

 

Truly 'railways in the landscape'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

'Aviemore' beautifully observed and rekindles lovely childhood memories

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Whilst we're talking Duchesses, and knowing your encyclopedic knowledge of loco kits, ever come across one of these before?

20200920_193155.jpg.2064a247e8d19a1b295b9676c8f46c7c.jpg

It's 7mm scale, no instructions, wheels or motor - and parts from such heavy gauge brass as would probably need a blow torch to put it together. 

 

I keep looking at it every now and then...

 

It looks like a "blown up" version of a Jamieson kit.

 

However I don't think Jamieson made a Duchess. They did a streamlined Coronation. I haven't got the foggiest and it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the MREMAG Database.

 

http://www.mre-mag.com/locoindex.php?mu=0

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

They're wonderful examples of what can be done in the smaller scale, Al,

 

Many thanks for showing us.

 

It was not my intention to be disparaging about N Gauge, and I hope I've pointed out how much things have improved in more-recent times (was it after production moved to China in the main?). I was commenting on what folk had said to me, especially with regard to price-parity. 

 

I'll also admit to a certain degree of prejudice in the past. I'll explain. Though there's never been a really good RTR V2 (in any scale, though there will be next year when the latest Bachmann OO one goes on sale), I was once asked to assess an N Gauge one. I thought it was poor for the price (an opinion, I admit). The wheels looked like miniature (and very old) Tri-ang drivers, with no 'see-through' being present. The pony wheels' treads were almost as wide as their diameters and there was a huge 'skirt' running below the whole length of the boiler. I 'tricked' the eye into believing the wheels were see-through by filling the spaces between the spokes with matt black paint and rubbing the spokes with a cotton bud dipped in thinners (the loco was in LNER apple green). It 'worked' up to a point, and I showed how to do it as part of a Right Track DVD. 

 

On another occasion, I was asked to fit a superb cast metal A4 loco/tender body on top of an N Gauge RTR A3 chassis. I think the designer of the A4 was Phil Kerr (I think I've got the name right), a master pattern-maker and kit designer (sadly now deceased, I believe). I fiddled with the chassis, but oh dear. In my view it was dreadful. Driving wheels far too small and, thus, too far apart, carrying wheels which would have done justice to a steam roller and valve gear that had come off a battleship! Not only that, the performance was jerky. 

 

The idea was that I'd do a BRM review (for which I bought the complete A3), but I reckoned it would just be awful. Thus, I gave it to Andy Calvert to see what his expertise could produce. Sadly, Andy's now deceased, so I have no idea what became of it. 

 

And, just to show how good current N Gauge can be....................

 

984350161_03CliftonandLowther.jpg.8129efe8f42d50b72b683cc4896a8571.jpg

 

864269342_CliftonandLowther13.jpg.6d507567323662d3bf4a2ce25437d41e.jpg

 

1237570185_CliftonandLowther26.jpg.9777ad8220bc8d57a85a761bc17402c5.jpg

 

550462768_CliftonandLowther27.jpg.7b61a8c0297fd8c6688bce58e1f7d19e.jpg

 

Clifton and Lowther. These shots might be considered 'unfair' to the locos, seeing that they've enlarged them substantially in most cases. However, such is the quality of the overall modelling that they 'work' in my view.

 

1510302463_02Aviemore.jpg.3620373a2e340296c42944e331203b52.jpg

 

Aviemore.

 

1867621775_10SandyBay.jpg.513c75f27897b05e884c5d51b9f2254d.jpg

 

Sandy Bay.

 

1090833738_14Wickwar.jpg.8e314bdd42245b53cbd303e9d9b04da8.jpg

 

Wickwar.

 

101250179_17Brinklow.jpg.928870fcab8c2bf7ee3bd27030e9941e.jpg

 

Brinklow.

 

1928778380_15Woodhead.jpg.ad25b48bde8f82582904fa2ce79666b1.jpg

 

And Woodhead. 

 

Truly 'railways in the landscape'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Where is the Woodhead electric from?

 

These pictures also show off N/2mm better than a packed show.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I know many modellers joke about not being able to see N gauge (or 2mm), and one group I am antiquated with calls N gauge "Birthday cake decorations". I will be honest, despite the wonderful modelling, I find it hard to relate to N gauge.

 

I think it is because I am use to handling and viewing 4mm models. I find 3mm and 3.5mm British outline OK as they only slightly smaller than I am use to, and so is North American H0. Again I have problems relating to other H0 modelling, this time because I think it is because I am unfamiliar with the subject matter. 7mm layouts where the trains get to stretch their legs are wonderful, it is about the smallest size where you get that movement of air of something big passing you. 7mm layouts where a big Heljan diesel has a run of  two and a half times it own length do nothing for me.

 

Honest comments over, to those who model something different to me and enjoy what they do I take my hat off to you and carry on having fun.

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Well I am one who describes N/2mm as too small.  Not too small with regards to what can be achieved - as clearly shown in the pictures - but too small for me to achieve the level of results that I want.  These would be close to those in the excellent examples shown.  I also find getting N models properly on the track - fiddly in the extreme and the lack of mass makes it more difficult for me to tell if all wheels are on the rails.  Yes I do know there are railing tools.

 

Clearly others, more dextrous than I, have managed to achieve wonderful standards so it is possible, just not for me.

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It looks like a "blown up" version of a Jamieson kit.

 

However I don't think Jamieson made a Duchess. They did a streamlined Coronation. I haven't got the foggiest and it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the MREMAG Database.

 

http://www.mre-mag.com/locoindex.php?mu=0

 

 

 

Jason

Nothing to do with Jamieson although they were produced by the same methods - marketed by Charles Covey I think. I've built a few of them years ago and they were quite good, mostly accurate but of course needed a lot of detail work adding. Jamieson did do a Duchess kit as well as the streamlined version, in fact I think I've got one somewhere and my son has nearly finished building one.

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

32 minutes ago, Andy M said:

Tony,

 

Those backscenes on Sandy Bay, Wickwar and Brinklow are particularly effective. Not knowing the layouts, are they true representations or Photoshopped? Excellent work regardless!

 

Regards,

Andy.

Good evening Andy,

 

Though I'm not entirely sure, I think the layout builders took photographs of the real locations (I know they did on Wickwar), stitched them together in Photoshop (removing anything present-day) and then had them printed - most-effectively indeed!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
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...