Wright writes.....

[Blandford1969]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

And Hornby's latest GWR Prairies operating on Little Bytham. 

 

Since my review appeared in BRM, a friend has pointed out that I neglected to mention the incorrect shape of the firebox and the bunker. What have I missed? 

 

Return to the virtual exhibition. I think this is the future of exhibitions for the foreseeable future - online. I have to say, I'm delighted with how the moving footage has turned out, though it'll be up to others to decide how well it's worked. 

 

 

 

 

In the image coming up I just thought wow and how much it looks like the real thing, just cleaner and less noisy.  It looks like a 41xx to me and that is how I buy. To be controversial perhaps sometimes some can be almost looking for faults rather than celebrating how far such models have come in the last 30 years. Maybe those complainers should just build a kit and then it can be perfect for them. To be clear this is just my opinion - if it looks right to me I'm happy

[micklner]

11 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

In the image coming up I just thought wow and how much it looks like the real thing, just cleaner and less noisy.  It looks like a 41xx to me and that is how I buy. To be controversial perhaps sometimes some can be almost looking for faults rather than celebrating how far such models have come in the last 30 years. Maybe those complainers should just build a kit and then it can be perfect for them. To be clear this is just my opinion - if it looks right to me I'm happy

Dont forget the price, always good for a extra moan !!!

[grahame]

Here's a closer, lower shot of the Warwells and Saxon APCs from the aerial view I posted earlier (yesterday). There a few things left to do like chain down the loads, perhaps some weathering, painting the axle box covers and adding the bogie hand brake wheels. The kits didn't include them and I've had to separately source suitable etched ones for all the five wagons. I've started fitting those the Warflats but not yet added their decals, while the Warwells have decals on but no hand brake wheels - yet. Anyway here's that gratuitous photo (should it be of interest):

 

 

 

[Chamby]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

....

 

Return to the virtual exhibition. I think this is the future of exhibitions for the foreseeable future - online. I have to say, I'm delighted with how the moving footage has turned out, though it'll be up to others to decide how well it's worked. 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Sadly, I agree with you that the ‘virtual’ exhibition is here with us for some time yet.  It is great to see layouts and demonstrations online, but I greatly miss the day out, the opportunity to linger where and when I want, the chat with operators, the surprise ‘bumping into’ old friends, and mooching around the trade stands.  It is a poor substitute in my onion, but way better than nothing at all.

 

The Hayle club in Cornwall are also venturing into virtual exhibition territory and the Bodmin club that I attend is supporting them by preparing a couple of video sequences displaying our club layouts.  Again, it is nothing like the social experience of ‘the gang’ taking a club layout to an exhibition, but it has at least provided another angle to the club’s lockdown experience, and given us something different to focus on.

 

Hearing tales of those in a more severe level of lockdown where clubs are unable to meet even in groups of six, is a stark reminder of how serious and restricting this situation remains.  The growing prospect of financial hardship for many people, and the reduced presence and awareness of our hobby in society through the lack of local exhibitions, will undoubtedly impact on both participation in the hobby and trade prospects in future.

 

On the other hand, more time spent at home means more modelling opportunity and that may help to keep things alive.  

 

Strange times indeed.

[TrevorP1]

1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

In the image coming up I just thought wow and how much it looks like the real thing, just cleaner and less noisy.  It looks like a 41xx to me and that is how I buy. To be controversial perhaps sometimes some can be almost looking for faults rather than celebrating how far such models have come in the last 30 years. Maybe those complainers should just build a kit and then it can be perfect for them. To be clear this is just my opinion - if it looks right to me I'm happy

 

Yes. I have one and I'm happy. I needed to tweak the pick-ups, do 5 minutes work on one of the trucks, add a Modelu lamp and it has been weathered (not by me). It looks the business and runs well. Result!

 

Far better than some items from the same manufacturer that I've needed to pull to bits and reassemble with the care that they should have had in the first place.

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

In the image coming up I just thought wow and how much it looks like the real thing, just cleaner and less noisy.  It looks like a 41xx to me and that is how I buy. To be controversial perhaps sometimes some can be almost looking for faults rather than celebrating how far such models have come in the last 30 years. Maybe those complainers should just build a kit and then it can be perfect for them. To be clear this is just my opinion - if it looks right to me I'm happy

Many thanks,

 

I must admit that I could see little wrong on the latest Hornby GWR Prairies (apart from the rearward lean to the slidebars). That said, they're not in my principal area of study, but they seemed to check out on the drawings and prototype pictures in my possession.

