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

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

If appearance is 'king', why model in 'narrow gauge'? Surely OO is the monarch of nothing when it comes to appearance? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Why do you? I suspect the reason is the same. It doesn't bother me as much though.

 

16 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Talking about jarring aesthetics that that misplaced 'weather' stands out like a sore thumb! :)

 

I like to annoy the grammar police and note who picks up on it and check out their work.

Edited by Headstock
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Why do you? I suspect the reason is the same.

 

 

I like to annoy the grammar police and note who picks up on it and check out their work.

Go for it. But I'm not talking about grammar, this is just basic 'right' word for the sentence if you'll excuse the pun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Go for it. But I'm not talking about grammar, this is just basic 'right' word for the sentence if you'll excuse the pun!

 

Where's the groan button gone?

 

Please post some work or add a link, I would much rather be looking at what people are up to.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2020 at 11:05, t-b-g said:

If you do three main "jobs" to a Kirk LNER carriage kit, you can transform it.

 

One is to sort out the curve of the roof profile on those types of roof. The plastic is thick enough that you can sand/file it into a better shape. The second is to inlay rectangles of plastic into the "solid" panels to reduce the apparent thickness of the panelling. The third is to flush glaze them.

 

Once those are done, plus some improved detailing, they can make very decent models. Malcolm did quite a few for Thompson's End, including a rake of 8 or 9 corridor carriages for when it was altered to be a continuous run. He often got asked whose kits they were and people were very surprised when he said "Kirk" as the origin was very hard to determine. 

Re sorting out the 'curve of the roof profile', I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Kirk roofs that were supplied with the Gresley 'shorties' - the 52'6" coaches built for the GE lines. These roofs have a different, and I believe improved profile, better shaped domed ends and are shallower by about 1.2mm. With two of the shortie roofs it would be possible to 'cut and shut' a roof to fit the 61'6" coach. There would be enough roof left over of the 'sacrificed' roof to make more 'cut and shut' roofs.

These roofs are currently listed on Wizard Models as 'C10A: LNER Gresley 52’6″ Gangwayed Carriage Roof' with the comment:-This is the ex-Ian Kirk/Colin Ashby product, and further supplies are unlikely. There are 121 left in stock at present.

For me this is an easier option to filing/sanding the original roof.

The attached photo compares the two roofs.

IMG_20201119_152933_4.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Keith Turbutt said:

Re sorting out the 'curve of the roof profile', I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Kirk roofs that were supplied with the Gresley 'shorties' - the 52'6" coaches built for the GE lines. These roofs have a different, and I believe improved profile, better shaped domed ends and are shallower by about 1.2mm. With two of the shortie roofs it would be possible to 'cut and shut' a roof to fit the 61'6" coach. There would be enough roof left over of the 'sacrificed' roof to make more 'cut and shut' roofs.

These roofs are currently listed on Wizard Models as 'C10A: LNER Gresley 52’6″ Gangwayed Carriage Roof' with the comment:-This is the ex-Ian Kirk/Colin Ashby product, and further supplies are unlikely. There are 121 left in stock at present.

For me this is an easier option to filing/sanding the original roof.

The attached photo compares the two roofs.

IMG_20201119_152933_4.jpg

 

I never built any of the shorter carriages so wasn't aware the roof profile was different but you are right, it does look a better shape and also a better overall height. I recall measuring the long Kirk roof and finding it approx. 1mm too short in height. I did alter one by adding a 40 thou strip of plastic along the bottom edge, reforming the curves at the ends and the sides and adding a new gutter/cantrail strip but it was a lot of work compared to your solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Why do you? I suspect the reason is the same. It doesn't bother me as much though.

 

 

I like to annoy the grammar police and note who picks up on it and check out their work.

You're probably right with regard to the reason for my modelling in OO (though I do wish I'd chosen EM back in the mists of time). 