 

'We' have indeed become far more critical in 'our' assessments of what manufacturers offer us. Regarding the 61XX, I've built two from Wills/SE Finecast kits, and neither of them is as detailed and accurate as this RTR one (30"-throw drivers were not available from Romford in those far-off days). In real terms, they were more expensive as well - thus, an 'inferior' model, and it costs more!

 

It's been said on many occasions that, time was when to get a 'really-accurate' model (in any scale) then one had to build it from scratch or from a kit (or get someone else to build/paint it). Now, we have the situation where very few modellers can 'equal' what can be bought off-the-shelf. 

 

Of course, as always, it comes back to what individuals 'want'. Superb RTR models (and they are) which are possessions, not personal creations (unless the owners has done some modifying/detailing/renumbering/renaming/weathering/etc., for him/herself) or things one has built for oneself, which are not just possessions but personal creations. What price a value on that? Naturally, the wise do both, exploiting the best of both worlds.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

And Hornby's latest GWR Prairies operating on Little Bytham. 

 

Since my review appeared in BRM, a friend has pointed out that I neglected to mention the incorrect shape of the firebox and the bunker. What have I missed? 

 

Nothing as far as I’m aware. Perhaps your friend could be more specific as to which areas are incorrect.

[Northmoor]

6 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

In the image coming up I just thought wow and how much it looks like the real thing, just cleaner and less noisy.  It looks like a 41xx to me and that is how I buy. To be controversial perhaps sometimes some can be almost looking for faults rather than celebrating how far such models have come in the last 30 years. Maybe those complainers should just build a kit and then it can be perfect for them. To be clear this is just my opinion - if it looks right to me I'm happy

Hear hear.  If a model doesn't work, the buyer has every right to complain, otherwise they should live with it unless they can produce better.  I have plenty of what would be considered by most now to be terrible models, but they have a personal connection that means I won't dispose of them.  I have too much in general to be wanting (or able to afford) to add more and more new locos and stock.

 

I guess many of these purchaser-complainers are collectors who want to display their "perfect" models.  If they have layouts, presumably they contain none of the following:

• Long straights linked by (visible) sharp curves;
• Tunnels that appear from under buildings, or where it appears the railway engineers saw a small hill and decided to aim for it;
• Backscenes which look nothing whatsoever like the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Railway and other buildings inappropriate to the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Roads that descend at 1 in 3 to level crossings or from overbridges;
• Stationary traffic on open roads (do buses ever stop on short bridges?);
• Railway underbridges that wouldn't support more than pedestrians;
• Ballast where the stones appear to be 6" diameter;
• Siding layouts that would be banned by the Board of Trade (facing connections etc.);
• Train formations that could not operate (no brake coach);
• Locomotives strictly prototypical for the area/period, hauling coaches built ten years after the period claimed to be represented;
• Obviously not forgetting the greatest crime of all.............. no lamps!

I have seen all of these features and more on exhibition layouts although I don't recall seeing them on too many layouts on this forum.  This is because the best modellers on RMWeb observe and apply the same level of observation to operations, geography and infrastructure that they do to locomotives.  The standards achieved by people here working quietly away in their homes, continues to take my breath away. 

 

Rob

 

P.S. Now why didn't I go and assemble or paint something instead of writing all that?

[Mike 84C]

I had a look at a photo of 4154 at Banbury in the twilight of its life. The photo is on Flickr.  The Hornby model looks like 4154 so it does it for me ; I'll also add its one of that class I fired a number of times. 

    Mick

[Clem]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I guess many of these purchaser-complainers are collectors who want to display their "perfect" models.  If they have layouts, presumably they contain none of the following:

• Long straights linked by (visible) sharp curves;
• Tunnels that appear from under buildings, or where it appears the railway engineers saw a small hill and decided to aim for it;
• Backscenes which look nothing whatsoever like the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Railway and other buildings inappropriate to the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Roads that descend at 1 in 3 to level crossings or from overbridges;
• Stationary traffic on open roads (do buses ever stop on short bridges?);
• Railway underbridges that wouldn't support more than pedestrians;
• Ballast where the stones appear to be 6" diameter;
• Siding layouts that would be banned by the Board of Trade (facing connections etc.);
• Train formations that could not operate (no brake coach);
• Locomotives strictly prototypical for the area/period, hauling coaches built ten years after the period claimed to be represented;
• Obviously not forgetting the greatest crime of all.............. no lamps!