 

However, I never asserted that appearance is king. Important, of course, but the ruler of all my modelling motivations? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Keith Turbutt said:

Re sorting out the 'curve of the roof profile', I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the Kirk roofs that were supplied with the Gresley 'shorties' - the 52'6" coaches built for the GE lines. These roofs have a different, and I believe improved profile, better shaped domed ends and are shallower by about 1.2mm. With two of the shortie roofs it would be possible to 'cut and shut' a roof to fit the 61'6" coach. There would be enough roof left over of the 'sacrificed' roof to make more 'cut and shut' roofs.

These roofs are currently listed on Wizard Models as 'C10A: LNER Gresley 52’6″ Gangwayed Carriage Roof' with the comment:-This is the ex-Ian Kirk/Colin Ashby product, and further supplies are unlikely. There are 121 left in stock at present.

For me this is an easier option to filing/sanding the original roof.

The attached photo compares the two roofs.

IMG_20201119_152933_4.jpg

 

Thank you for posting this - I have a long list of shorties to build so I will look into these. Not 121 long though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

You're probably right with regard to the reason for my modelling in OO (though I do wish I'd chosen EM back in the mists of time). 

 

However, I never asserted that appearance is king. Important, of course, but the ruler of all my modelling motivations? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

from what you have written in the past, I suspected that was the case. It was slightly different for me, in that I was never presented with a choice. When I became aware of such a possibility, it was to late. However, I would rather concern myself with things in the here and now were a choice can still be made.

 

Appearance is king for me, everybody else can go get their own motivations. However, I never said it was a ruler of all my modelling motivations rather I was thinking off the physical process of making things. I am an Artist after all, by vocation and Birth. As for the contradiction in my OO gauge modelling, Mr Fitzgerald can explain that one. Though , like yourself, I have modelled in other gauges.

 

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

 

Thank you for posting this - I have a long list of shorties to build so I will look into these. Not 121 long though!

 

Heads up B,

 

the shape of the dome is not the only problem with the Kirk roof. The end profile for example is fiction and is a major contributor to the problem with the shape. It will not fit the MJT ends that you have used successfully in the past.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

However, I never asserted that appearance is king. Important, of course, but the ruler of all my modelling motivations? 

 

The ruler of all my modelling motivations.  :smile_mini2:

 

Rulers-of-the-world.jpg.253a0382677f8cbef562adce7ecab733.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/11/2020 at 09:53, Major Clanger said:

UC045A is nothing to do with Coopercraft - AFAIK it is the original Kirk design, as taken over by Colin Ashby. I purchased all his remaining stocks, and when it's gone there will be no more (unless Colin finds another bag full).

UC045A is now sold out and has been deleted from the website.

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

On 17/11/2020 at 17:46, Tony Wright said:

I was considering asking the same question.

 

My complete dislike of tension-locks is well known (even though I've demonstrated their use in some moving footage). In my experience, they have a habit of becoming uncoupled in use, they look like no coupling ever used by real railways (standard gauge at least) and, if attached to bogies, can cause derailments. 

 

Steve's model is very natural, an example of excellent craftsmanship and beautifully-observed. Then I see the tension-locks!

Another reason to hate the things:

 

Tension locks are vicious nasty things that attack without provocation, I was simply trying to remove one from a Hornby Maunsell carriage which resisted rather too much, so I gave it a good heave and the hook alone detached but was embedded in the end of my thumb! ... cue much foul language (and 'claret') as I removed the thing.

 

I find using small pliers to get the coupling out from the NEM pocket is far less painful.

 

Glenn

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

Tony,

 

I believe Coachman (now departed from this particular parish) found one of the problems with the latest Hornby Gresleys was that the underframe was too wide (I think by 2 - 3mm). That would explain the lack of tumblehome below window level.

 

I suspect Hornby were trying to square that compromise between trainset curves and prototype appearance and falling somewhere in between. A real shame as their later efforts with the other Big Four companies have produced some fantastic models of Stanier, Maunsell and Collett corridor stock in particular.