 

Good morning Rob,

this made me smile - particularly the line 'Tunnels that appear from under buildings, or where it appears the railway engineers saw a small hill and decided to aim for it.'

 

This weekend I think we will have finally finished clearing my sister's house and I can hopefully get back to doing some modelling. It's been a very long and sometimes difficult process of sifting through the personal life of someone we love, trying to figure out what to do with so much stuff, so many memories. For us, it has taken a long time and had the effect on me of complete demotivation with most things railways... and music too for that matter. Thank goodness for this thread. It's kept me in touch. 

 

Anyway, I'm looking for a fresh start next week.  I have several projects all screaming at me "Me, me, me!" but I really have to do more on the layout buildings and scenery and not be drawn into loco, carriage and wagon work. I'll see what transpires. I don't know why but I find doing scenic work doesn't come naturally. I probably should have joined a club all those years ago instead of ploughing a lone furrow.

 

[rowanj]

A few pages back, there was a discussion about High Level Models gearboxes and the difficulty or otherwise of putting them together. I thought some may be interested in seeing an example of one of a pair of motors Chris (the owner) has sourced to replace the equivalent Mashima's . This is the first time I have used one, in a North Eastern Kits J73, and the fitting was straightforward - other than the usual issues of getting a particular gearbox into a particular chassis - and the running is superb. Some details of the ongoing build  of the kit are on another thread. 

I have no interest in High Level other than as a longstanding satisfied customer, though I do enjoy a bit of a crack with Chris, As someone who has struggled with Comet and Markits boxes in the past, due to my inherent hamfistedness, I have almost 100% success with his gearboxes, and when I don't it's my own fault.

[Coach bogie]

21 hours ago, micklner said:

Dont forget the price, always good for a extra moan !!!

£99.50 at Rails today.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Coach bogie]

15 hours ago, Northmoor said:

If they have layouts, presumably they contain none of the following:

• Long straights linked by (visible) sharp curves;

 

There goes any plan to model Gateshead

Mike Wiltshire

[Tony Wright]

On 15/10/2020 at 20:43, PMP said:

Nothing as far as I’m aware. Perhaps your friend could be more specific as to which areas are incorrect.

I'll ask him, Paul,

 

Though I'll probably have no idea what he'll be talking about!

 

Abstracting this particular friend, why is it we see so little that some of the sternest critics have ever made themselves? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Coach bogie said:

 

There goes any plan to model Gateshead

Mike Wiltshire

Is that heavy-rail, Mike? Or the Tyneside Metro?

 

Actually, if that were produced in model form, it would probably be a fairly generous radius.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, rowanj said:

A few pages back, there was a discussion about High Level Models gearboxes and the difficulty or otherwise of putting them together. I thought some may be interested in seeing an example of one of a pair of motors Chris (the owner) has sourced to replace the equivalent Mashima's . This is the first time I have used one, in a North Eastern Kits J73, and the fitting was straightforward - other than the usual issues of getting a particular gearbox into a particular chassis - and the running is superb. Some details of the ongoing build  of the kit are on another thread. 

I have no interest in High Level other than as a longstanding satisfied customer, though I do enjoy a bit of a crack with Chris, As someone who has struggled with Comet and Markits boxes in the past, due to my inherent hamfistedness, I have almost 100% success with his gearboxes, and when I don't it's my own fault.

Good afternoon John,

 

I think it was accepted that High Level must be the 'easiest' motor/gearbox combinations to make. That's certainly my experience.

 

I think a point was made that, despite their excellence, they can still be 'cocked-up' (I've seen at least two where this has happened). Perhaps others can be messed-up more easily. 

 

It was suggested that anyone who can make a loco kit can make a motor/gearbox combo. Perhaps that should be the case. However, I've seen too many steam-outline locos which look quite good, but the running is ghastly (some made by 'professionals', I might add). Often, the prime-mover is at fault.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry O]

28 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon John,

 

I think it was accepted that High Level must be the 'easiest' motor/gearbox combinations to make. That's certainly my experience.