 

Glenn

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mattingleycustom said:

Tony,

 

I believe Coachman (now departed from this particular parish) found one of the problems with the latest Hornby Gresleys was that the underframe was too wide (I think by 2 - 3mm). That would explain the lack of tumblehome below window level.

 

I suspect Hornby were trying to square that compromise between trainset curves and prototype appearance and falling somewhere in between. A real shame as their later efforts with the other Big Four companies have produced some fantastic models of Stanier, Maunsell and Collett corridor stock in particular.

 

Glenn

With the large  number of LNER designed locomotives within the Hornby range I wonder if they will re-tool the Gresley corridor stock?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

With the large  number of LNER designed locomotives within the Hornby range I wonder if they will re-tool the Gresley corridor stock?

 

Other than the first tranche of pullmans, I think they're the oldest of the newer coaching stock done since 2000, so perhaps they're coming around for tooling retirement.

 

Personally, and not being an Eastern Region modeller, they're acceptable to me as representative models of ER stock that I can use to add variety to my long-distance services on the S&D layout. Their faults don't stick out to me (the benefits of ignorance) and I'm not running other models of more correct profile in the same rakes that might show them up more obviously. In the same vein, it's not worth me shelling out on the newer Thompson coaches when the older models do the job for me, again just adding a bit of representative ER variety,

 

 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Other than the first tranche of pullmans, I think they're the oldest of the newer coaching stock done since 2000, so perhaps they're coming around for tooling retirement.

 

Personally, and not being an Eastern Region modeller, they're acceptable to me as representative models of ER stock that I can use to add variety to my long-distance services on the S&D layout. Their faults don't stick out to me (the benefits of ignorance) and I'm not running other models of more correct profile in the same rakes that might show them up more obviously. In the same vein, it's not worth me shelling out on the newer Thompson coaches when the older models do the job for me, again just adding a bit of representative ER variety,

 

 

 

 

 

Hornby have  released very few of the Gresley's in the last few years. The Full Brake (BG) is a new moulding with the correct beading postion and a Tumblehome !!

It does amuse me the fuss made by some  re the Gresley faults, ok the tumblehome is missing , the real thing has a 3 inch curve at the base = 1mm in 4mm terms . The beading is about out the same as well. Compared to the previous ancient Hornby versions they are light years ahead in decoration , bogies, glazing , roof shape, underframe detail and even the couplings are better !!.

 

Run them in a rake on their own, how many people would even notice?  Of course you can easily have them running , under the anything goes detail level, covered by the mystical  "Layout Coach " if you wish.

 

I have many Hornby Gresley's, in my eyes they are light years ahead of the  30 plus years old Kirks models. The only thing better on the Kirk's  , and I still have many, is the Tumblehome shape. Nothing else on a Kirk is comes even close to the deatil of the Hornby versions .

 

Hopefully Hornby will get out new versions , as the moulds must be getting a bit tired by now.

 

 

Edited by micklner
  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
53 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Personally, and not being an Eastern Region modeller, they're acceptable to me as representative models of ER stock that I can use to add variety to my long-distance services on the S&D layout. Their faults don't stick out to me (the benefits of ignorance) and I'm not running other models of more correct profile in the same rakes that might show them up more obviously. In the same vein, it's not worth me shelling out on the newer Thompson coaches when the older models do the job for me, again just adding a bit of representative ER variety,

I took much the same logic, I needed one LNER brake composite which ran to Penzance so the Hornby model (with its faults) does the job nicely.  Modelling the Great Western you dont have the need to learn how to paint teak, so short of paying a pro painter to finish a kit build I think the finish on a coach I had built would stand out a lot more than the dodgy profile.  If I was modelling the LNER on the other hand, I think my position would be very different.

 

In the mean time I have been building the Great Western TPO, lots of old etched kits

CBD879CA-5703-4F76-9CEA-D0D4C9AC6136.jpeg

With the 4 coaches now have complete bodies (along with a rebuilt Hornby LMS TPO until I can source a GWR L25 to build), and are slowly being cleaned up (gaining rather a lot of filler in the roof / cutway side area.  Great fun so far and a very rarely seen formation (that can only be achieved by kit building) once its finished.

 

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The tumblehome shape on the Gresley coaches was a strongly recognisable feature along similar lines to viewing photos of Sophia Loren.

 

However, if she was rather slimmer and straight edged you would soon spot the difference.

 

All a matter of degree!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, 60027Merlin said:

The tumblehome shape on the Gresley coaches was a strongly recognisable feature along similar lines to viewing photos of Sophia Loren.

 

However, if she was rather slimmer and straight edged you would soon spot the difference.

 

All a matter of degree!

 

I disagree... take 3 inches off Sophia Loren's tumblehome and she'd still look enough like Sophia Loren....    :wub:

 

Hornby Gresley tumblehomes, A3 pony wheels, various roof profiles... in fact all the hotly debated aspects of the current crop of RTR models within this forum, it is all to do with how fastidious you are regarding your modelling.  But isn't it interesting how most of us seem to have an angst-inducing dislike for some things, yet are somehow happy to tolerate other things that, according to others, are even more 'wrong'.  My own particular intolerance is for oversized lamps, especially those painted in brilliant white with handles thick enough to securely moor up the Queen Mary.  But then there are other things that my brain just can't see what all the fuss is about.

 

If we were all building Museum standard models, I think there is a case to be made for every imperfection.  But if we are accepting of the concept of 'Layout' locomotives and rolling stock, then stuff like the Hornby Gresley coaches surely tick that box well.  And, let's be honest, those who are able to produce an overall more accurate Gresley coach than Hornby's, have something more special to showcase here.  Imperfect RTR then is an incentive to model items more accurately... and the flip side of that (as we all know) is that RTR perfection removes much of the incentive to model something oneself.  Which scenario would you rather have?

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, micklner said:

 

Hornby have  released very few of the Gresley's in the last few years. The Full Brake (BG) is a new moulding with the correct beading postion and a Tumblehome !!

It does amuse me the fuss made by some  re the Gresley faults, ok the tumblehome is missing , the real thing has a 3 inch curve at the base = 1mm in 4mm terms . The beading is about out the same as well. Compared to the previous ancient Hornby versions they are light years ahead in decoration , bogies, glazing , roof shape, underframe detail and even the couplings are better !!.

 

Run them in a rake on their own, how many people would even notice?  Of course you can easily have them running , under the anything goes detail level, covered by the mystical  "Layout Coach " if you wish.

 

I have many Hornby Gresley's, in my eyes they are light years ahead of the  30 plus years old Kirks models. The only thing better on the Kirk's  , and I still have many, is the Tumblehome shape. Nothing else on a Kirk is comes even close to the deatil of the Hornby versions .

 

Hopefully Hornby will get out new versions , as the moulds must be getting a bit tired by now.

 

 

 

False News Alert!!!

 

The BG may have a tumblehome, but not the correct one. The model is too fat for a Gresley BG, it's on the wrong bogies and every single dimension below the body sides is wrong.

If a Hornby Gresley was a dinosaur, it would be a Bullcraposaurus rex.

 

Run them in a rake on their own, how many people would even notice?

 

Run a set of swiss cheeses in a rake and I sometimes wonder how many people would notice.

 

Nothing else on a Kirk is comes even close to the deatil of the Hornby versions .

 

95 % of the detail on the Hornby Gresley's are inaccurate, so what is the point of it? Kirk at least got the proportions of the angle iron trussing correct, Hornby just made it up! inaccuracies include, underframes, battery boxes, Dynamo, vac cylinders, stepboards, solebars, height of the ends, Gangways, I could go on and I haven't even mentioned the tumbelhome yet!