 

I think a point was made that, despite their excellence, they can still be 'cocked-up' (I've seen at least two where this has happened). Perhaps others can be messed-up more easily. 

 

It was suggested that anyone who can make a loco kit can make a motor/gearbox combo. Perhaps that should be the case. However, I've seen too many steam-outline locos which look quite good, but the running is ghastly (some made by 'professionals', I might add). Often, the prime-mover is at fault.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

At one time  even if a loco kit had been built and was a "dud" motion wise the answer at the time was "fit a portescap and gearbox to it"... All teh locos I have with portescap motors and gearboxes either "squeal" or get jammed up with the carp lubrication they used. I now take them apart to make them quieter..

 

and , no, fitting this motor and gearbox didn't always "fix" a dud..

 

Get the chassis to work well and you can fit any motor and gearbox you like.  I just prefer the High Level ones as they are reasonably priced and i can now build one in about 15 minutes...

 

Baz

[Coach bogie]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Is that heavy-rail, Mike? Or the Tyneside Metro?

 

Actually, if that were produced in model form, it would probably be a fairly generous radius.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Heavy Rail. Grand Central sets have to negotiate this curve on their way from Heaton to Sunderland. The Tyne Dock to Lynemouth  and to Drax via Durham this route, as did D9000 when it was working for GBRF on freight trains.  who says "Hornby HST's on second radius curves is unrealistic?

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

Heavy Rail. Grand Central sets have to negotiate this curve on their way from Heaton to Sunderland. The Tyne Dock to Lynemouth  and to Drax via Durham this route, as did D9000 when it was working for GBRF on freight trains.  who says "Hornby HST's on second radius curves is unrealistic?

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Just a quick bit of mental arithmetic, but I think that curve is about 9' radius in 4mm scale - not quite R2.

[LNER4479]

5 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

who says "Hornby HST's on second radius curves is unrealistic?

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

I hate to burst your bubble but if that train was on a 2nd radius curve, the two cabs would be looking at each other from rather close quarters ...

[Chamby]

45 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

Heavy Rail. Grand Central sets have to negotiate this curve on their way from Heaton to Sunderland. The Tyne Dock to Lynemouth  and to Drax via Durham this route, as did D9000 when it was working for GBRF on freight trains.  who says "Hornby HST's on second radius curves is unrealistic?

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Good job it’s not the revolution model’s APT on a second radius curve, those lineside posts would be long gone.

[grahame]

23 hours ago, Northmoor said:

 

I guess many of these purchaser-complainers are collectors who want to display their "perfect" models.  If they have layouts, presumably they contain none of the following:

• Long straights linked by (visible) sharp curves;
• Tunnels that appear from under buildings, or where it appears the railway engineers saw a small hill and decided to aim for it;
• Backscenes which look nothing whatsoever like the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Railway and other buildings inappropriate to the area where the railway is supposed to be based;
• Roads that descend at 1 in 3 to level crossings or from overbridges;
• Stationary traffic on open roads (do buses ever stop on short bridges?);
• Railway underbridges that wouldn't support more than pedestrians;
• Ballast where the stones appear to be 6" diameter;
• Siding layouts that would be banned by the Board of Trade (facing connections etc.);
• Train formations that could not operate (no brake coach);
• Locomotives strictly prototypical for the area/period, hauling coaches built ten years after the period claimed to be represented;
• Obviously not forgetting the greatest crime of all.............. no lamps!

 

Oi! You've been peeking at my layout plans. Does this mean I've got it all wrong and need to start again?

 

;-)

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

On 15/10/2020 at 21:59, Northmoor said:

 

 

I guess many of these purchaser-complainers are collectors who want to display their "perfect" models.  If they have layouts, presumably they contain none of the following:

•  
• Tunnels that appear from under buildings, or where it appears the railway engineers saw a small hill and decided to aim for it;
•  

 

Like this?

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Just a quick bit of mental arithmetic, but I think that curve is about 9' radius in 4mm scale - not quite R2.

Which rather proves the point. 

 

Off-scene, some of Bytham's curves are a third of that!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Like this?

That's cut-n-cover, not strictly a tunnel.  The station building is built on a bridge.