 

I'm reminded what Tony said about modelers today being cash rich but Skills poor. Could it also be said that modelers are now cash rich and knowledge poor?

 

If they were a locomotive or a kit, you would be up in arms Mick, there is no doubt about that.

Edited by Headstock
Delete duplicate line
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying on with the 'debate' about Hornby's gangwayed Gresleys, I'd be delighted if they were revisited (and end-door types included). 

 

It's correct to mention that we all have different 'blind spots', but Hornby's corridor Gresleys aren't appropriate, even just as 'layout coaches', to me. The body-shape in end profile is just so wrong, and as for the too-outboard solebars; well, these exacerbate the problem. 

 

I can understand their being used as 'one-offs' on layouts which aren't LNER-based, but alongside properly-shaped examples (even Kirks), their shortcomings are just highlighted even more. 

 

As I say a great shame - other 'Big Four' types produced by Hornby are superb in many cases. Had Hornby's Gresleys been to the same standard, I can assure readers I wouldn't be using them just as donors.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 60027Merlin said:

The tumblehome shape on the Gresley coaches was a strongly recognisable feature along similar lines to viewing photos of Sophia Loren.

 

However, if she was rather slimmer and straight edged you would soon spot the difference.

 

All a matter of degree!

 

Unfortunately, the Hornby Gresley's are rather portly compared to the real thing. You would have to add a couple of stone to Sophia Loren and in all the wrong places.

  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Unfortunately, the Hornby Gresley's are rather portly compared to the real thing. You would have to add a couple of stone to Sophia Loren and in all the wrong places.

 

So to expand on the women analogies a little more  (or should that be less?) Sophia is a Kirk and Jane more akin to a Hornby?

 

Sophia-Loren-and-Jayne-Mansfield-1957.jpg.dca37e6d270d5771f8d20da3c1467bb5.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they were a locomotive or a kit, you would be up in arms Mick, there is no doubt about that.

Yes the big if only,  but the Hornby versions are what they are, and nothing other than a retool will cure that.

 

I am not saying they are perfect far from it . The only available kit worth making are the MJT versions, which cost in the region of £ 70 plus just for the parts alone  !!  . Then you still have to build, paint and line it out. How many people can actually build, be willing to pay that much for a kit  and then still produce a decent end result of a Teak lined out Coach nowdays . Another problem is Dart Castings have no stock of some parts,needed as well .

 

 

You must have a different era of Kirks . The ones I have built  date from about the mid 80's .

 

Truss rods are/were weak and poorly moulded,  touch them and they fall to bits, not a lot of good on a working layout  , correct angle perhaps, nothing else in their favour . Flat piece of plastic poorly moulded  pretending to be a Battery Box , no dynamo , Bogies with poor detail and  again very flimsy , a blob of plastic on the floor for the Bogie to rotate on using a large screw to hold it onto the floor . Roof wrong shape , zero detail and the fit  to the ends leaving huge gaps where they were also twisted along the length and the wrong end profile , deeply recessed windows , poorly moulded beading , thick solebar steps and blobs of plastic pretending to be Torpedo Vents.

 

If the Kirk is a viable alternative option,  to me no chance, they are of a standard of 40 years ago . My Kirk's rarely see the light of day, including Suburban versions,  which I  have fitted  full replacement MJT underframes and Bogies too . My Corridors ,are simply not worth spending the money on MJT underframes , that will not change the actual inherent Coach body defects.

 

 

Sophia Loren I dont remember seeing a slim version of her , all lovely and  in all the right places !!.

Edited by micklner
  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

So to expand on the women analogies a little more  (or should that be less?) Sophia is a Kirk and Jane more akin to a Hornby?

 

Thank you, writing as a non-LNER modeller, that's one of the most informative recent posts on this thread.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 4
  • Funny 3
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...